Malate is the anion obtained by removing both carboxyl protons from malic acid. Its protonation state distinguishes it from the acid.

An eigenstrain is the deformation a material would prefer locally without applied stress. In a one-dimensional linear elasticity model, let $E$ be Young's modulus, take tension as positive stress, and write $\sigma =E(\epsilon -{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}})$. A free rod has $\sigma =0$ and follows $\epsilon ={\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}$. A perfectly blocked rod has $\epsilon =0$ and $\sigma =-E{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}$. Thus positive preferred elongation produces compressive stress when blocked.

For stipulated $E=100\mathrm{GPa}$, cross-sectional area $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, and ${\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}=20\times 10^{-6}$, blocking gives $\sigma =-2\mathrm{MPa}$ and axial force $F=\sigma A=-2\mathrm{N}$. This idealization ignores changes of magnetization caused by the load itself. A real magnetostrictive actuator therefore needs both magnetic and mechanical constitutive information: a free-length measurement alone does not determine its loaded motion.

As an original stipulated low-field model, take the axial magnetic field intensity $H$ in $A/m$ and prescribeAll strain components are dimensionless, and their trace vanishes. This is an even, quasistatic, unsaturated toy law with a fixed measuring axis. It is distinct from the fixed-magnitude directional model in saturated isotropic magnetostrictive strain. In particular, one must not replace local unit magnetization by normalized net magnetization in a many-domain specimen and assume this law follows.

For $H(t)=H_0\sin (2\pi ft)$, $H_0=20kA/m$, and $f=50\mathrm{Hz}$, a trigonometric identity givesThe axial strain ranges from zero to $20\times 10^{-6}$, with mean $10\times 10^{-6}$ and a $100\mathrm{Hz}$ component of amplitude $10\times 10^{-6}$. The cosine coefficient is negative with the chosen time origin. For $L=100\mathrm{mm}$ the length ranges from zero to $2\mu \mathrm{m}$ relative to $H=0$. There is no $50\mathrm{Hz}$ term in this unbiased model.

A static bias $H_b$ changes the conclusion. Expanding $\kappa [H_b+H_0\sin (2\pi ft){]}^2$ produces a fundamental-frequency term $2\kappa H_b{H}_0\sin (2\pi ft)$ as well as the doubled-frequency term. This is an incremental linear response about a state with a chosen magnetic axis; it does not contradict isotropic linear magnetostriction vanishes at an unbiased isotropic reference. Real hysteresis, thermal expansion from Joule heating, and mechanical resonance can add further components or change their phases. Frequency alone cannot identify the cause of motion: Joule heating also contains an even-in-electric current contribution.

A $3\times 1.5\times 1.5\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ single crystal of gadolinium antimonide carried a $2\mathrm{mm}$ fibre Bragg grating cyanoacrylate-bonded along its $a$ axis. The pulsed magnetic field paralleled that axis. Broadband light, a circulator and a spectrometer resolved reflected-wavelength shifts at $5.4\mathrm{K}$. Pre-pulse readings measured noise; low fibre thermal expansion reduced thermal background. A residual post-pulse shift indicated possible heating. Spectral distortion checked bond uniformity, while the fibre's smaller cross-section limited loading; bonding was not assumed force-free. Longitudinal strain showed a kink near $32.6\mathrm{T}$.^[ref]

The distinction between readout and inference is essential. The fibre Bragg grating senses a change of reflected wavelength; interpreting this as the specimen's strain requires good strain transfer and a controlled temperature. A useful independent control would compare a bonded sensor with a nearby unloaded sensor through the same pulse. Another would vary bond stiffness or specimen cross-section to test loading. These are proposed checks, not additional procedures claimed for the experiment above. The pulsed magnet's winding details were not specified in the inspected account.

This experiment measures one longitudinal component of strain. Establishing the first-order volume change would require three orthogonal normal components under the same conditions. GdSb also has its own antiferromagnetism and field-dependent magnetic structure: this measured curve does not establish the simple saturated isotropic law. Its role here is to make the measurement chain and its limitations concrete.

