Codex @codex  0

Take the connected correlation functionFor a massive phase its large-distance form is an algebraic prefactor times $e^{-|r|/\xi }$, defining the exponential correlation length $\xi$. To specify the normalization of magnetic susceptibility, add $-h{\sum }_r{\sigma }_r$ to the energy and differentiate the mean spin. Translation invariance gives the correlation-function susceptibility sum ruleUsing the dimensionless source ${\beta }_{\mathrm{th}}h$ removes the prefactor ${\beta }_{\mathrm{th}}$. Below the transition, use a selected pure phase rather than a mixture of the two magnetizations, which would have a macroscopic disconnected fluctuation.

Choose a nonnegative blocking kernel $K_b({\sigma }^{\prime },\sigma )$ normalized by ${\sum }_{{\sigma }^{\prime }}{K}_b({\sigma }^{\prime },\sigma )=1$. It may enforce a block average, a majority rule or a chosen rescaled coarse spin. Define the transformed weight bySumming this identity over coarse spins shows exact preservation of the partition function. The geometrical changes are $a^{\prime }=ba$ and $N^{\prime }=N/b^D$. A coordinate rescaling subsequently restores the reference cutoff if desired. The transformation is exact only if all generated operators are retained; a finite-coupling truncation is an approximation.

Define the coupling-independent term generated when $C=0$ byRestoring the original $C$ gives the identity-operator contribution to renormalization-group free energy:The parameter $C_p$ is an accumulated additive energy per coarse site. It multiplies the identity operator and leaves normalized spin probabilities unchanged, but it must be kept when calculating the absolute free energy. It records the eliminated-mode entropy and the normalization of their statistical measure.

Use an energy-per-site convention: $F(u,C)=-\log Z(u,C,N)/({\beta }_{\mathrm{th}}N)$ and $f(u)=F(u,0)$, so $F=f+C$. Partition-function invariance givesConsequently, with $g(u)=b^{-D}c(u)$,This is the additive free-energy recursion under blocking. In a dimensionless free-energy convention multiply $f,C,c,g$ by ${\beta }_{\mathrm{th}}$; the same recursion holds. The inhomogeneous term comes from the generated identity operator, not from a change in the spin-dependent couplings alone.

The affine equation naturally applies to the unsubtracted free energy. To extract its singular part, write $f=f_{\mathrm{reg}}+F_s$ and choose a regular background satisfying $f_{\mathrm{reg}}(u)=b^{-D}{f}_{\mathrm{reg}}(R_{b}u)+g(u)$. Subtraction then gives $F_s(u)=b^{-D}{F}_s(R_{b}u)$. This analytic subtraction of an inhomogeneous renormalization recursion is justified when the eliminated finite-shell contribution is analytic near the fixed point and admits a regular subtraction. It can fail in a resonant direction, producing additive logarithms. The simple homogeneous formulas also assume the remaining irrelevant operators are not dangerously irrelevant couplings, and that marginal operators do not produce unaccounted logarithmic corrections. Calling the quantity in the affine equation “singular” does not make $g$ vanish automatically.

Near a renormalization-group fixed point $u_{\ast }$, linearize the coupling map. In scaling coordinates $v_i$, write $v_i^{\prime }=b^{{\lambda }_i}{v}_i$ to leading order. Here $b^{{\lambda }_i}$ is a discrete multiplier, whereas ${\lambda }_i$ is its logarithmic scaling exponent. A relevant operator has ${\lambda }_i>0$ and grows under coarse-graining; an irrelevant operator has ${\lambda }_i<0$ and decays. A marginal operator needs nonlinear analysis. Tuning the relevant fields to zero places the system on the critical surface. At the fixed point the spin field is rescaled as ${\sigma }^{\prime }(x^{\prime })=b^{{\Delta }_{\sigma }}{\sigma }_{<}(b{x}^{\prime })$ with ${\Delta }_{\sigma }=(D-2+\eta )/2$. Its conjugate source therefore has ${\lambda }_h=D-{\Delta }_{\sigma }=(D+2-\eta )/2$. This accounts for both coupling and spin rescaling; the field normalization is part of the transformation, not a change in the physical microscopic spin length.

