Codex @codex  0

Define positive $\alpha$ by the right-hand rule about $+x$, starting from the loop in the $x$-$y$ plane at $\alpha =0$. Its magnetic dipole moment becomesThe corresponding $x$ component of magnetic dipole torque is ${\tau }_x=-m(B_z\sin \alpha +B_y\cos \alpha )$. Integrating ${\tau }_x=-dE/d\alpha$ gives the mechanical magnetic dipole potential energywhere the arbitrary additive constant is chosen as zero. Set $B_{\perp }=\sqrt{B_y^2+B_z^2}$. For $B_{\perp }>0$, a positive-amplitude form isEquivalently, ${\alpha }_0=atan2(B_y,-B_z)$ modulo $2\pi$. With this positive choice, minimum potential energy occurs at $\alpha ={\alpha }_0+\pi$, where the rotating magnetic dipole moment aligns with the projection of $\mathbf{B}$ into the $y$-$z$ plane. If $B_y=B_z=0$, the allowed torque vanishes, $E_0=0$ and ${\alpha }_0$ is arbitrary. Holding electric current constant includes exchange with its supply; differentiating only the isolated loop's stored magnetic energy would not give the appropriate mechanical potential energy.

A Stern-Gerlach experiment uses an oven and slits to produce a collimated atomic beam, conventionally of neutral silver atoms, and sends it through an inhomogeneous magnetic field onto a position-sensitive detector. The unpaired outer electron supplies the effective spin one-half magnetic dipole moment; neutral atoms avoid the ordinary Lorentz deflection of a charged beam. For an analysing direction $z$, the spatial gradient produces a force approximately $F_z={\mu }_z{\partial }_z{B}_z$. The resulting separated beam positions measure the allowed projections of angular momentum. A spin one-half beam gives two branches, rather than the continuous distribution expected from classical dipoles with arbitrary orientations. A uniform magnetic field can rotate a spin but does not itself provide this spatial separation.

To measure the rotation, first use a $z$-directed Stern-Gerlach experiment and an aperture to transmit only the $+z$ branch. Pass this prepared spin eigenstate through a region of approximately uniform field in the $x$ direction, then use a second $z$ analyser to separate and count the two populations. For a field region of length $\ell$ and beam speed $v$, the precession angle is $\theta =\lambda B\ell /v$, and the predicted fractions areVarying $B$ or the transit time gives complementary oscillations, demonstrating coherent Larmor precession. Velocity selection and a sufficiently uniform rotation field keep different particles from accumulating different phases and washing out the contrast. Detection should compare the branch fractions after allowing for losses and analyser efficiency.

The microscopic magnetic response becomes a macroscopic field problem through the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$, the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. Definein magnetostatics. Bound currents are represented by ${\mathbf{J}}_b=\nabla \times \mathbf{M}$ and surface current ${\mathbf{K}}_b=\mathbf{M}\times \hat{\mathbf{n}}$. Normal $B$ is continuous across an interface, while $\hat{\mathbf{n}}\times ({\mathbf{H}}_2-{\mathbf{H}}_1)={\mathbf{K}}_{\mathrm{free}}$. It is generally incorrect to impose continuity of every component of both fields. A linear isotropic material has $\mathbf{M}=\chi \mathbf{H}$ and ${\mu }_r=1+\chi$, but a ferromagnet usually requires a nonlinear, history-dependent constitutive relation.

Internal field differs from externally applied field. For uniform magnetization along a principal axis of an ellipsoid, the demagnetizing field is $-N_{d}M$ and $H_{\mathrm{int}}=H_{\mathrm{applied}}-N_{d}M$. A linear specimen therefore has apparent susceptibility $\chi /(1+N_d\chi )$ relative to the applied field. Shape is especially important for large susceptibility. A long closed magnetic circuit reduces stray fields; a bar magnet still has demagnetizing fields despite the absence of magnetic monopoles. Equivalent magnetic-pole descriptions are bookkeeping for magnetization divergence, not free magnetic charge.^[ref]

In paramagnetism, permanent localized moments are preferentially aligned by the field, against thermal disorder. For independent spin-one-half moments with projections $\pm \mu$, the two Zeeman energies givein the dilute weak-field limit with $B\simeq {\mu }_{0}H$. This is a Curie law; the response saturates at $n\mu$ when alignment dominates. More generally, spin $J$ gives $\chi ={\mu }_{0}n(g{\mu }_B{)}^{2}J(J+1)/(3k_{B}T)$. Interactions can produce a Curie–Weiss response $C/(T-\Theta )$ over a suitable range. Conduction-electron Pauli paramagnetism need not show the localized-moment $1/T$ law.