Consider a mechanically free isotropic model of a saturated ferromagnet, at fixed temperature and fixed magnitude of magnetization. Let $\mathbf{m}=\mathbf{M}/M_s$ be a unit vector, where $M_s$ is the saturation magnetization. The magnetostrictive strain is an infinitesimal strain tensor, measured relative to a reference with randomly oriented magnetic domains. This reference convention matters: it sets the orientational average of the preferred strain to zero. Define ${\lambda }_s$, the saturation magnetostriction, as the longitudinal relative length change in this model.

Rotational symmetry permits a symmetric second-rank tensor made from $\mathbf{m}$ of the form $a{\delta }_{ij}+b{m}_i{m}_j$, where ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. If we restrict attention to a change of shape with zero first-order volume change, its trace gives $3a+b=0$. Requiring the longitudinal component to equal ${\lambda }_s$ gives $a+b={\lambda }_s$. HenceThe tensor product $\mathbf{m}\otimes \mathbf{m}$ is symmetric and unchanged under $\mathbf{m}\mapsto -\mathbf{m}$. It uses two copies of the magnetic direction, so the third-rank isotropic tensor obstruction in isotropic linear magnetostriction vanishes does not apply. More generally, a small-magnetization expansion can contain $a{M}^2{\delta }_{ij}+b{M}_i{M}_j$; isotropy alone does not require its trace to vanish. The displayed saturated formula isolates the volume-preserving orientational contribution, rather than asserting that every material has zero volume magnetostriction.

Along a measuring unit vector $\mathbf{n}$, with $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{m}=\cos \theta$, the fractional length change isFor a stipulated ${\lambda }_s=20\times 10^{-6}$ and reference length $L=100\mathrm{mm}$, alignment gives $+2\mu \mathrm{m}$ and a perpendicular orientation gives $-1\mu \mathrm{m}$. Rotating from perpendicular to parallel therefore changes the length by $3\mu \mathrm{m}$, even though the saturated longitudinal value relative to the random reference is $2\mu \mathrm{m}$. A negative ${\lambda }_s$ reverses these elongation and contraction signs.

The eigenvalues of this infinitesimal strain tensor are ${\lambda }_s,-{\lambda }_s/2,-{\lambda }_s/2$, so $\Delta V/V=\mathrm{tr}{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}=0$ to first order. This is not exact finite incompressibility: using the illustrative deformation gradient $F=I+{\epsilon }^{\mathrm{mag}}$ givesA finite-deformation law would need higher-order corrections if exact volume conservation were required.

Magnetostrictive strain is the preferred strain associated with a specified magnetic state relative to a stated reference. The measured strain also depends on mechanical constraints.

A magnetostrictive actuator uses magnetostriction to produce displacement or force. Its free motion and its blocked stress are different boundary conditions, as shown in free strain and blocked magnetostrictive stress.

A fluxgate magnetometer uses a periodically driven magnetic core and pickup coils to measure a magnetic field.

Ferromagnetism is collective magnetic order with spontaneous magnetization below a Curie temperature. Interactions favor aligned magnetic moments; the Ising model represents a two-orientation version with positive coupling.

A magnetic domain can possess spontaneous magnetization even when other domains cancel its contribution to the whole specimen. Compare this spatial cancellation between domains with antiferromagnetism, where opposing magnetic sublattices compensate within the ordered structure, and ferrimagnetism, where their contributions are generally unequal. The magnetic sublattice diagram makes the three local patterns explicit.

Smoothly sweeping an applied magnetic field can reveal abrupt magnetization changes through the Barkhausen effect. A pickup coil detects the resulting changes of magnetic flux, making collective magnetic domain wall motion accessible as an electrical signal.

A vibrating-sample magnetometer measures a specimen's magnetic dipole moment through the induced electromotive force as it moves relative to stationary pickup coils. Dividing that magnetic dipole moment by the specimen's independently determined volume gives its average magnetization.

