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 demagnetizing field is the contribution to magnetic field intensity produced by the sample's own magnetization. Inside a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, it is uniform and has the form ${\mathbf{H}}_d=-\mathsf{N}\mathbf{M}$; the demagnetizing factor along a principal axis gives its longitudinal component. These conditions make the scalar correction in field conventions for magnetic susceptibility useful.

A cylinder generally has spatially varying magnetization and demagnetizing field. A volume-sensitive instrument and a short central pickup coil consequently need different effective corrections: one averages over the sample, while the other samples central flux. A shape factor copied from an ellipsoid is not an exact correction for every cylinder, especially with nonlinear response or hysteresis. ^[ref]

Diamagnetism is a magnetic response in which the induced magnetization opposes the applied magnetic field intensity. In a linear isotropic description, $\mathbf{M}=\chi \mathbf{H}$ with negative magnetic susceptibility $\chi$.

Differential magnetic susceptibility is the local slope at a specified bias magnetic field intensity, holding temperature and other stated constraints fixed. It equals volume magnetic susceptibility only for a linear response through the origin. For example, $M=M_s\tanh (H/H_s)$ has $M/H=(M_s/H_s)\tanh (x)/x$, but $dM/dH=(M_s/H_s)/{\cosh }^2(x)$, where $x=H/H_s$. At $x=1$ these are about $0.762$ and $0.420$ times their common zero-field slope. A finite sweep chord is another quantity, not automatically this derivative.

If the differentiated field is instead the internal magnetic flux density, the longitudinal chain rule applied to $B_{\mathrm{int}}={\mu }_0(H_{\mathrm{int}}+M)$ givesThis differs from the vacuum/applied-$B_0$ conversion in volume magnetic susceptibility. It assumes a differentiable single branch with locally invertible $B_{\mathrm{int}}(H_{\mathrm{int}})$.

In vacuum, magnetization is zero and magnetic flux density obeys $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0\mathbf{H}$. The applied quantities ${\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{app}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_0={\mu }_0{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{app}}$ mean the field of the external sources at the sample position with the sample absent. The internal magnetic field intensity includes the sample's demagnetizing field; its internal magnetic flux density additionally includes ${\mu }_0\mathbf{M}$. A field quoted in the tesla is a $B$ quantity, even when an instrument informally calls it “$H$”.

For a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, along a principal axis with demagnetizing factor $N_d$ in the International System of Units,For a sphere, $N_d=1/3$. The axial value approaches zero in the long slender ellipsoid limit and the normal value approaches one in the thin flat ellipsoid limit. Thus a stipulated intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_v=3$ would yield apparent values $1.5$ in a sphere and approximately $3$ in a long axial sample. These are calculated geometry effects, not measured material values. For fixed $N_d$, implicit differentiation gives the same conversion for local differential magnetic susceptibility, $dM/d{H}_{\mathrm{app}}={\chi }_{\mathrm{diff}}/(1+N_d{\chi }_{\mathrm{diff}})$.

Let a slender toroid have core cross-section $A$, mean length $\ell$ and large relative magnetic permeability $\mu$. Cut a narrow gap of perpendicular width $t$ whose faces make angle $\theta$ with the local core direction. Continuity of normal magnetic flux density gives $B_{g,n}=B\sin \theta$; continuity of tangential magnetic field intensity gives $H_{g,t}=B\cos \theta /(\mu {\mu }_0)$. The gap field is nearly normal to the faces for large $\mu$. Its effective flux area is $A/\sin \theta$, so its leading magnetic reluctance is $t\sin \theta /({\mu }_{0}A)$. Adding core reluctance gives the displayed self-inductance. At $45^{\circ }$, $L\simeq {\mu }_0{N}^{2}A/(\ell /\mu +t/\sqrt{2})$ and $H_g\simeq NI/(t+\sqrt{2}\ell /\mu )$. This retains $\mu t/\ell$ while neglecting fringing and corrections of relative order $t/\ell$ or $1/\mu$.

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.

For a bulk type-II superconductor with negligible demagnetizing field, raising the applied magnetic field intensity past the lower critical value $H_{c1}$ favors a superconducting mixed state containing quantum vortex lines; superconductivity survives until the upper critical value $H_{c2}$. The magnetic field extends around each vortex over a penetration scale, not solely inside its core. Thus a nonzero average magnetic flux density can coexist with superconductivity. Below $H_{c1}$, a type-II superconductor also supports a Meissner state; a vortex-free state above the equilibrium entry field may instead be metastable. ^[ref]

Real preparation histories may leave quantum vortex lines held in place by material inhomogeneities, retaining magnetic flux and producing hysteresis. This flux pinning restricts access to equilibrium: it is different from the arbitrary frozen interior magnetic field of the ideal perfect conductor model. Harvard's vortex-imaging work illustrates strong pinning to bulk disorder in a type-II superconductor. ^[ref] Separately, flux conservation in a superconducting loop and fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor explain why a hole can retain magnetic flux. Neither bore retention, vortex penetration nor weak screening in a thin sample should be silently identified with the equilibrium Planar London screening calculation.