In diamagnetism, the field induces a magnetic moment opposing it, so the linear susceptibility is negative. The microscopic cause is the change in orbital electronic motion, and a closed-shell insulating material has no permanent atomic moment to orient. This weak response is often only mildly temperature dependent away from other transitions. It also exists as a background in materials with a stronger positive response. Perfect flux expulsion in a superconductor is a distinct collective phenomenon and should not be identified with ordinary weak atomic diamagnetism.

In ferromagnetism, exchange interactions stabilize spontaneous magnetic order below the Curie temperature. A specimen can have zero net moment while its magnetic domains remain locally magnetized in different directions. Domain-wall motion and moment rotation produce a large response; anisotropy and pinning lead to remanence, coercivity and hysteresis. Increasing field eventually approaches saturation. Heating above the ordering transition removes spontaneous order, although an applied field still induces a response. Soft magnetic cores favor easy reversal and small cyclic loss; hard permanent-magnet materials favor retained magnetization and resistance to reversal. These properties concern collective order and barriers, not merely independent moments all following a weak field.^[ref]

A practical distinction requires a controlled field sweep and a separate magnetic readout. A toroidal core with drive winding $N_1$, path length $l$ and current $I$ has approximately $H=N_{1}I/l$. A pickup winding measures ${\mathcal{E}}_2=-N_{2}AdB/dt$; integrating after calibration gives $B$, and $M=B/{\mu }_0-H$. Reversing the sweep reveals a loop whose positive loss area per volume is $\oint HdB$. An air-core/empty-holder reference, known geometry and turn count, offset correction, temperature control and slower sweeps test background, heating and rate-dependent eddy-current losses. A single force or susceptibility reading cannot establish spontaneous order or hysteresis. The original curves below are illustrative responses, not measured material data.

For a steady thin-wire electric current, the Biot-Savart law iswhere the source element follows positive current. For a circular loop, source points are $(R\cos \varphi ,R\sin \varphi ,0)$ and the observer is $(0,0,z)$. Their cross product with $d{\mathbf{\ell }}^{\prime }$ has axial component $R^{2}d\varphi$; transverse components integrate to zero. Thus the on-axis magnetic field of a circular current loop, multiplied by the number of coincident turns, isTake positive current counterclockwise as seen from $+z$. magnetic field lines pass upward through the loop and return around its exterior, closing rather than terminating. They fan outward above its centre and converge below it. The original numerical Biot-Savart law integration below illustrates these directions; the wire singularities are masked.

The axisymmetric magnetic field near a regular axis follows from Gauss's law for magnetism. In cylindrical coordinates, regularity gives $B_{\rho }(0,z)=0$, while symmetry gives $B_z(\rho ,z)=B_0(z)+O({\rho }^2)$. Integrate ${\partial }_{\rho }(\rho B_{\rho })=-\rho B_0^{\prime }(z)$ from the axis:A formal $C(z)/\rho$ term is excluded by regularity. For $z>0$ the axial field decreases upward, so the radial component is outward, consistent with the sketch.

On the small receiving coil, $d\mathbf{\ell }=ad\varphi \hat{\mathbf{\varphi }}$. The Lorentz force $I_{2}d\mathbf{\ell }\times \mathbf{B}$ has axial component $-I_{2}a{B}_{\rho }(a,d)d\varphi$. Contributions from the axial field cancel radially around the loop. ThereforeWith both currents giving magnetic dipole moments along $+z$ and $d>0$, this is attraction. Reversing one current reverses the force. The small coil has $m_2=N_2{I}_2\pi a^2$, so the result is exactly the leading magnetic dipole force $F_z=m_2{B}_0^{\prime }(d)$. Equivalently $U=-{\mathbf{m}}_2\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_0$. The approximation requires $a\ll R$ and negligible variation over the receiving coil; corrections begin at relative order $a^2/(R^2+d^2)$.

Write magnetization as magnetic dipole moment per volume. In weak-field linear response, $\mathbf{M}=\chi \mathbf{H}$ and $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})$.

Paramagnetism has positive susceptibility: permanent spin or orbital moments tend to align with a field against thermal disorder. Independent localized moments in the classical weak-field regime give $\chi \propto 1/T$, the Curie law. Conduction-electron Pauli paramagnetism has a different origin and need not follow that temperature law.

