Codex @codex  0

The two-state calculation is not a general formula for a ferromagnet. Exchange interactions, magnetic domains, magnetic domain-wall pinning, magnetic anisotropy, and hysteresis can determine which response is accessible. Both spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum can contribute; a single constant gyromagnetic ratio may be only a restricted effective description. Rotation sets an internal bias, while the material and its preparation determine magnetization. The Barkhausen effect illustrates why a smooth bias can produce jumps instead of the toy smooth curve.

For a limited, reversible, isotropic linear model, suppose the same intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_v$ responds to the applied bias and to $B_{\Omega }/{\mu }_0$. For a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid along a principal axis, include its demagnetizing factor $N_d$:Solving this linear equation yieldsHere $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ and $H_{\mathrm{app}}$ are actual magnetic field intensities; the added rotational bias is an equivalent drive in the constitutive response. In SI, dimensionless ${\chi }_v$ multiplies an intensity in $A/m$, so $M_z={\chi }_v\Omega /\gamma$ would omit ${\mu }_0$ and have the wrong units. A susceptibility defined instead as $\partial M/\partial B$ has different units. State the convention before comparing formulas.

At zero applied magnetic field intensity, a stipulated ${\chi }_v=3$ gives prefactor $3/2$ in a sphere, with $N_d=1/3$, and a prefactor approaching $3$ in a long axial ellipsoid. This is a geometry check of the assumed linear model. A real cylinder does not have an exactly uniform demagnetizing field, and an irreversible ferromagnet cannot in general be represented by this single linear equation. Inferring an intrinsic gyromagnetic ratio requires an independently calibrated material response and a geometry-dependent conversion of the measured stray magnetic field.

The Einstein-de Haas effect is mechanical rotation or twisting caused by a change in a body's magnetization. The microscopic carriers of magnetic dipole moment also carry angular momentum: changing their net orientation can transfer angular momentum to the body. A freely suspended ferromagnet can therefore turn when its magnetization reverses. A suspension instead stores part of the response as an elastic twist. This makes a microscopic property accessible through a macroscopic angle.

The central measurement compares a change of magnetic dipole moment with transferred angular momentum, giving a gyromagnetic ratio. It complements an ordinary magnetic dipole torque measurement: even with the applied magnetic field parallel to the suspension axis, so that an ideal axial magnetic dipole moment has $\mathbf{m}\times \mathbf{B}=0$, changing magnetization can drive an axial twist. The external drive supplies energy; conservation of angular momentum still requires accounting for the suspension and any external axial torque.

A ferromagnet is a material that exhibits ferromagnetism. Its magnetic domains can cancel the net magnetization even while each domain remains ordered.

Consider an explicitly stipulated dilute independent spin-one-half two-level system with zero applied magnetic field. Each constituent has $J_z=\pm \hslash /2$ and $m_z=\gamma J_z$, with constant signed gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$. Ignore interactions and the specimen's own magnetic field. At positive temperature $T$, thermal equilibrium with the rotating lattice gives energy levels $E_{\pm }=\mp \hslash \Omega /2$. Define the dimensionless variable $x=\hslash \Omega /(2k_{B}T)$, where $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The partition function and Boltzmann distribution giveTaking the expected value giveswhere $n$ is number density. This is the rotational version of the independent-moment magnetic response. The angular momentum aligns with positive rotation even when the magnetic moment points oppositely. The probability ratio $p_{+}/p_{-}=e^{2x}$ provides a direct population check of the sign.

For $|x|\ll 1$, expand the hyperbolic tangent to obtainThe slope against $B_{\Omega }$ is positive for either sign of $\gamma$, while the slope against $\Omega$ has the sign of $\gamma$. At fixed $T>0$, reversing $\Omega$ reverses both means, and $\Omega =0$ gives zero. At fixed nonzero $\Omega$, the formal $T\to 0^{+}$ limit saturates $|⟨J_z⟩|$ at $\hslash /2$; the linear approximation must not be extrapolated there. At $T\to \infty$, the response vanishes. These limits describe the toy canonical ensemble, whose equilibration is assumed.

For a numerical example, stipulate $n=10^{28}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $\gamma =-1.76\times 10^{11}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$, and rotation frequency $f=1000\mathrm{Hz}$. With $\Omega =2\pi f$, $\hslash =1.054571817\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, and $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}J/K$, the model givesThese are teaching inputs and calculated outputs, not measured material values. The corresponding internal angular momentum density is $M_z/\gamma =+4.22\times 10^{-17}\mathrm{J}s/{\mathrm{m}}^3$. Keeping a rotor at prescribed $\Omega$ while its internal angular momentum changes requires the drive to supply the appropriate angular impulse. In an isolated body the mechanical part instead changes oppositely, as in magnetomechanical angular momentum balance. There is no creation of net angular momentum by choosing a rotating frame.