In Simon Foner's 1959 apparatus, the specimen was weighed and glued to a mount. A loudspeaker drive moved it perpendicular to an applied uniform magnetic field between magnet poles; stationary coils detected the induced electromotive force. A reference magnet on the same vibrating assembly generated a second coil electromotive force. Adjusting the reference voltage divider to an electrical null compared the specimen signal with this reference. The measurement calibration substituted a magnetically saturated pure nickel sphere of known magnetic dipole moment; a specimen-removed reading corrected the mount's contribution. The calibrated signal inferred the specimen's magnetic dipole moment, not its local magnetization map. Measurement uncertainty in the standard, positioning, finite specimen size, coil noise, and mechanical coupling limited the inference.^[ref]

The readout follows Faraday's law of induction. In a small-displacement model with constant projected magnetic dipole moment $m$, let the pickup-coil magnetic flux linkage be $\Phi (z)=g(z)m$ and the specimen motion be $z(t)=z_0+a\cos \omega t$. Here $g$ incorporates coil geometry and turn count, $a$ is the displacement amplitude, and $\omega$ is angular frequency. To first order in displacement, with $g^{\prime }(z_0)$ the derivative at the mean position,This is an original idealized readout relation: a larger induced electromotive force can mean larger magnetic dipole moment, greater motion, or a changed coil position. A synchronously moving reference allows common motion factors to cancel in the ratio of induced electromotive forces. The measurement calibration and specimen-removed control are therefore integral to the measurement. A single amplitude reading cannot by itself distinguish microscopic alignment from a change in individual magnetic dipole moments.

Prescribe constant magnetization $\mathbf{M}=M\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, with $M>0$, inside a circular cylinder of radius $R$ and length $L$, surrounded by zero magnetization. In cylindrical coordinates, the outward unit normal on the curved surface is $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$, soThe endcaps have outward unit normals $+\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $-\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Their cross products with magnetization vanish, so ${\mathbf{K}}_{\mathrm{b}}=0$ on each endcap. The side bound current circulates counterclockwise when viewed from $+z$, by the right-hand rule. Zero endcap surface current density does not imply zero endcap magnetic field.

For an original example, let $M=800A/m$, $R=0.020\mathrm{m}$, and $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$. The volume and total magnetic dipole moment areCheck the result independently using the equivalent bound current: a side strip of axial length $dz$ forms a current loop with $dI=Mdz$ and magnetic dipole moment $d\mathbf{m}=\pi R^{2}Mdz\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Its integral over $L$ gives the same $M\pi R^{2}L\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. In particular, $ML=80\mathrm{A}$ is the sum of the equivalent loop electric currents across a full axial cut; it is not a surface current density.

The side surface current density has exactly the geometry of a continuum solenoid with $nI=M$, where $n$ is solenoid turn density. In the infinite-cylinder idealization with no applied magnetic field, the long-solenoid approximation therefore becomesThe limit is useful well away from the ends of a sufficiently long circular cylinder. A finite circular cylinder instead has fringing magnetic field and a demagnetizing field. For this prescribed uniform magnetization, integrate the on-axis magnetic field of a circular current loop, or substitute $nI=M$ in the on-axis magnetic field of a finite solenoid, to obtain the central magnetic field:Our example has $L/(2R)=2.5$ and $B_z(0)/({\mu }_{0}M)=5/\sqrt{29}\approx 0.92848$, rather than unity. With the rounded vacuum permeability ${\mu }_0\approx 4\pi \times 10^{-7}\mathrm{T}m/A$, this is approximately $0.9334\mathrm{mT}$, compared with the infinite-cylinder value $1.0053\mathrm{mT}$. These are model calculations for a prescribed magnetization, not measured values or a solution for the self-consistent magnetization of an arbitrary material.

Magnetic saturation is the regime in which increasing the applied magnetic field intensity produces little further increase in magnetization. The total magnetic flux density can still increase through its vacuum contribution, $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})$. Consequently a constant large magnetic permeability cannot describe a core throughout this regime; ideal magnetic circuit predictions based on that assumption overestimate field concentration.

One of the angular momentum eigenstates in a multiplet, distinguished by the magnetic quantum number along a chosen axis. An applied magnetic field can split their energy levels through Zeeman splitting.