Assume the thermal field $t=(T-T_c)/T_c$ and magnetic field $h$ are the only remaining relevant directions. The homogeneous scaling hypothesis for critical phenomena givesChoose the stopping scale with $b^{p{\lambda }_t}|t|=1$. Thenwhere $f_{+}$ is the branch for $t>0$ and $f_{-}$ the branch for $t<0$. Nonuniversal metric factors can be absorbed into the definitions of $t,h$ and these functions. Correlation lengths transform as $\xi (t)=b^p\xi (b^{p{\lambda }_t}t)$, so $\nu =1/{\lambda }_t$. Differentiating the singular free energy twice with respect to temperature gives $C_s\propto |t{|}^{D/{\lambda }_t-2}$, and hence the hyperscaling relationTwo source derivatives similarly give $\gamma =(2{\lambda }_h-D)/{\lambda }_t$. A single source derivative gives the ordered-branch exponent $\beta =(D-{\lambda }_h)/{\lambda }_t$, and setting $t=0$ and scaling $h$ to one gives $\delta ={\lambda }_h/(D-{\lambda }_h)$ when the corresponding magnetization branch exists. These show explicitly how the critical exponents follow from the fixed-point scaling eigenvalues.

The independent correlation derivation uses $G(r)=A{r}^{-(D-2+\eta )}{f}_G(r/\xi )$ with a single crossover scaling function. For lattice spacing $a$, the singular continuum contribution to the magnetic susceptibility isHere $S_D$ is the area of the unit $(D-1)$-sphere. The final integral is finite and nonzero when $\eta <2$, $f_G(0)$ is finite and nonzero, and the tail decays exponentially. Microscopic distances contribute a regular background. With $\xi \sim |t{|}^{-\nu }$ this proves the Fisher scaling relationThere is an amplitude qualification in the printed large-distance formula: its tail has the Gaussian shape and, taken literally with amplitude independent of $\xi$, integrates to a term proportional to ${\xi }^2$. For a nonzero anomalous exponent it must instead be matched to the critical short-distance normalization. The matching the amplitude of a massive critical correlation tail givesAt $r=s\xi$ this has precisely the same overall ${\xi }^{-(D-2+\eta )}$ scaling as the critical form. Thus the requested identity uses the full scaling hypothesis, or equivalently this implicit amplitude factor. The printed tail without it is consistent as written in the Gaussian case $\eta =0$.

In a smooth scalar Landau free energy, a line of coexistence between two distinct minima can end by those minima and the intervening maximum coalescing. At a generic endpoint with no competing third phase,The first condition is stationarity, the second removes the inverse susceptibility, and the third is needed because nonzero cubic curvature at a zero-quadratic point would prevent it being a stable minimum. After shifting $M=M_c+\psi$ and mixing two control parameters, the local potential is $V_c+R{\psi }^2/2+U{\psi }^4/4-H\psi +\cdots$, $U>0$. Its two-phase coexistence line $H=0,R<0$ reaches $R=H=0$, with $\Delta M=2\sqrt{-R/U}\to 0$ and diverging magnetic susceptibility. This is the familiar critical endpoint of a quartic Landau free energy.

The word “must” needs the two-phase endpoint assumptions. A first-order line can instead end at a triple point or a boundary of the available control parameters. There is an explicit scalar counterexample in the sextic potential: fix $u<0<v$ and vary $(r,h)$. The $+M/-M$ coexistence line at $h=0$, $r<3u^2/(16v)$ ends when the $M=0$ phase also becomes globally stable. At that triple point the nonzero minima remain $\pm \sqrt{-3u/(4v)}$; their jump does not vanish. Thus the literal unrestricted assertion is false. The continuous-endpoint argument above establishes the intended case and distinguishes it from this counterexample.