Diamagnetism is the induced magnetic response opposing the applied field, giving negative susceptibility. Changes in orbital motion underlie this response; it exists even without permanent moments. It is often relatively weak and only weakly temperature dependent, although particular quantum systems have stronger or more complicated behaviour.

Ferromagnetism arises from interactions favouring parallel magnetic order. Below the Curie temperature a domain can have spontaneous magnetization even at zero applied field. A sample can nevertheless have nearly zero net moment if differently oriented domains cancel. Domain rearrangement and rotation produce a nonlinear magnetization curve, saturation, remanence and coercivity; hysteresis dissipates energy in a field cycle. Above the ordering temperature the spontaneous order disappears, and a Curie-Weiss susceptibility is a useful mean-field approximation. The signs of weak-field susceptibility distinguish para- and diamagnetism; spontaneous order and domain dynamics distinguish ferromagnetism from independent-moment alignment.

Magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ is magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. In SI units,in a linear isotropic response. The internal field matters: for a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid it is ${\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{int}}={\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{applied}}-{\mathbf{N}}_d\mathbf{M}$. Sample shape therefore affects an apparent magnetic susceptibility.

Diamagnetism opposes the applied field, giving small negative magnetic susceptibility from the induced orbital response. It is often only weakly temperature dependent. Paramagnetism aligns pre-existing moments and gives positive magnetic susceptibility; independent localized moments obey approximately $\chi =C/T$ in weak fields before saturating. Pauli paramagnetism of conduction electrons is a different, weakly temperature-dependent mechanism.

Ferromagnetism involves collective exchange-driven alignment and spontaneous magnetization below the Curie temperature. A specimen can nevertheless have nearly zero total moment because magnetic domains point in different directions. Field-driven domain-wall motion and rotation change the net magnetization. Antiferromagnets have compensating ordered sublattices below a Néel temperature; ferrimagnets have oppositely ordered but unequal sublattice moments and retain a net moment. Ferrites are useful examples of electrically resistive ferrimagnetic core materials.

Ferromagnetic response is nonlinear and history dependent. A hysteresis loop displays remanent magnetization, magnetic coercivity and saturation. A single constant magnetic permeability cannot describe the entire loop: differential magnetic permeability describes its local slope. The quasistatic energy loss per unit volume and cycle is the loop area $\oint HdB$. Soft magnetic materials have low magnetic coercivity and usually high useful magnetic permeability; hard magnetic materials retain magnetization and suit permanent magnets.

An electromagnet normally uses a soft, high-permeability core to guide flux generated by a coil. For a uniform-section core with length ${\ell }_c$ and air gap $g$, neglecting leakage and fringing,An air gap can dominate the magnetic reluctance even when the core magnetic permeability is large. Core saturation limits the improvement with current, while winding resistance causes heating. For alternating operation, laminations suppress eddy-current loops in metallic cores; high-resistivity ferrites also reduce those losses. Low hysteresis loss is important in repeatedly cycled cores, whereas high magnetic coercivity is valuable in a permanent magnet. Useful design therefore depends on the full magnetic response, electrical losses and operating frequency, rather than the largest quoted magnetic permeability alone.

At $(x,0,0)$ the field is perpendicular to the loop plane. Its Biot-Savart numerator isThe leading denominator variation must be kept:The integral of $-xd{y}^{\prime }$ is zero, but its product with $3x^{\prime }/x$ is not. Keeping all terms of the leading nonzero order givesFor the counterclockwise rectangle, $\oint x^{\prime }d{y}^{\prime }=\Delta x\Delta y$ and $\oint y^{\prime }d{x}^{\prime }=-\Delta x\Delta y$. HenceThis transverse field is opposite to the magnetic dipole moment. Replacing every denominator by a constant before examining the term proportional to $x$ would give the wrong answer.

Why the shape is immaterial far away. Partition an arbitrary small planar loop into small rectangular loops with the same oriented current. Currents on internal shared edges cancel, leaving only the original boundary. Their magnetic dipole moments add to $\mathbf{m}=I\mathcal{A}\mathbf{n}$, with $\mathcal{A}$ the enclosed area. Far enough away, the leading fields add as dipoles at the same position. The general magnetic dipole field isHigher spatial multipoles contain shape-dependent corrections. The axial and transverse results above are the special directions of this expression.

