Talk:Triplet state

Untitled

My request for reverting the move spin triplet to triplet state was posted at the desk of Wikipedia:Requested moves 5 days ago but now I understand to have a discussion on talk page first. See [1].

This is the original request: I am contesting the move of spin triplet to triplet state and related moves. User 87.194.39.42 has been harassing me about a triplet state redirect (when it was still a redirect) to diradical and was even blocked, see [2] and [3]. It seems not possible to have a decent discussion about this issue. (16:30, 25 April 2008) Thanks V8rik (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I had the pages moved to have consistency between singlet state, doublet state, and triplet state. I think the issue of the IP user's vulgarity should be dropped now. The chemical meanings should be discussed at the new article I created, spin multiplicity, in which I mentioned radicals and diradicals. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

• But why did you not just put up a move proposal tag?. You could have known the move would be controversial
• I do not like the present arrangement since this is a moved redirect few people will have this page on their watch list. I expect hardly any participants in this discussion
• If the outcome of these proceedings is not to the liking of the IP user then this user will simply continue. The IP user cannot be ignored.
• In the meanwhile many chemistry pages now link to a triplet state page that is hardly of any value to them as all the useful chemical information can be found in diradical. In the original arrangement physics pages linked to spin triplet and chemistry pages to diradical through the triplet state redirect. A similar arrangement existed for singlets. I am trying to look out for the interests of both physicists and chemists and the present arrangement is not helpful. V8rik (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Better late than never, but here goes; I tried having a conversation with you about this through your talk page twice, you removed it due to "vandalism" both times. Face the facts: your convention is bunk. Anyone, even a chemist, will concede that "triplet state" is a quantum-mechanical (and thus physics) term. If your conventions prohibit you from making an accurate redirect that doesn't confuse the average joe that comes to wikipedia for info, then your convention should be trashed. It's trivial to look for "What links here" for your redirects and change it. In fact, I checked: less than 50 pages link to the triplet state redirect. That could have been altered in, oh, about 5 minutes. 87.194.39.42 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DO define "triplet state" at the beginning of the article in unambiguous terms, will ya? Aelindor (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As the original author of this article - I can see that the content is still specific spin triplets, and not triplet states in general. Rather than introducing this article with a misleading and erroneous title, perhaps we should change the title back or appropriately modify the content. Dbizz

Symmetric with respect to what?

Spin triplet is symmetric and spin singlet is antisymmetric, but with respect to what? I think there should be written that it is with respect to the exchange of the spin state between the two particles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.246.167 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a mechanical spin

I know this is one of those "fun" facts that experts like to brow beat people with so that they don't mistakenly associated angular momentum with rotation (because that would confuse people apparently), but is it really necessary in a description of triplet state? 2405:9800:B640:AB0F:67A4:C3E1:A5BA:C2AC (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)