Magnetic coercivity is the magnitude of a reverse applied magnetic field intensity required to bring a previously magnetized specimen's magnetization to zero on a specified hysteresis branch. It depends on material, preparation and measurement history. It differs from remanent magnetization, which is the remaining magnetization at zero applied field.

The magnetic reluctance of a linear section of magnetic circuit is the ratio of the winding's integrated magnetic field intensity to the magnetic flux, with units $\mathrm{A}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{b}}^{-1}$. For uniform length $\ell$, cross-sectional area $A$, and relative magnetic permeability ${\mu }_r$, $\mathcal{R}=\ell /({\mu }_0{\mu }_{r}A)$. Series sections carrying the same magnetic flux have additive magnetic reluctances, and $NI=\Phi {\sum }_i{\mathcal{R}}_i$.

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.

Magnetic susceptibility describes how readily a magnetic field changes a material's magnetization. The field variable and normalization matter: volume magnetic susceptibility in the International System of Units is dimensionless, whereas a derivative of total magnetic moment with respect to $B$ has units of $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{T}}^{-2}$. A slope measured against the applied magnetic field intensity also depends on the sample's demagnetizing field.

For an isotropic, reversible linear response through the origin, writeHere $\mathbf{M}$ is magnetization, or magnetic moment per volume; ${\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{int}}$ is the internal magnetic field intensity; ${\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{int}}$ is the internal magnetic flux density; and ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum permeability. Both $M$ and $H$ have units $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The magnetic permeability is ${\mu }_0(1+{\chi }_v)$. ^[ref]

The independent-moment magnetic response below shows why one number cannot describe every field: magnetization approaches a saturation magnetization, while its differential magnetic susceptibility approaches zero. Anisotropy requires a magnetic susceptibility tensor; hysteresis requires specifying the preparation and sweep branch as well as the bias magnetic field, temperature, and timescale. The Gouy balance turns a small response into a measurable force without presuming that its readout is already the intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility.

A magnetic susceptibility tensor maps a small change of internal magnetic field intensity to a change of magnetization:This tensor reduces to $\chi {\delta }_{ij}$ for isotropy. With anisotropy, even a linear response need not point along the applied magnetic field intensity. As a stipulated example, $\mathbf{\chi }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,3)\times 10^{-4}$ sends $(H,0,H)$ to $(H,0,3H)\times 10^{-4}$. State the axes and bias field when reporting its components. A constant tensor describes linear response; in a nonlinear material it is the Jacobian matrix of the response at the chosen operating point.

Magnetization is magnetic dipole moment per unit volume, described by a vector field $\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r})$. Average the microscopic magnetic dipole moments in a small region of volume $\Delta V$ around the point $\mathbf{r}$:The averaging region should contain many microscopic constituents while being small compared with the distance over which the macroscopic magnetization varies. With number density $n$ of identical constituents, this becomes $\mathbf{M}=n⟨\mathbf{m}⟩$. Magnetic dipole moment has SI units $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, so magnetization has units $A/m$: amperes per metre. The average is a vector sum, not a sum of magnitudes.^[ref]

Alignment can change magnetization without changing the magnitude of any individual magnetic dipole moment. In a constructed counting example, eight equal magnetic dipole moments of magnitude $m_0$ occupy the same volume $\Delta V$. Six along $+z$ and two along $-z$ give $\mathbf{M}=4m_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}/\Delta V$; turning the two opposing magnetic dipole moments to $+z$ doubles magnetization to $8m_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}/\Delta V$. Both arrangements have the same sum of magnitudes, $8m_0$. Changing the individual magnetic dipole moments provides another possible response; their alignment and their magnitudes are distinct ingredients. Microscopic spin contributes magnetic dipole moment without being a literal rotating charged ball.