The aligned terrestrial model. Take the moment to point toward geographic south. At northern latitude $\lambda$, the magnetic dipole inclination versus latitude gives local northward and downward componentsUsing the specified $\lambda =53^{\circ }$ and $B_{\mathrm{eq}}=35\mu \mathrm{T}$,The direction is geographic north and $69.4^{\circ }$ below horizontal, with no eastward component in this ideal model. These values use the latitude printed in the paper.

The field law. In the Biot-Savart law, $d\mathbf{B}$ is the contribution to the magnetic flux density at the observation point from a directed wire element $d\mathbf{\ell }$ carrying steady conventional electric current $I$. The vector $\mathbf{R}$ points from that element to the observation point, $R=|\mathbf{R}|$, and $\hat{\mathbf{R}}=\mathbf{R}/R$. The constant ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum permeability; the cross product sets the direction by the right-hand rule. Integrating the elements gives the total field, in teslas.

The moment of the shown loop. The arrows in the original PDF run counterclockwise viewed from $+z$. Thus the magnetic dipole moment isIts units are $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. Reversing the current reverses both this moment and the field.

Induction and its sign. The Maxwell-Faraday equation is $\nabla \times \mathbf{E}=-{\partial }_t\mathbf{B}$. For a fixed loop, Stokes theorem givesThis is Faraday's law of induction. The orientation of the surface normal and positive circulation are linked by the right-hand rule. The minus sign is Lenz's law: the induced current's linked flux opposes the imposed flux change, rather than reinforcing it.

The inductive current. Let the loop normal make angle $\theta$ with the applied field, with positive current defined by that normal. The external magnetic flux is ${\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}=A{B}_0\sin \omega t\cos \theta$. With negligible electrical resistance, the circuit equation is $L\dot{I}=-{\dot{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{ext}}$, so total linked flux $LI+{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}$ is constant. For zero initial trapped flux,The printed result needs this initial-flux assumption; in general an additional constant current is allowed. The units are amperes because a weber divided by a henry is an ampere.

Current and forces at one instant. Take $B>0$ along $+x$ and $0<\theta <\pi /2$, so $I<0$ relative to the chosen normal. The loop magnetic dipole moment $\mathbf{\mu }=IA\mathbf{n}$ therefore has a component opposite the applied field. Each wire element experiences Lorentz force $d\mathbf{F}=Id\mathbf{\ell }\times \mathbf{B}$. Opposite sides have equal and opposite forces, giving zero net force in the uniform field but a nonzero couple.

The horizontal top and bottom wire segments also experience equal and opposite vertical forces. They cancel without adding torque about the vertical rotation axis; the displayed force pair supplies that torque.

Average torque. Since $\mathbf{\tau }=\mathbf{\mu }\times \mathbf{B}$, its generalized component for increasing $\theta$ is ${\tau }_{\theta }=-IAB\sin \theta$. Substitution givesand, using $⟨{\sin }^2\omega t⟩=1/2$,The orientation torque on a flux-conserving loop drives its normal away from the field for the stated initial angle. Its magnitude has units joules, or newton metres.

Free motion with large inertia. Write $J$ for the mechanical moment of inertia. If its orientation changes little during each field cycle, the slow equation is $J\ddot{\theta }=⟨{\tau }_{\theta }⟩$, with effective potentialThe stable orientation is $\theta =\pi /2$, where the loop plane contains the applied field. Released from rest between $0$ and $\pi /2$, the loop accelerates toward that orientation, overshoots and librates around it. In the leading averaged, undamped model its turning angles are ${\theta }_i$ and $\pi -{\theta }_i$. It does not settle without a dissipative mechanism. For small librations the squared angular frequency is $A^2{B}_0^2/(2LJ)$.

Negligible inductance and finite resistance. Now the current is proportional to the induced electromotive force, not to the flux. Including slow rotation,The rotational damping of a resistive loop in an oscillating field follows fromAt fixed orientation, the first term alternates at $2\omega$ and has zero mean. The loop can therefore rock slightly, but there is no leading mean aligning torque like that in the inductive case. Slow rotation giveswhich opposes motion and produces Joule heating. Initial-phase transients can initiate motion, and the instantaneous torque is not zero. This description retains the large-inertia, slow-motion approximation; it does not assert an exact stationary solution at every starting angle.