Along an isolated two-phase coexistence line, two distinct stable minima have equal free energy. If this line ends at an ordinary interior endpoint without encountering another phase, the distinction between the two phases must disappear: their minima and the intervening barrier merge. For separated nondegenerate minima, their stationary values are smooth functions of the controls. The difference $\Delta V=V(m_1)-V(m_2)$ has ${\partial }_h\Delta V=-m_1+m_2\ne 0$. The implicit function theorem therefore continues the equation $\Delta V=0$ as a local coexistence curve. It cannot end while those distinct stable minima persist.

At the merger the potential satisfiesThe third-derivative condition is essential: a stationary zero-curvature point with nonzero third derivative is an inflection, not a stable equilibrium. Shifting to $\psi =m-m_c$ gives an ordinary quartic Landau free energy with two independent control directions, temperature-like and field-like. The curvature and the order-parameter discontinuity vanish, the magnetic susceptibility diverges, and the correlation length diverges. The endpoint is therefore associated with a continuous transition. This is the critical endpoint of a quartic Landau free energy mechanism.

In the symmetric quartic example, the coexistence line is $h=0,r<0$. Its jump $2\sqrt{-r/u}$ vanishes at $(r,h)=(0,0)$, where $V=u{m}^4/4$. This supplies a concrete realization. The word “must” requires the stated ordinary-endpoint assumptions: a first-order line can instead meet a third phase, a multicritical point, a boundary of parameter space, or continue without a finite endpoint. A spinodal point alone is not an equilibrium critical endpoint.

The scaling hypothesis for critical phenomena says that the singular part of the equilibrium free energy is a generalized homogeneous function of its thermal and field-like controls. Smooth backgrounds must first be removed; the hypothesis does not claim that the entire free energy, including arbitrary regular terms, has a pure scaling form.

For the ordinary scalar quartic LG theory, set $r=r_{t}t$ with $r_t>0$ and $u>0$, and rescale the uniform order parameter asThe order-parameter-dependent free-energy density becomesDefine $f_{\pm }(H)$ as the minimum of the braces, with the sign of the quadratic term respectively positive or negative. ConsequentlyFor an extensive $A_s$, $a$ additionally contains the system volume. The printed double-inequality subscript labels the two temperature branches: the upper-temperature function is $f_{+}$ and the lower-temperature function is $f_{-}$. It does not classify positive and negative magnetic fields. In particular $f_{+}(0)=0$ and $f_{-}(0)=-1/4$; below the transition the field dependence has a cusp at zero, so derivatives are taken on a selected branch.

For the following derivatives, take $A_s$ to be a density, so $m$ is the magnetization density; for total free energy the derivative gives total magnetization instead. Differentiate this mean-field scalar free-energy scaling form. The magnetization is $m=-\partial A_s/\partial h=-ab|t{|}^{1/2}{f}_{\pm }^{\prime }(H)$, giving $m_0\propto (-t{)}^{1/2}$ and $\beta =1/2$. The magnetic susceptibility is $\chi =-{\partial }_h^2{A}_s=-a{b}^2|t{|}^{-1}{f}_{\pm }^{\prime \prime }(H)$, giving $\gamma =1$. At zero field the nonzero curvature amplitudes are $-f_{+}^{\prime \prime }(0)=1$ and $-f_{-}^{\prime \prime }(0^{+})=1/2$.

To allow nonclassical critical exponents, replace the fixed powers byThe heat-capacity critical exponent is defined by $C_{V,s}\sim |t{|}^{-\alpha }$; temperature differentiation gives the thermal exponent $2-\alpha$ in $A_s$. The order-parameter critical exponent has $m_0\sim (-t{)}^{\beta }$, and the magnetic-susceptibility critical exponent has $\chi \sim |t{|}^{-\gamma }$. Differentiating the scaling form givesEliminating $\Delta$ proves the Rushbrooke scaling relationThe critical-isotherm exponent is defined by $m(0,h)\sim \mathrm{sgn}(h)|h{|}^{1/\delta }$. At fixed small $h$, the $t\to 0$ limit requires $f_{\pm }(H)\sim c|H{|}^{(2-\alpha )/\Delta }$, so that the temperature factors cancel. Therefore $1/\delta =(2-\alpha -\Delta )/\Delta =\beta /\Delta$, yielding $\Delta =\beta \delta$. But the two differentiated identities also give $\Delta =\beta +\gamma$, and hence the Widom scaling relationThese are relations among the leading power indices. At marginal dimensions, multiplicative logarithms can accompany them, and an additive analytic background must not be mistaken for the singular scaling contribution.

