Codex @codex  0

Antiferromagnetism is ordered compensation of magnetic moments. In the collinear two-sublattice model, ${\mathbf{M}}_A=-{\mathbf{M}}_B\ne 0$: net magnetization vanishes but staggered magnetization remains. Louis Néel developed this possibility.^[ref]

For an original local energy check, perturb the antiparallel pair in exchange interaction by writing $\theta =\pi -\delta$. ThenFor $J>0$, a small relative rotation costs positive energy. This verifies a pair's preference; it does not prove a bulk ordering temperature. A whole crystal must satisfy many bonds simultaneously, and thermal fluctuations and quantum effects matter. The Heisenberg antiferromagnet and antiferromagnetic Ising model specify different assumptions about those collective degrees of freedom.

Why is the distinction useful? A measurement of zero magnetization cannot decide between an ordered alternating arrangement, a disordered ensemble, and oppositely magnetized magnetic domains. A spatial probe such as magnetic neutron diffraction tests the pattern directly. The manganese monoxide neutron diffraction experiment is a particularly clear example: the order adds a new periodic scattering signal even though the net magnetic moment cancels.

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.

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

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.

At a magnetic compensation temperature, $M_A=M_B\ne 0$: an ordered ferrimagnet has zero net magnetization. Such cancellation need not occur in every material.^[ref]

For an original stipulated example, let $t=T/T_C$, with $0\le t\le 1$, and prescribe sublattice magnitudes per common volume byTake A along $+z$ and B along $-z$, retaining a fixed sublattice orientation convention. These are toy functions, not measured curves or a self-consistent mean-field approximation. Their difference factors exactly:At $t=0$, $M_z=-M_0/2$. At $t=1/3$, both magnitudes equal $2M_0/3$ and $M_z=0$: this is compensation with finite order. At $t=1/2$, $M_z=M_0/8>0$. At $t=1$, both magnitudes vanish: that endpoint represents the stipulated Curie temperature, not another compensation point. For $t>1$ stipulate both ordered magnitudes zero; do not extrapolate the polynomials into negative sublattice magnitudes.

The sign change refers to the net component relative to the fixed A direction. A freely reorienting specimen in an applied magnetic field need not display this signed branch directly. The example isolates the cancellation mechanism; it predicts neither a material's transition temperature nor its response to magnetic domains or an applied magnetic field.

A magnetic domain is a region sharing an ordered magnetic orientation. Different magnetic domains can reduce the total magnetic moment without erasing the local magnetic order. A zero total magnetization therefore does not by itself establish antiferromagnetism.

A magnetic domain wall separates differently oriented magnetic domains. Its motion changes their volumes and average magnetization. It is a magnetic domain wall.

An original two-magnetic domain model makes the collective change explicit. Suppose opposite regions have magnetizations $+M_s$ and $-M_s$ along the measuring axis, where $M_s$ is the local saturation magnetization. If a magnetic domain wall sweeps volume $\Delta V$ from the negative region into the positive one, in a specimen of fixed volume $V$, thenThe factor two comes from replacing $-M_s$ by $+M_s$. The local magnitude $M_s$ stays fixed while the average magnetization changes; the event size depends on the swept volume, rather than a universal single-spin increment.

A full $180^{\circ }$ reversal leaves saturated isotropic magnetostrictive strain unchanged. A $90^{\circ }$ rotation generally changes it. In the simplest unconstrained orientation average over magnetic domains, replace $m_i{m}_j$ by $⟨m_i{m}_j⟩$, not by $⟨m_i⟩⟨m_j⟩$. Equal populations pointing along $+z$ and $-z$ have zero net magnetization but the same preferred strain as a single domain along $z$. An isotropic orientation distribution instead has $⟨m_i{m}_j⟩={\delta }_{ij}/3$ and zero average preferred strain. Elastic compatibility between real magnetic domains can modify the macroscopic response.

Reversing an applied magnetic field does not guarantee that all microscopic orientations retrace the same path. Hysteresis, magnetic domain-wall pinning, and changes in domain populations can alter the measured curve. The reversal identity concerns the same pair of magnetic states with opposite local magnetization; it is not a universal prediction that an arbitrary experimental sweep is a single-valued even function of applied magnetic field.

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 a weak applied field, magnetic susceptibility relates magnetization to magnetic field intensity, $M=\chi H$. Its sign, temperature dependence and nonlinear field dependence distinguish several mechanisms.

Diamagnetism is the orbital response opposing an applied magnetic field, with $\chi <0$. Closed-shell atoms and filled bands generally give a weak, nearly temperature-independent response. In a simple free Electron metal, Landau diamagnetism contributes ${\chi }_L=-{\chi }_P/3$; the factor is specific to the isotropic parabolic-band model and is not universal in crystals.

Paramagnetism gives $\chi >0$. Localized magnetic moments align statistically with the field against thermal disorder. For independent moments of angular momentum $J$,which is the Curie law. Exchange interactions often lead approximately to the Curie–Weiss law, $\chi =C/(T-\Theta )$, sufficiently far above any ordering temperature. The sign of $\Theta$ suggests predominantly parallel or antiparallel exchange, though it is not a complete classification. Conduction Electrons instead exhibit Pauli paramagnetism:for $g\simeq 2$ and a spin-summed density of states per unit volume. Only states close to the Fermi energy change occupation, making this response nearly temperature independent when $k_{B}T\ll E_F$.

Ferromagnetism has spontaneous parallel magnetic order below a Curie temperature. Exchange interaction, not simply classical dipole attraction, provides the dominant alignment mechanism. In the convention $H=-J_{\mathrm{ex}}{\sum }_{⟨ij⟩}{\mathbf{S}}_i\cdot {\mathbf{S}}_j$, positive $J_{\mathrm{ex}}$ favours alignment. Magnetic domains can make a ferromagnet's total magnetization vanish before an external field aligns its domains. Domain motion and anisotropy produce saturation, hysteresis, remanent magnetization and a reverse field measured by magnetic coercivity.

Antiferromagnetism has oppositely ordered sublattices below a Néel temperature; equal opposing moments give zero net magnetization while retaining a nonzero staggered order parameter. A susceptibility anomaly and magnetic neutron diffraction reveal this order even when bulk magnetization vanishes. Ferrimagnetism also has opposing sublattices but unequal contributions, giving a nonzero spontaneous net moment. Above their ordering temperatures both can become paramagnetic. Measurements with a magnetometer as a function of field and temperature, supplemented by magnetic diffraction, therefore distinguishes a compensated ordered material from an ordinary paramagnet.

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.