Magnetization and field response. A magnetic material contains microscopic magnetic moments associated with electron spin and orbital motion. The magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ is magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. In SI the macroscopic fields satisfyHere $\mathbf{H}$ separates free-current excitation from the material response. A uniform isotropic linear material has $\mathbf{M}={\chi }_m\mathbf{H}$, givingThis constant scalar magnetic permeability model is useful only within its linear range. Crystals can have a susceptibility tensor; strongly magnetic materials depend on field and magnetic history. For a finite specimen the internal $\mathbf{H}$ also includes its demagnetizing field. In a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, $H_{\mathrm{int}}=H_{\mathrm{applied}}-N_{d}M$ along a principal axis, so sample shape affects the apparent susceptibility.

Diamagnetic and paramagnetic response. Diamagnetism is a weak negative susceptibility caused by induced orbital response opposing the applied field. It occurs in all matter but can be masked by larger positive contributions. Closed-shell materials such as bismuth or many organic compounds show it clearly. Ordinary diamagnetism is often only weakly temperature dependent; superconducting flux exclusion is a separate collective phenomenon and is not described by an arbitrarily small negative susceptibility.

Paramagnetism arises when available magnetic moments partially align with a field. Thermal disorder prevents complete alignment at weak fields. For independent localized moments of magnitude $m$, the classical weak-field result iswhere the second expression uses $B\simeq {\mu }_{0}H$ in a weakly magnetic sample. Thus localized moments obey a Curie law in this regime. Quantum angular momentum changes the coefficient to the appropriate $J(J+1)$ expression and gives saturation at strong field. Conduction electrons instead exhibit Pauli paramagnetism: only states near the Fermi surface can change spin populations, so a degenerate gas has a nearly temperature-independent response. Its orbital diamagnetism must also be included for a full metallic susceptibility.

Collective magnetic order. Exchange interactions can favor parallel alignment, producing ferromagnetism below the Curie temperature. Iron, cobalt and nickel are familiar examples. A material may contain regions of spontaneous magnetization, or magnetic domains, while having little net external moment because the domains point in different directions. Applied fields move domain walls and rotate moments; at large fields the magnetization approaches saturation. Pinning and energy barriers make this process hysteretic. Remanence is the magnetization left after removing the driving field, and coercivity measures the reverse field needed to bring the chosen response back to zero.

The area of a closed $B$–$H$ loop is the energy dissipated per unit volume per quasistatic cycle, $\oint HdB$, with positive dissipated magnitude. Consequently the magnetic permeability is neither one universal constant nor enough information to describe a ferromagnet: differential magnetic permeability $dB/dH$, saturation and hysteresis all matter. Above the ordering temperature the spontaneous moment disappears, and a Curie–Weiss law is often an appropriate approximate paramagnetic description away from the critical region.

In antiferromagnetism, ordered opposing sublattices have equal moments and cancel macroscopically in the ideal compensated case. The order disappears above the Néel temperature. In ferrimagnetism, opposing sublattices have unequal moments and leave a net magnetization. Ferrites combine ferrimagnetic response with relatively high electrical resistivity, making them valuable when eddy-current losses would be substantial in a metallic core.

Electromagnets and engineering choice. A coil supplies free-current magnetomotive force $NI$. For a simple uniform magnetic path, Ampère's law gives $H\ell \simeq NI$ and flux $\Phi \simeq \mu ANI/\ell$. A high-magnetic permeability soft magnetic core concentrates flux and reduces the current required for a given field. With an air gap $g$,Even a short gap can dominate the magnetic reluctance. The approximate attractive force across one uniform gap is $F\simeq B^{2}A/(2{\mu }_0)$, obtained from the field energy, with fringing neglected.

Soft magnetic materials have small coercivity and narrow hysteresis loops; they suit relays, electrical transformer cores and controllable electromagnets. Hard magnetic materials retain their magnetization and suit permanent magnets. Laminating metallic cores breaks large eddy-current loops; ferrites are useful at higher frequencies because of their resistivity. Increasing current cannot increase $B$ indefinitely through the linear formula: core saturation, coil heating and leakage limit performance. A good design selects material for the field amplitude, switching frequency and acceptable loss, rather than simply choosing the largest quoted magnetic permeability.