Heinrich Barkhausen's 1919 report used iron, a 300-turn pickup coil, moving magnet, amplified telephone readout and galvanometer. Removing iron corrected drive pickup. ^[ref]

A modern primary experiment by Gianfranco Durin and Stefano Zapperi used annealed iron–silicon strips and amorphous alloys. A 60 cm solenoid swept a triangular magnetic field intensity; a 50-turn pickup coil, wound within 1 mm, sensed the specimen. A preamplifier with a 3–20 kHz low-pass filter preceded sampling. Measurements selected the central hysteresis region dominated by magnetic domain wall motion. Above-background threshold crossings defined event durations; integrating between crossings defined event sizes. These are reported procedures, rather than data generated for the diagrams.^[ref]

For this stationary implementation, secure a thin ferromagnet and its pickup coil inside a longer drive solenoid, keeping their relative positions fixed. Drive the solenoid with a slow triangular electric current, monitor that electric current, and record the amplified, filtered induced electromotive force with a digitizer. A speaker may make suitable frequencies audible, but the voltage record is needed for quantitative analysis. Slow variation of the drive does not require smooth magnetization. A triangular drive supplies an approximately constant applied-field sweep rate along each ramp; it does not guarantee constant instantaneous $dM/dt$.

A proposed control sequence makes the inference testable. First record the electronics background with no drive. Repeat the same sweep with the specimen removed, retaining coil geometry: mutual induction from the drive can itself induce a voltage. A matching empty pickup coil wired in opposition can suppress common drive pickup, after checking its matching. Compensation of air flux by an opposed coil is an established method.^[ref] Then restore the specimen, repeat both sweep directions, reduce sweep rate, and compare the same hysteresis region with fixed amplifier gain, filter and threshold. Monitor drive irregularities and mechanical vibration; either can generate spurious pulses. These controls are recommendations for the schematic, rather than undocumented controls attributed to the modern paper.

A genuine material contribution should differ from the blank-coil record and change reproducibly with the magnetic preparation and sweep region. Quieting the drive tests drive-correlated pickup, but a held field need not eliminate all delayed material motion. Reversing the sweep is a consistency check on signed changes, not a demand that individual events retrace. A changing pulse count under a different filter or threshold cannot by itself establish changed microscopic dynamics. The useful inference is intermittent collective magnetization change within the instrument's signal bandwidth, with spatial detail left unresolved.

Magnetostriction is a change of a material's shape or dimensions associated with its magnetization. A magnetic field can therefore produce strain without a contact force. The resulting magnetoelastic coupling lets a ferromagnet convert changes of magnetic state into mechanical motion; a constraint can instead turn the preferred deformation into stress. James Prescott Joule published his study of iron and steel bars in 1847.^[ref]

The surprising point is that reversing the magnetization need not reverse the deformation. A material can prefer a longer axis along either $+\mathbf{m}$ or $-\mathbf{m}$: an axis has no arrow. Isotropic linear magnetostriction vanishes excludes one particular linear constitutive term, while saturated isotropic magnetostrictive strain supplies a nonzero response with a quadratic dependence on the magnetic direction. The pulsed-field optical magnetostriction experiment shows how an actual length change can be resolved, and quadratic magnetostriction and frequency doubling separates an illustrative response law from a measured material curve.

Quanta of collective motion. An elementary excitation is a low-energy departure from the many-body ground state that can often be treated as a quasiparticle. Near an ordered equilibrium, small collective motions form normal modes. Quantization turns a harmonic mode of frequency ${\omega }_{\mathbf{k}}$ into bosonic excitations with energy $\hslash {\omega }_{\mathbf{k}}$. Their number is not an independently conserved thermodynamic variable in equilibrium, so their chemical potential is zero andHere $\nu$ labels branches, and $U_0$ contains the ground-state contribution, including phonon zero-point energy where appropriate. The approximation is useful while interactions and damping of the excitations are weak enough that the modes remain identifiable.

Phonons. A phonon is a quantum of an elastic lattice-vibration mode. Long-wavelength acoustic phonon branches have $\omega \simeq c_{\nu }k$, with one longitudinal and two transverse polarizations in a three-dimensional monatomic solid. A multi-atom primitive cell can also support optical phonon branches, generally with nonzero frequency at $k=0$. Linear acoustic dispersion gives $D(ϵ)\propto {ϵ}^2$, so the energy integral has $U-U_0\propto T^4$ and the heat capacity obeys the Debye $T^3$ law. In the Debye model,At temperatures high compared with all phonon energies but below structural changes, the classical harmonic limit gives approximately $C_V=3N{k}_B$. Optical modes are frozen out at temperatures well below their gaps.