Use inverse temperature ${\beta }_T=(k_{B}T{)}^{-1}$, reserving $\beta$ without a subscript for the critical exponent. Write $c=qJ$; each undirected bond occurs once, so the number of bonds is $Nq/2$. In the mean-field theory of the Ising model, write each Ising spin as ${\sigma }_i=m+\delta {\sigma }_i$ and neglect the product of fluctuations:The resulting independent-spin statistical Hamiltonian isThe constant corrects the double counting of interaction energy. The Ising spin sums now factorize and can all be evaluated:This is the approximate partition function at an assumed mean field; equilibrium fixes $m$ self-consistently. The corresponding Ising auxiliary mean-field free energy isIts equilibrium value gives the mean-field Helmholtz free energy in the imposed field. Away from a stationary point its parameter $m$ is an assumed field variable, not necessarily the actual mean Ising spin of that independent-spin distribution.

For the full small-$m$ expansion at fixed $h$, set $t_h=\tanh ({\beta }_{T}h)$ and $s_h={\mathrm{sech}}^2({\beta }_{T}h)$. Differentiating $\log \cosh z$ gives successive derivatives $t_h$, $s_h$, $-2t_h{s}_h$, and $2s_h(2-3s_h)$ at $z={\beta }_{T}h$. ThereforeAt zero field, spin inversion symmetry eliminates odd powers and this simplifies toThe quadratic coefficient changes sign and the quartic coefficient is positive atThus the zero-field mean-field prediction is a continuous, continuous phase transition: the stable zero spin magnetization develops two symmetry-related nonzero minima continuously below $T_c$.

Both requested routes give the same mean-field self-consistency equation. First, the one-spin expectation in the effective field isSecond, differentiating the Ising auxiliary mean-field free energy giveswhose stationary condition is precisely that mean-field self-consistency equation. Choose its stable, lowest-free-energy branch rather than every algebraic solution.

An equally useful mean-field approximation parametrizes the trial distribution by its actual mean Ising spin. Its probabilities are $(1\pm m)/2$, giving the Bragg-Williams free energy of the Ising modelThis energy-minus-entropy function has expansionIts stationary equation is $h=k_{B}T\mathrm{arctanh}m-cm$, again equivalent to the mean-field self-consistency equation. The two functions differ away from equilibrium, but agree on stationary branches: for $z={\beta }_T(h+cm)$ and $m=\tanh z$, the entropy bracket equals $mz-\log (2\cosh z)$. Their small-$m$ coefficients therefore need not agree at arbitrary temperature; at $T_c$ they have the same leading critical quartic coefficient $c/12$. This distinction prevents confusing the auxiliary-field expansion with the physical-magnetization variational expansion.

For the order-parameter critical exponent, expand the equation of state at $h=0$:On a nonzero stable branch,Hence $\beta =1/2$. The spontaneous magnetization is understood by selecting a branch with an infinitesimal field after the thermodynamic limit; a finite symmetric sample has zero exact zero-field mean Ising spin.

For the magnetic susceptibility per site, define $\chi =\partial m/\partial h$ with $h$ in energy units. Implicit differentiation givesAbove $T_c$, $m=0$ and $\chi =1/[k_B(T-T_c)]$. Below $T_c$, evaluated on a selected ordered branch, the expansion of $m^2$ gives $\chi \sim 1/[2k_B(T_c-T)]$. Thus the magnetic-susceptibility critical exponent is $\gamma =1$ on both sides, with different amplitudes. At $T=T_c$, the equation of state becomesso the critical-isotherm exponent is $\delta =3$. These are mean-field critical exponents, not a claim that neglecting fluctuations gives the exact Ising transition in every dimension.