In the small-body approximation, write ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\chi /(1+N_d\chi )$, with $\chi =\mu -1$. The induced magnetic dipole moment is $\mathbf{m}=VM\hat{\mathbf{z}}=V{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}{H}_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Its effective interaction potential energy at fixed source current isThe factor $1/2$ accounts for inducing the moment: differentiating $-m(z)B_0(z)$ as if the moment were permanent would double the force. Equivalently, the instantaneous dipole force is $F_z=md{B}_0/dz$. Thus the force on a small linearly magnetizable body isFrom part (b), $d{H}_0/dz=-3a^{2}Iz/[2(a^2+z^2{)}^{5/2}]$. HenceFor the ideal slender rod, ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}\simeq \mu -1$. If the source's printed magnetisation is imposed instead, its corresponding conditional answer isFor $\mu >1$ and $z>0$, both expressions point toward the loop, where the applied magnetic field is stronger; for $z<0$ the direction reverses toward the loop plane. A material with diamagnetism, ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}<0$, reverses this attraction. The force is in newtons, since a magnetic dipole moment times a field gradient has units $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{T}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Both formulas assume linear response, negligible saturation and approximately uniform applied field across the sample.

For a fixed magnetic dipole moment in an externally imposed uniform magnetic field, the torque is $\mathbf{\tau }=\mathbf{m}\times \mathbf{B}$. Its component in the direction of increasing $\theta$ is $-mB\sin \theta$. Since ${\tau }_{\theta }=-dU/d\theta$, integration giveswhere the arbitrary additive constant has been chosen so that $U=0$ at $\theta =\pi /2$.

The aligned orientation $\theta =0$ has the minimum $U=-mB$ and is stable against small rotations; the anti-aligned orientation $\theta =\pi$ has the maximum $U=+mB$ and is unstable. The graph repeats every $2\pi$. Rotating quasistatically from alignment to anti-alignment requires external work $\Delta U=2mB$.

Because the magnetic field obeys $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$, it can be represented locally as the curl of a magnetic vector potential:This automatically enforces the absence of magnetic monopoles. It is also a global representation throughout ordinary all-space problems without monopole singularities. It is not unique: the gauge transformationleaves $\mathbf{B}$ unchanged because the curl of a gradient vanishes. In a time-dependent problem,makes the same transformation leave both physical fields unchanged and automatically satisfies Faraday's law.

In vacuum magnetostatics, choose the Coulomb gauge $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0$. Substitution into Ampère's law and the identity $\nabla \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{A})=\nabla (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A})-{\nabla }^2\mathbf{A}$ givesfor a localized steady electric current density and a potential vanishing at infinity. Taking the curl recovers the Biot-Savart law. The magnetic vector potential converts a constrained vector field problem into componentwise Poisson equations once a gauge is chosen.

For a uniform magnetic field, $\mathbf{A}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{r}$ is a convenient choice. For a localized magnetic dipole moment $\mathbf{m}$, the leading far-field potential isAnother useful relation is Stokes theorem, which relates a closed-path integral to the magnetic flux through a spanning surface:The units of $\mathbf{A}$ are $\mathrm{T}\mathrm{m}$, equivalently $\mathrm{Wb}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$.

An electric dipole consists of opposite charges separated by a small displacement, with electric dipole moment $\mathbf{p}=q\mathbf{d}$ directed from negative to positive. At distances large compared with its size,The net charge term vanishes; the field decays faster than a monopole field. In an imposed slowly varying electric field,for a permanent fixed dipole. A uniform field produces a torque but no net force. For a linear induced dipole $\mathbf{p}=\alpha \mathbf{E}$, the interaction energy is instead $-\alpha E^2/2$, because building the dipole also costs energy.

A small planar current loop has magnetic dipole moment $\mathbf{\mu }=IA\hat{\mathbf{n}}$, with the normal fixed by the right-hand rule. Outside the source,Magnetic field lines form closed loops; a current-loop dipole does not require magnetic monopoles. Dipole moments describe the leading directional field of a neutral localized source, and their torques explain alignment in external fields.

For the generic instrument, magnetic tweezers combine a magnetically responsive bead, a controllable magnetic field gradient, a tether attached to a fixed support, and optical tracking of bead coordinates. For a fixed magnetic dipole moment, the force is $\nabla (\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{B})$; an induced linear isotropic moment instead gives $\mathbf{F}=V\Delta \chi \nabla B^2/(2{\mu }_0)$. A uniform magnetic field can orient an anisotropic bead, but a gradient is needed for translation. Magnet height sets the load, while field rotation can impose torque if bead orientation is coupled to the field. Tracking uses lateral images and a calibrated axial image/defocus response; a fixed reference removes stage drift. A sufficiently slowly varying gradient approximates a force clamp over the bead's displacement. TODO: user-deferred biomolecular implementation; DNA-specific attachment, preparation and response are not treated.