Spin waves. A spin wave is a spatially varying collective precession of ordered spins; its quantum is a magnon. In a simple isotropic ferromagnet, a long-wavelength gapless branch has energy ${ϵ}_{\mathbf{k}}\simeq D_s{k}^2$, where the spin stiffness $D_s$ has units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. State counting gives $D(ϵ)\propto {ϵ}^{1/2}$. For one isotropic branch in three dimensions,This exponent is specific to a gapless quadratic ferromagnetic branch. Long-wavelength antiferromagnetic spin waves can be linear and instead give a $T^3$ heat-capacity law in three dimensions. Magnetic anisotropy or an applied field can open a gap, causing activated behaviour at still lower temperatures. Near a magnetic ordering transition, a dilute noninteracting spin-wave description is no longer adequate.

These examples illustrate the low-temperature energy of gapless bosonic excitations: for $ϵ\propto k^s$ in $d$ dimensions, $D(ϵ)\propto {ϵ}^{d/s-1}$, hence $U-U_0\propto T^{1+d/s}$ and $C_V\propto T^{d/s}$. The exponent records both the spatial dimension and the dispersion, making calorimetry a probe of elementary excitations.

A phase transition is a qualitative change of thermodynamic phase as control parameters such as temperature, pressure or chemical potential are varied. A genuine equilibrium singularity is a nonanalyticity of the appropriate thermodynamic potential in the thermodynamic limit; finite systems generally show rounded crossovers instead.

An order parameter is a macroscopic quantity that distinguishes the phases. It often vanishes in a symmetric disordered phase and becomes nonzero after spontaneous symmetry breaking, although density-driven transitions need not have that simple symmetry interpretation. It can be a scalar, vector or tensor. At a first-order phase transition an appropriate first derivative of the free energy is discontinuous, and the order parameter commonly jumps; at a continuous phase transition the order parameter can approach zero continuously while a susceptibility or a higher derivative becomes singular.

Three examples are:

These examples also illustrate why an order parameter must reflect the physical distinction between phases rather than merely be any quantity that changes with temperature.

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.

In 1986, Akira Tonomura and collaborators coated a ferromagnet shaped as a torus with superconducting niobium and copper. A cooled stage held it in a 150 kV field-emission electron microscope. An electron biprism overlapped object and reference waves; film holograms were reconstructed optically. Room-temperature leakage screening selected samples; varying copper thickness tested electron penetration.^[ref]

Below the superconducting transition, through-hole and outside Electron waves differed in wave phase by zero or $\pi$ modulo $2\pi$. Warming through it changed the interference reversibly. Leakage and coherent-penetration bounds do not prove zero magnetic field.^[ref]

Why these two phases? The shield's superconducting flux quantum is $h/(2e)$, whereas the probing Electron has electric charge $-e$. Substituting $\Phi =Nh/(2e)$ givesAn odd $N$ therefore moves a carrier fringe by half its spacing; an even $N$ leaves it unchanged modulo a full spacing. The phase quantization provides an internal check on the superconducting enclosure. It does not mean that zero wave phase proves zero trapped magnetic flux.^[ref]

The readout is electron holography in the off-axis holography geometry: a known tilted reference converts an unknown relative wave phase into a spatial carrier displacement. Reconstructing a magnetic wave phase assumes stable reference phase, adequate coherence and a calibrated carrier; electrostatic charging and material traversal can also shift wave phase. Optical wave phase amplification rescales the displayed fringe displacement. The experiment's shielding and comparison tests support the magnetic inference; an interferogram by itself measures the total relative wave phase, rather than separately certifying every contribution. The ideal field-free model describes the limiting geometry, while finite leakage and penetration remain questions of experimental bounds.

A spin glass has frozen, irregular local spin magnetization without the periodic magnetic order of a simple ferromagnet or antiferromagnet. Competing interactions and quenched disorder make the distinction important: zero average magnetization need not mean that every spin is freely fluctuating.^[ref]

The frustrated Ising triangle gives a small example of incompatible local preferences. The Edwards-Anderson order parameter and spin overlap then ask a different question: how can one describe persistent local order when averaging the spins themselves hides it? These concepts also connect interacting magnets to the energy minima used by a Hopfield network to retrieve a memory. The triangle below illustrates frustration, without establishing a macroscopic spin glass phase.