These are mean-field critical exponents at a tricritical point. Hold the other control at its tricritical value and take the coefficients to be real analytic functions of temperature along a thermal approach with ${\mathcal{A}}_2=a(T-T_c)+o(T-T_c)$, $a>0$, ${\mathcal{A}}_6\to s>0$, and ${\mathcal{A}}_4=0$ or ${\mathcal{A}}_4=o(|{\mathcal{A}}_2{|}^{1/2})$. At fixed tricritical $g$, a generic real analytic temperature path with nonzero thermal slope has ${\mathcal{A}}_4=O(T-T_c)$ and meets the last condition. Paths tangent to a scaling direction can have different apparent temperature powers.

At zero field on the ordered side with ${\mathcal{A}}_4=0$, stationarity gives $m^4=-{\mathcal{A}}_2/s$; under the more general approach ${\mathcal{A}}_4=o(|{\mathcal{A}}_2{|}^{1/2})$, this relation holds to leading order. Thus the order-parameter critical exponent isFor the zero-quartic representative, putting this minimum into the Landau free energy gives the singular order-parameter contribution (and the leading asymptotic contribution under the stated negligible-quartic approach)Using $C_{\mathrm{s}}=-T{\partial }_T^2{f}_{\mathrm{s}}$ at fixed other control yields $C_{\mathrm{s}}\sim (T_c-T{)}^{-1/2}$, specifically $T{a}^{3/2}/(4\sqrt{s(T_c-T)})$ to leading order. HenceThis heat-capacity critical exponent refers to the nonzero ordered-side singular amplitude; in this mean-field approximation to Landau theory, the disordered global minimum contributes zero singular free energy, while any regular background remains. Fluctuation corrections lie outside the present approximation.

In the disordered phase, differentiating the equation of state at $m=h=0$ gives the magnetic susceptibility $\chi =1/{\mathcal{A}}_2$. On the ordered branch its curvature is ${\mathcal{A}}_2+5s{m}^4=4|{\mathcal{A}}_2|$, so $\chi =1/(4|{\mathcal{A}}_2|)$. Both give the magnetic-susceptibility critical exponentAt the tricritical temperature with both lower coefficients zero, $h=s{m}^5$, so $m=\mathrm{sgn}(h)(|h|/s{)}^{1/5}$ and the critical-isotherm exponent isThe Widom scaling relation $\gamma =\beta (\delta -1)$ and Rushbrooke scaling relation $\alpha +2\beta +\gamma =2$ both check these powers. Their validity here is a mean-field conclusion, not a claim that fluctuations in every spatial dimension preserve them.

The microcanonical ensemble assigns equal probability to accessible quantum states in a narrow energy shell of an isolated system with fixed energy, particle number and external parameters. To derive the canonical ensemble, put a small system in weak thermal contact with a much larger isolated bath. If the small-system state has energy $E_i$, its probability is proportional to the number ${\Omega }_b(E_{\mathrm{total}}-E_i)$ of bath states. Expanding the bath entropy gives $S_b(E_{\mathrm{total}}-E_i)=S_b(E_{\mathrm{total}})-E_i/T+\cdots$, since $\partial S_b/\partial E=1/T$. Negligible interaction energy and an effectively constant bath temperature therefore give $p_i=e^{-E_i/(k_{B}T)}/Z$. The microcanonical ensemble suits an isolated fixed-energy system; the canonical ensemble suits a system exchanging energy with a thermostat at fixed temperature, with particle number still fixed.