For transverse-fluctuation calibration of a tensioned tether, use an ideal tether of vertical extension $h$ whose endpoint is displaced by small $x,y$. Keeping its length fixed to quadratic order lowers its vertical coordinate by $(x^2+y^2)/(2h)$, increasing load potential by $F_z(x^2+y^2)/(2h)$. The equipartition theorem therefore givesHere fluctuations are about the mean. The height is the effective pendulum length of the measured coordinate, not automatically the polymer contour length. The displayed $h$ formula uses the point-endpoint or fixed-bead-orientation idealization; freely rotating large beads can require a bead-radius correction to that lever arm. The finite-exposure correction to fluctuation force calibration restores variance lost through exposure averaging; ignoring it would overestimate force; localization noise increases it and would underestimate force. Drift, wall coupling, finite observation time and magnetic lateral stiffness must be checked. Vertical fluctuations measure longitudinal stiffness and do not obey the same geometrical formula.

For the stretch and twist coefficients of an elastic filament, take $s$ as reference contour length and $ϵ$ as local axial strain. The three positive quadratic costs represent bending of the tangent, stretching of the material and excess twist about its relaxed orientation. With the paper's coefficient convention,$K_b,K_t$ are bending and torsional rigidities with units of energy times length; $S$ is an axial force modulus. Thus $A,C$ have units of length and $B$ inverse length. Positive quadratic forms describe a stable relaxed filament; odd terms vanish when expansion is about its zero-stress, zero-torque reference configuration.

At weak and intermediate tension, changing thermal bending conformations can extend the filament without appreciably stretching the backbone. Axial strain is $ϵ\simeq F_z/S$, so material stretching must be included when this is no longer negligible. For a long strongly aligned but nearly inextensible three-dimensional worm-like chain, the thermal extension deficit is approximately $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k_{B}T/(A{F}_z)}$; stretch adds approximately $F_z/S$ to fractional extension. Twist matters whenever torque or imposed end rotation is present, at any tension. A freely swivelling, torque-free tether need not store excess twist. There is no universal force-only threshold for switching on torsional energy.

The circular bending energy of an elastic filament follows because curvature is $1/R$ over contour length $2\pi R$. Integrating the bending term givesThis is bending energy alone: imposed tension, stretching and twist would add costs. The dimensionless bending action is $(A/2)\int |{\partial }_s\mathbf{t}{|}^{2}ds$. Its tangent propagator in three dimensions obeys rotational diffusion on the unit sphere, ${\partial }_{s}P=(2A{)}^{-1}{\nabla }_{S^2}^{2}P$. The vector spherical harmonic has angular eigenvalue $-2$, givingHence $A$ is the persistence length in this three-dimensional convention. A strictly planar filament instead has tangent-correlation length $2A$; one cannot infer the factor merely by setting a loop's energy equal to $k_{B}T$.

TODO: user-deferred biomolecular applications. Both enzyme-driven unwinding experiments, their experimental sketches, the requested numerical force and plectoneme radius, energy loss per turn and enzyme-specific dissipation mechanisms remain unsolved. None of their biomolecular parameters has been used in a calculation.

Choose $A^{\mu }=(\Phi ,\mathbf{A})$, so that $F_{i0}=E_i$ and $F_{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{B}_k$, with ${ϵ}_{123}=1$. The definitions of the polarization-magnetization tensor imply $M^{0i}=-P_i$ and $M^{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{M}_k$. Separating temporal and spatial indices,The Levi-Civita symbol contraction equals $2{\delta }_{k\ell }$, givingThus $\mathbf{P}$ is the electric dipole moment per volume, or electric polarization, and $\mathbf{M}$ is the magnetic dipole moment per volume, or magnetization. The signs are those of dipole interactions in a Lagrangian; the associated fixed-dipole potential energies have the opposite signs. Consistently, the equation in part (a) has componentsso ${\rho }_b=-\nabla \cdot \mathbf{P}$ and ${\mathbf{J}}_b={\partial }_t\mathbf{P}+\nabla \times \mathbf{M}$ are the bound charge and bound current.

Canonical probabilities. A canonical ensemble describes a system of fixed particle number and fixed external parameters such as volume, weakly coupled to a much larger thermal reservoir. They exchange energy and reach thermal equilibrium, while the reservoir's temperature stays effectively constant. The interaction energy is negligible in the state counting. The combined isolated system is described by equal probabilities for its accessible microstates.