Distinguish magnetization $\mathbf{M}$, magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, and magnetic field intensity $\mathbf{H}$. In SI,Here ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum permeability, and $\mathrm{T}$ denotes the tesla. Magnetization describes matter's magnetic dipole moment density; magnetic field enters the Lorentz force; magnetic field intensity separates the free electric current contribution in the macroscopic equations. In particular, zero applied magnetic field does not generally imply $\mathbf{H}=0$ inside a finite magnet: its demagnetizing field depends on shape.^[ref]

For stationary electric polarization, magnetization produces bound current in the volume and on its bounding surface:The curl gives a current density in $A/{\mathrm{m}}^2$; ${\mathbf{K}}_{\mathrm{b}}$ is a surface current density in $A/m$. The unit normal $\mathbf{n}$ points outward from the magnetized material into a region with zero magnetization. Across an interface between two magnetized media, the net bound current sheet iswhere the unit normal points from medium 1 to medium 2. Both faces contribute: medium 2 has the opposite outward normal vector. This fixes the cross product sign. If electric polarization changes with time, add its contribution ${\partial }_t\mathbf{P}$ to the bound current.^[ref]

A short proof outline explains why both contributions are needed. Write ${\mathbf{M}}_{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathbf{M}{\chi }_V$, where ${\chi }_V$ is the indicator function of the material's volume. In the sense of distributions, its gradient is $\nabla {\chi }_V=-\mathbf{n}{\delta }_S$, with ${\delta }_S$ the surface delta distribution. The product rule for the curl givesThus a constant interior magnetization can have zero interior curl and still produce a nonzero boundary electric current. Equivalently, neighboring ideal microscopic current loops cancel along shared edges while uncompensated edges remain on the outside. This bound current representation predicts the same macroscopic magnetic field as the magnetization distribution; it does not require a wire or free charge transport around the magnet. Its usefulness is that the familiar Biot-Savart law can now calculate the magnetic field from a specified magnetization.

A time-dependent average magnetization need not vary smoothly under a smooth drive. The Barkhausen effect resolves collective jumps through their induced electromotive force; Barkhausen pulse area explains how that derivative readout relates to the underlying change.

In a linear isotropic regime, a paramagnetic material has positive magnetic susceptibility: its induced magnetization is aligned with the applied magnetic field intensity. Molecular oxygen supplies an example discussed through molecular orbital theory in the covalent bond article.

A material with paramagnetism develops a magnetization parallel to a weak applied magnetic field intensity, with positive magnetic susceptibility and no spontaneous magnetization in its paramagnetic phase. Molecular oxygen is an example; it has unpaired electron spins.

A material with diamagnetism develops an induced magnetization opposing the applied magnetic field, with negative magnetic susceptibility. A closed-shell atom such as helium is an example; its orbital response is diamagnetic.

A ferromagnet has a spontaneously ordered magnetization below its Curie temperature, even in the limit of vanishing applied magnetic field. Iron below its Curie temperature is an example. Different magnetic domains can cancel the net moment of an unmagnetized bulk sample, despite nonzero local spontaneous magnetization.

Choose the positive spontaneous branch for $H_z=0$. Its magnetization starts at $M_s(0)$, decreases with temperature, and reaches zero continuously at $T_c$. It remains zero for $T_c\le T<2T_c$. There is an equally valid negative branch below $T_c$; domain averaging can instead give zero net moment.

A fixed small positive magnetic field intensity selects the positive branch. At zero temperature it still saturates at $M_s(0)$; at intermediate temperature it increases the magnetization relative to the zero-field branch. It rounds the zero-field transition and leaves a positive magnetization above $T_c$, tending in the linear-response region to $C{H}_z/(T-\Theta )$. The magnetization therefore does not vanish at $T_c$ in the nonzero-field curve.

For a concrete labelled sketch, the figure uses the illustrative mean-field theory equationIt shows $h=0$ and a fixed small $h=0.01$. The curve is an illustrative equilibrium equation of state, not a determination of the precise critical exponents of GdN. At $h>0$ no symmetry-breaking transition remains along this temperature sweep.

The magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ is magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. In magnetostatics it producesThe magnetic field intensity $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{B}/{\mu }_0-\mathbf{M}$ obeysso $\mathbf{H}$ isolates free currents while $\mathbf{M}$ accounts for bound currents. For a linear isotropic material, $\mathbf{B}=\mu \mathbf{H}$.

Ampere's law for a circular loop around the free line current givesin both media. ThereforeAt $r=R$, the net bound surface-current density isHence its magnitude isand for a positive current along $+{\mathbf{e}}_z$ it points along $-{\mathbf{e}}_z$ when ${\mu }_1>{\mu }_2$, reversing when ${\mu }_1<{\mu }_2$.

Tensor transformation. Under an orthogonal transformation $R$, the magnetic moment and magnetic field intensity have transformed components $M^{\prime }=RM$, $H^{\prime }=RH$ for a proper rotation. The physical relation $M=\chi H$ must retain its form, giving $RM={\chi }^{\prime }RH$, henceThis is precisely the law for a Cartesian second-rank tensor. Both magnetic quantities are axial vectors; under reflections they each acquire the same determinant sign, which cancels from the transformation of the magnetic susceptibility tensor.