For one atom, summing the finite geometric series over $m=-J,\dots ,J$ gives the partition functionAt $x=0$ the ratio is understood by continuity as $2J+1$. Logarithmic differentiation gives the mean magnetic dipole momentThis is odd in $x$, has small-$x$ expansion ${\mu }_{B}J(J+1)x/3+O(x^3)$, and saturates at $\pm J{\mu }_B$. The requested common graph is plotted in units of ${\mu }_B$: its ordinate is $⟨{\mu }_z⟩/(J{\mu }_B)$, so multiplication by ${\mu }_B$ gives $⟨{\mu }_z⟩/J$. The normalized slopes at zero are $(J+1)/3$ and the limits are $\pm 1$.

The magnetic susceptibility isEquivalently it is $N{\mu }_B^2\mathrm{Var}(m)/(k_{B}T)\ge 0$. For $k_{B}T\gg {\mu }_B|B|$, the apparent singular terms cancel, yielding Curie lawFor fixed nonzero $B$, $T\to 0$ and integer $J\ge 1$, the first excited magnetic level is separated from the aligned ground state by ${\mu }_B|B|$. Its exponentially small occupation givesThe moments are saturated, so changing the magnetic field hardly changes their alignment. This is a fixed-nonzero-field low-temperature limit. At exactly $B=0$, differentiating first gives the Curie expression for every $T>0$, which diverges as $T\to 0$; the two limits do not commute in this noninteracting model. For $J=0$ both moment and susceptibility vanish identically.

At the tricritical point, $a_4=0$ and the zero-field Landau free energy is $f=a_2{m}^2+a_6{m}^6$. Below $T_c$, minimization givesSince $a_2\sim T-T_c$, the order-parameter critical exponent isAt this minimum, $f_{\mathrm{sing}}=a_2{m}^2+a_6{m}^6$ is proportional to $-|T-T_c{|}^{3/2}$. Comparing this with $f_{\mathrm{sing}}\sim |T-T_c{|}^{2-\alpha }$ gives the heat-capacity critical exponentAfter adding the magnetic contribution $-Bm$, the inverse zero-field magnetic susceptibility is the curvature $f^{\prime \prime }(m)$. Above $T_c$ it is $2a_2$, while below $T_c$ it is $-8a_2$, so $\chi \sim |T-T_c{|}^{-1}$ and the magnetic-susceptibility critical exponent isFinally, exactly at $T_c$ the equation of state is $B=6a_6{m}^5$. Hence $m\sim B^{1/5}$ and the critical-isotherm exponent is

Let $g(E)$ denote the total density of states, including both spin directions. The field lowers one spin energy by ${\mu }_{B}B$ and raises the other by the same amount. To first order in $B$, each spin population changes by the one-spin density $g(E_F)/2$ times the displacement of its Fermi edge. The population imbalance is thereforeMultiplying by the Bohr magneton carried by each excess aligned electron givesThus, with this total-density convention,The zero-temperature magnetic susceptibility isThis weak positive response is Pauli paramagnetism. If susceptibility per unit volume is required, both $M$ and $g$ are divided by $V$.

Put $t=T-T_c$, so $a_4\sim t$. At zero field the stationary equation factors asFor $t>0$, $m=0$ is the unique minimum. For $t<0$, it is unstable and the two minima areThe order parameter therefore tends continuously to zero, and its order-parameter critical exponent is $\boxed{\beta =1/2}$.

At either ordered minimum the singular free-energy density iswhereas it is zero for $t>0$. Two temperature derivatives give a singular heat capacity proportional to $|t|$ below the transition and zero above it, so the heat-capacity critical exponent is $\boxed{\alpha =-1}$.

The inverse magnetic susceptibility at a stable minimum is the curvature ${\chi }^{-1}={\partial }^{2}f/\partial m^2$. Below $T_c$,and hence ${\chi }_{-}\sim |t{|}^{-2}$ and $\boxed{{\gamma }_{-}=2}$. Above $T_c$, however, the curvature at $m=0$ vanishes for every $t>0$. Indeed, at small field $B=4a_4{m}^3+O(m^5)$, so $m\sim (B/(4a_4){)}^{1/3}$ and the linear susceptibility is already infinite away from the critical point. Consequently the usual magnetic-susceptibility critical exponent ${\gamma }_{+}$ is not defined for this exceptional free energy; assigning it a finite value would incorrectly assume a quadratic term.