If its total energy is $E_{\mathrm{tot}}$, the probability of a particular system microstate $i$ is proportional to the reservoir multiplicity at $E_{\mathrm{tot}}-E_i$. Writing that multiplicity as $e^{S_R/k_B}$, expand its entropy:The large-reservoir limit suppresses the higher terms. Normalization therefore givesThe sum counts individual microstates; when grouping them by energy, their state degeneracies must be included. This $Z$ is the canonical partition function.

Classical orientational heat capacity. Hold the magnetic field fixed. Orientations of the magnetic dipole moment have the solid angle measure $d\Omega =\sin \theta d\theta d\phi$. With $x=\beta mB$, the angular partition function isChoosing a normalized angular measure would remove $4\pi$, with no effect on the energy derivatives. Differentiating at fixed $B$,The angular average $⟨\cos \theta ⟩=\coth x-1/x$ is the Langevin function. Since $dx/dT=-x/T$,This is the heat capacity of a classical magnetic dipole, in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ for one magnetic moment. The word specific here refers to that single moment; $N$ independent magnetic moments have $N$ times this heat capacity. At $B=0$ the energy is independent of orientation and $C_B=0$, obtained by the continuous $x\to 0$ limit. At fixed nonzero $B$, the classical low-temperature limit instead gives $C_B\to k_B$.

Equipartition and its proof. The equipartition theorem states that an independent quadratic term $a{q}^2/2$ in a classical Hamiltonian, with $a>0$, contributes $k_{B}T/2$ to its mean energy. One needs a canonical measure that factors as $dq$ times the measure of the remaining variables, convergence of the integrals, and vanishing boundary terms. The coordinate must not be restricted by a thermally important hard boundary or a coupled constraint.

For $H=a{q}^2/2+H_0$, integration by parts givesIntegrate over all other variables and divide by $Z$. It follows thatThe same reasoning applies to quadratic momenta among the canonical variables. It is the number of quadratic energy contributions that is counted, not an unrestricted count of coordinate labels.

Two soft orientational directions. When $x\gg 1$, the moment is concentrated near alignment. Introduce local Cartesian coordinates in the tangent plane $q_1=\theta \cos \phi$ and $q_2=\theta \sin \phi$. To leading order,The two quadratic terms each contribute $k_{B}T/2$, soThis agrees with the exact angular calculation. Treating $\theta$ alone as one Cartesian quadratic variable would miss the $\sin \theta$ measure and the second tangent direction. There are no extra rotational kinetic terms in the stipulated Hamiltonian; adding such terms would be a different model.

Quantum spin one. The spin projections are $m_s=-1,0,1$, with $S_z=\hslash m_s$. Put $\Delta =\hslash |\gamma |B>0$, where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. The three energies are $-\Delta ,0,+\Delta$, irrespective of the sign of $\gamma$. Relative to the ground state they are $0,\Delta ,2\Delta$. Thus, with $q=e^{-\beta \Delta }$,Differentiation, or the canonical energy fluctuation identity $C_B=k_B{\beta }^2\mathrm{Var}(E)$, givesIn the requested limit,This spin-1 paramagnet has a nondegenerate ground state and a finite spectral gap. Excitations are exponentially rare, so its heat capacity tends to zero. Classical orientational equipartition assumed a continuum of arbitrarily small excitation energies; that assumption fails when $k_{B}T\ll \Delta$. This is a change in the accessible state spectrum, not a violation of the equipartition theorem within its classical domain.

An electrically small perfect conductor sphere has both an induced electric dipole moment and magnetic dipole moment. The latter contributes half the electric scattering amplitude in magnitude. The two amplitudes add in the backward direction and partially cancel in the forward direction. Thus the backward intensity is $9/4$ of the electric-only value and its radar cross section is $9\pi k^4{a}^6$. The correction persists at leading order as $ka\to 0$; discarding the magnetic term is a separate response approximation.^[ref]

The ground-hyperfine magnetic-dipole transition between $F=1,m_F=0$ and $F=2,m_F=0$ has vanishing first-order Zeeman shift near zero field. It obeys $\Delta F=1,\Delta m_F=0$. Its residual quadratic shift follows from the Breit-Rabi formula, rather than from assigning both states permanently zero magnetic dipole moment.