Magnetic neutron diffraction uses scattering of neutrons by ordered magnetic moments to infer magnetic order. Neutrons also scatter from atomic nuclei, so a pattern can contain nuclear and magnetic contributions. A Bragg scattering peak encodes periodicity; it is not a photograph of an individual spin.

A minimal original calculation makes the extra periodicity visible. Consider identical nuclear scatterers at positions $x_n=na$, with equal neighboring separation $a$, and ordered magnetic moments alternating between $+m_A$ and $-m_B$. A two-site repeating block of length $2a$ has nuclear and magnetic scattering amplitudes, apart from common geometric factors,Here $b$ is the common nuclear scattering coefficient and $q$ the component of the scattering wave vector along the row. The magnetic expression assumes equally scattering point magnetic moments perpendicular to the scattering wave vector; real magnetic scattering measures the perpendicular component and has a momentum-dependent amplitude. This one-dimensional calculation is a periodicity illustration, not a finite-temperature solution for a chain.

For even $h$, $F_N=2b$ and $F_M=m_A-m_B$. For odd $h$, $F_N=0$ and $F_M=m_A+m_B$. Thus equivalent opposing magnetic sublattices, $m_A=m_B$, cancel in forward scattering but reinforce at the odd positions of the doubled period. The intensity is proportional to the squared magnitude of the scattering amplitude, so changing an amplitude's sign does not make a negative intensity.

This calculation also exposes a useful difference between antiferromagnetism and ferrimagnetism: with $m_A=2$ and $m_B=1$, magnetic squared amplitudes are $1$ at even $h$ and $9$ at odd $h$. Extra magnetic peaks can therefore occur in a ferrimagnet too. Identifying a real magnetic structure needs the full crystal basis structure factor, multiple reflections, and the allowed moment orientations, rather than a single extra peak.

A magnetic sublattice groups sites with a common ordered magnetic moment in a description of magnetic order. In the simplest two-sublattice description, assign magnetizations ${\mathbf{M}}_A$ and ${\mathbf{M}}_B$ per total specimen volume, so thatHere $\mathbf{L}$ is one normalization of the staggered magnetization; conventions may include a factor $1/2$. Using the same total volume for both contributions is essential. Equal magnetic moment per site does not imply equal sublattice contributions if the site populations differ.

In this six-site example, three A sites and three B sites give total magnetic moments $6m_0$, $0$, and $3m_0$, respectively, along the chosen axis. The antiferromagnetic case has $\mathbf{M}=0$ but $\mathbf{L}=6m_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}/V$. Cancellation of the sum leaves the alternating information intact.

The magnetic dipole moment of an atomic nucleus. Its relation to nuclear spin is expressed by the gyromagnetic ratio; its interaction with an applied magnetic field underlies nuclear magnetic resonance.

The proportionality coefficient between a system's magnetic dipole moment and angular momentum when $\mathbf{\mu }=\gamma \mathbf{J}$ applies. In the angular convention, $\gamma$ is expressed in radians per second per tesla; $\gamma /(2\pi )$ is the corresponding coefficient in cycles per second per tesla. Its sign determines the relative orientations of the magnetic dipole moment and angular momentum.

The electron magnetic moment couples an electron's angular momentum to a magnetic field. Its intrinsic spin contribution isHere ${\mu }_B$ is the Bohr magneton, and $g_s$ is the positive electron spin g-factor under this sign convention. The minus sign makes magnetic dipole moment antiparallel to spin angular momentum. An electron in a chemical atom can also contribute an orbital magnetic dipole moment; the measured response of a whole atomic level combines these contributions.

Measuring a tiny departure of $g_s$ from $2$ tests how well a theory predicts an electron's interaction with its surroundings. The Dirac equation gives $g_s=2$ before radiative corrections; the anomalous magnetic moment makes a small correction experimentally accessible.^[ref] A useful strategy is to compare two atomic energy levels whose orbital and spin contributions have different weights, rather than trying to calibrate an absolute magnetic field more accurately.