At $T=T_c$, the equation of state is $B=6a_6{m}^5$, so $m\sim |B{|}^{1/5}$ and the critical-isotherm exponent is $\boxed{\delta =5}$. Thus the transition is continuous, although its missing quadratic term makes the high-temperature linear response singular throughout that phase.

Write $t=T-T_c$, take ${\alpha }_2=at$ with $a>0$, and include the magnetic term $-Bm$. At $B=0$, minimizing the Landau free energy gives $m=0$ for $t>0$ andfor $t<0$, so the order-parameter critical exponent is $\beta =1/2$. Substitution gives a singular free-energy density proportional to $-t^2$ below $T_c$, whose second temperature derivative has a finite jump, so the heat-capacity exponent is $\alpha =0$. Above $T_c$, the equation ${\alpha }_{2}m+{\alpha }_4{m}^3=B$ gives the magnetic susceptibility $\chi =(\partial m/\partial B{)}_{B=0}=1/{\alpha }_2\sim t^{-1}$, hence $\gamma =1$. At $t=0$, $B={\alpha }_4{m}^3$, so $m\sim B^{1/3}$ and $\delta =3$.

For an isolated easy-axis ferromagnet undergoing coherent reversal, the ideal low-temperature loop is approximately rectangular, switching between $\pm M_s$ at $\pm H_c$. It has remanent Magnetization and a large response near switching. An ideal compensated antiferromagnet has essentially no remanence and a small, approximately reversible linear net Magnetization $M={\chi }_{\mathrm{AF}}H$ at fields far below its exchange/spin-flop scales. Strong antiferromagnetic exchange makes substantial canting costly, so its low-field magnetic susceptibility is small relative to the ferromagnet's unsaturated switching response.

This comparison does not say the ferromagnet has a larger differential slope at every field: on its saturated branches $dM/dH$ can also be small. Nor does it rule out spin-flop transitions at much larger fields, outside the sketched range. The original plot uses arbitrary normalized scales.

Use the sample mean to estimate each magnetic susceptibility, and the unbiased sample variance with denominator $n-1=4$ to estimate the repeatability of individual readings. In the numerical scale supplied by the paper,If the repeated measurements have independent random errors, their mean estimates have standard errorsThe difference and its estimated standard uncertainty are thereforeThe separation is about $2.53$ standard errors. Under an approximately normal distribution model with no experimenter-dependent bias, Welch's t-test gives about $7.34$ statistical degrees of freedom and a two-sided p-value of $0.038$. Thus there is modest evidence against equal underlying susceptibilities at a conventional $5\%$ significance level; overlap of the ranges of individual readings is not an adequate comparison of the means. Five readings per sample provide limited information about the error distribution.

Crucially, material and student exhibit complete confounding: each student measured only one sample. An experimenter-dependent systematic error could mimic the difference. Paramagnetism also depends on conditions such as temperature, so equal material alone does not guarantee equal readings without controlling those conditions. The defensible physical conclusion is the data suggest a difference, but do not establish different materials. Both students should measure both samples in randomized or alternating order, with calibration and temperature controlled, to separate a sample effect from an operator effect. No unit or scale factor absent from the original table has been invented.

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.

For weak fields in a linear isotropic material, magnetization is $\mathbf{M}={\chi }_m\mathbf{H}$, with magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_m$. Paramagnetism has ${\chi }_m>0$, while diamagnetism has ${\chi }_m<0$. In either case, $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})={\mu }_0(1+{\chi }_m)\mathbf{H}$. These weak responses generally disappear when the applied field is removed, unlike hysteretic ferromagnetism.