Parallel directions. The condition $M=\lambda H$ is the eigenvalue equation $\chi H=\lambda H$. For the matrix in the paper, expansion of $\det (\chi -\lambda I)$ givesSolving the three resulting homogeneous systems givesThe three directions are mutually orthogonal. For the zero eigenvalue, the induced magnetic moment is zero: the proportionality equation still holds with factor zero, though there is then no nonzero moment direction to assign.

Energy extrema. The stipulated energy is $\mathcal{E}=H^T\chi H$. At fixed $H^{T}H=H_0^2>0$, a Lagrange multiplier calculation givesbecause $\chi$ is a real symmetric matrix. Thus all stationary directions are the eigenvectors, for which $M=\lambda H$. Equivalently write $H=q_0{e}_0+q_1{e}_1+q_6{e}_6$; thenThe Rayleigh quotient immediately givesThe intermediate direction $e_1$ is stationary with $\mathcal{E}=H_0^2$ but is not an extremum on the sphere. At the minimum $M=0$, so the precise extremum condition is proportionality, including a vanishing proportionality factor.

Constant-energy surface. In the original field components,For a fixed positive value $E$, $q_0$ is unrestricted and the cross-section satisfies $q_1^2/E+q_6^2/(E/6)=1$. The surface is therefore an elliptic cylinder, with axis along $(1,-1,2)$ and transverse semiaxes $\sqrt{E}$ along $e_1$ and $\sqrt{E/6}$ along $e_6$. This is an example of level sets of a positive semidefinite quadratic form. At $E=0$ the surface degenerates to the axis line; no negative-energy level exists.

Inductance and interface conditions. For a linear coil, self-inductance is the ratio $L=\Lambda /I$ of its own magnetic flux linkage $\Lambda =N\Phi$ to current. Its induced electromotive force is $-LdI/dt$ for fixed $L$. Across an interface with unit normal $\mathbf{n}$ from medium 1 to 2,These electromagnetic boundary conditions follow from Gauss's law for magnetism and Ampère's law. Here ${\mathbf{K}}_f$ is free surface current. At the iron–air faces there is no free surface current, so normal magnetic flux density and tangential magnetic field intensity are continuous. In each isotropic linear medium, $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0{\mu }_r\mathbf{H}$.

Complete core. A slender toroid has approximately uniform $H$ along mean path length $\ell$. Ampère's law gives $H\ell =NI$, so $B=\mu {\mu }_{0}NI/\ell$. The flux per turn is $\Phi =BA$, yielding the inductance of a toroidal winding,This uses constant relative magnetic permeability $\mu$ and neglects leakage, fringing and saturation.

Why the gap lowers inductance. The gap replaces an easy magnetic path in iron with air. Maintaining the same flux now requires a much larger magnetic field intensity in part of the path and therefore more ampere-turns. Equivalently, magnetic reluctance increases, so the flux linkage for a fixed current and hence self-inductance decrease. A narrow gap can matter greatly because its permeability is smaller by the factor $\mu$.

Oblique-gap calculation. In the original diagram $t$ is the perpendicular separation of the cut faces. Let $\mathbf{s}$ point along the core, and let $\mathbf{n},\mathbf{q}$ be normal and tangential to the gap faces. With the face at angle $\theta$ to the core direction, $\mathbf{s}=\sin \theta \mathbf{n}+\cos \theta \mathbf{q}$. Write the core flux density as $B\mathbf{s}$. The boundary conditions givesoThe gap area normal to its nearly normal field is $A/\sin \theta$, not $A$. Its leading reluctance is consequently $t\sin \theta /({\mu }_{0}A)$. Adding the core reluctance gives the inductance of a toroid with an oblique narrow air gap,Thus at $\theta =45^{\circ }$,The approximation retains the possibly order-one ratio $\mu t/\ell$ while neglecting $t/\ell$, fringing and the small tangential gap contribution. More precisely, a local uniform-field path along the core, with missing iron length $t/\sin \theta$ subtracted, gives denominator $\ell /\mu +t\sin \theta (1-1/\mu )$. Its correction is beyond the stipulated large-$\mu$, narrow-gap accuracy; simply neglecting $\mu t$ would not be justified.

Field in the slot. The component expression above givesFor the $45^{\circ }$ gap and $\mu \gg 1$,Its units are $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The field is almost perpendicular to the cut faces, rather than following the iron direction straight across the cut. Its small angle away from the face normal satisfies $\tan \alpha =1/\mu$ at $45^{\circ }$; the sense reverses if the current reverses.