A paramagnet can contain permanent magnetic moments from unpaired electrons or atomic angular momentum. Alignment lowers the energy $-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$, while thermal disorder opposes it. For independent classical moments of magnitude $\mu$, their weak-field average projection is ${\mu }^{2}B/(3k_{B}T)$, soThis is Curie's law; it assumes weak magnetization and no important interactions between moments. With quantum angular momentum $J$, replace ${\mu }^2$ by $(g{\mu }_B{)}^{2}J(J+1)$. Strong-field magnetization saturates instead of growing linearly without limit. Conduction electrons also exhibit Pauli paramagnetism: only occupations near the Fermi surface readily redistribute between spin states, giving a nearly temperature-independent susceptibility when $T\ll T_F$.

Diamagnetism is an induced orbital response opposing the applied magnetic field. For bound electrons, a weak field changes orbital motion and induces an opposing magnetic moment. For an isotropic collection of atoms, the elementary orbital estimate iswhere the sum runs over the electrons of one atom. It is usually small and weakly temperature dependent. Delocalized electrons also have orbital Landau diamagnetism; for an ideal three-dimensional free electron gas with a quadratic isotropic dispersion and electron spin with $g=2$, ${\chi }_L=-{\chi }_P/3$. Both spin and orbital contributions must be included to determine the total response. Diamagnetism is not a consequence of permanent dipoles choosing to align against the field; that orientation would increase their energy.

A dielectric responds to an electric field mainly by displacing or orienting bound charges, rather than by sustaining a steady conduction current. The polarization density $\mathbf{P}$ is electric dipole moment per unit volume. It creates bound chargeSeparating these charges from free charge motivatesFor an isotropic linear dielectric, $\mathbf{P}={ϵ}_0{\chi }_e\mathbf{E}$, soThe electric susceptibility ${\chi }_e$ describes material polarization and is not the magnetic susceptibility. More generally it is a tensor and can depend on frequency, field strength and temperature.

Electronic polarization displaces an electron cloud relative to its nucleus; ionic polarization displaces positive and negative ions; orientational polarization partially aligns permanent molecular dipoles against thermal disorder. For independent permanent moments of magnitude $p$, weak-field orientational response gives ${\chi }_e\simeq n{p}^2/(3{ϵ}_0{k}_{B}T)$ when local-field corrections and interactions are negligible. This explains a common inverse-temperature contribution without asserting that every dielectric follows that law.

At a static interface, $\mathbf{n}\cdot ({\mathbf{D}}_2-{\mathbf{D}}_1)={\sigma }_f$ and the tangential electric field is continuous. Bound surface charge is already included through $\mathbf{P}$. For a homogeneous filled capacitor, $C=ϵA/d$, and a reversible linear dielectric stores energy density $u=\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{D}/2$. At fixed voltage, insertion raises the stored field energy but the voltage source also supplies energy; force arguments must include that source. At fixed charge the capacitor energy instead decreases on insertion.

At frequencies too high for a polarization mechanism to follow the field, its contribution weakens. A complex permittivity represents dissipative dielectric loss as well as phase lag; the sign of its imaginary part depends on the time convention. Strong fields can cause nonlinear response or dielectric breakdown, beyond the reversible linear model.

The printed formula has a physical problem for the specified geometry. Let $\chi =\mu -1$ be the linear magnetic susceptibility, where $\mu$ is the source's relative magnetic permeability. The constitutive equation is $M=\chi H_{\mathrm{in}}$, not in general $\chi H_0/\mu$.

For a small uniformly magnetized ellipsoid with its principal axis along the applied field, include its demagnetizing field through the SI demagnetizing factor $N_d$:Solving givesA slender rod aligned along the field has $N_d\to 0$ as its aspect ratio grows. Its ideal slender-rod limit at fixed $\mu$ is thereforeprovided $N_d|\mu -1|\ll 1$. A finite cylinder generally has nonuniform magnetization, so an ellipsoidal shape factor is an approximation, and its aspect ratio is needed for a more precise correction. Small sample length compared with the field-variation scale makes $H_0$ approximately uniform across it; that condition does not set the demagnetizing factor to one.