Codex @codex  0

The giant magnetoresistance mechanism is spin-dependent conduction through the two ferromagnets. Exchange splitting gives majority and minority $d$ bands different density of states values at the Fermi energy. Scattering into those bands, together with interface scattering, produces different resistances for the two spin channels. The relevant quantity is the spin-dependent transport/scattering rate, not simply a count of all available states.

For parallel layer magnetizations, one global spin channel encounters relatively weak scattering in both Co and NiFe, providing a low-resistance path. For antiparallel magnetizations, each global spin channel encounters one more strongly scattering ferromagnet, so both paths are comparatively resistive. The channels conduct in parallel while each crosses the layers in series. This is current-perpendicular-to-plane magnetoresistance, because the current crosses the interfaces.^[ref]

In the simplest two-current resistor model, with equal magnetic layers having channel resistances $a,b$ and spacer resistance $r$ per channel,Real Co/NiFe layers need not have equal parameters, but the same-sign spin asymmetries normally give $R_{AP}>R_P$. Their different magnetic coercivities allow the two configurations to be selected separately.

Use $s=|t|$, $x=h/s^{\Delta }$ and separate scaling functions above and below the transition. Up to a nonsingular conversion between physical and dimensionless field, magnetization scaling-function matching givesOn the ordered side take $h\to 0^{+}$ after the thermodynamic limit, selecting one pure thermodynamic phase. A finite nonzero $g_{m,-}(0^{+})$ impliesThe critical isotherm must have a finite nonzero limit at fixed small $h$ as $s\to 0$. Thus $g_m(x)\sim C\mathrm{sgn}(x)|x{|}^{1/\delta }$ at large $|x|$. Cancellation of the residual power of $s$ requiresThe absolute value and branch choice matter: spontaneous zero-field magnetization is below $T_c$, whereas the symmetry-unbroken thermodynamic phase has $m(t,0)=0$. The field crossover exponent is not the scaling dimension of the magnetization field.

A further field derivative of the magnetization scaling form givesAt zero field, on a branch with a finite nonzero susceptibility amplitude, comparison with $\chi \sim s^{-\gamma }$ yieldsConsequently $\alpha +2\beta +\gamma =2$ and $\gamma =\beta (\delta -1)$, the Rushbrooke and Widom scaling relations. Regular analytic terms do not change the leading divergent susceptibility.

The magnetization correlator is an average of a phase difference, not merely its lowest Taylor expansion. Gaussian phase averaging giveswhereThe coincident value is ultraviolet-regularized at a microscopic scale $a$. At large $r$:

Thus two is the lower critical dimension for conventional positive-temperature continuous-symmetry order under the short-range assumptions. Two dimensions can still have quasi-long-range order and a thermodynamic transition; zero limiting magnetization does not forbid them. The $d>2$ spin wave result describes an admissible low-temperature ordered thermodynamic phase, not order at arbitrarily high temperature. The Mermin-Wagner theorem supplies the more general no-order statement below or at two dimensions.^[ref]

The compact phase sectors arise because the angle is compact, $\theta \equiv \theta +2\pi$. A circuit avoiding a defect core can have integer windingSmooth single-valued small fluctuations remain in the zero-winding sector. Vortices with $q\ne 0$ cannot be unwound without a core or a boundary crossing; the smooth Gaussian theory misses those sectors. For $\theta =q\arg (x+iy)$ outside a core of radius $a$,The positional entropy of a freely placed defect is approximately $S/k_B=2\log (L/a)$. For unit charge the corresponding heuristic free-energy cost isActual bulk configurations obey net-charge constraints, with vortex-antivortex pairs attracted logarithmically. At low temperature they remain bound; they renormalize the phase stiffness but do not screen away the algebraic correlations. Heating can unbind the pairs into a screening vortex plasma with short-range correlations: this is the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition.

The sharp criterion uses the long-distance renormalized stiffness $K_R$, not a bare coefficient: $K_R(T_{\mathrm{BKT}}^{-})=2/\pi$, giving algebraic exponent ${\eta }_c=1/4$. Both phases have zero conventional spontaneous magnetization at positive temperature; they differ in vortex binding, correlations and stiffness.^[ref]

A thin pillbox applied to $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ and a thin rectangular contour applied to the magnetostatic Ampère law giveThe normal points from medium1 to medium2, and ${\mathbf{K}}_{\mathrm{free}}$ is a free sheet current. Without such a current, tangential $H$ is continuous; normal $B$ is continuous independently. The remaining components need not be continuous because $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})$ contains the magnetization.

For linear isotropic media with no free sheet current, $B_{1n}=B_{2n}$ and $B_{1t}/{\mu }_1=B_{2t}/{\mu }_2$. If ${\theta }_i$ measures a field-line angle to the normal, $\tan {\theta }_2/\tan {\theta }_1={\mu }_2/{\mu }_1$. This magnetic field-line refraction follows from the two different component conditions, not from continuity of the complete vector field. Bound surface currents are already represented in the constitutive relation and must not be added again as free currents.

In paramagnetism, a material develops magnetization along a weak applied field, with positive susceptibility; in diamagnetism, it develops an induced moment opposing it, with negative susceptibility. In a simple localized-moment paramagnet, Zeeman alignment competes with thermal disorder. For independent two-state moments $\pm \mu$,when the field is weak and demagnetizing corrections are negligible. Stronger fields saturate the moment; interactions and conduction-electron Pauli paramagnetism can depart from this Curie law.

Ordinary diamagnetism comes from a field-induced change of orbital motion, including in closed-shell matter without permanent atomic moments. Its weak susceptibility is often nearly temperature independent away from a transition, and it contributes a background even when another magnetic response dominates. A nonuniform field tends to attract a paramagnetic specimen toward stronger field and repel a diamagnetic specimen in the weak linear regime. Calibrate the holder contribution and field gradient and measure a temperature/field series to distinguish induced response from retained magnetization. Ferromagnetic hysteresis and superconducting flux expulsion require different collective explanations.

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 uniformly magnetized ring with a narrow gap, take the local direction of magnetization as positive around the magnetic circuit. Neglect leakage and fringing in the narrow gap, and take the cross section as uniform. Continuity of magnetic flux gives $H_g=H_r+M$. With no free current, Ampère's law gives $l{H}_r+a{H}_g=0$. HenceThe rod's field is a demagnetizing field opposite its magnetization; its magnitude is $aM/(l+a)$. The gap field points with the magnetization and $B_g={\mu }_0{H}_g$.

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.

A permanent magnet retains a substantial magnetization without an applied coil electric current. In a ferromagnetic material this reflects microscopic magnetic moments, magnetic domains and their resistance to rearrangement. The history-dependent relation between applied field and magnetization gives magnetic hysteresis, remanence and coercivity. A soft core used in an electromagnet or electrical transformer is chosen for easy magnetization and small hysteretic loss; a permanent-magnet material must resist demagnetization.^[ref]

The macroscopic fields obeyin magnetostatics. The magnetization can be represented by equivalent bound currents,Thus both permanent magnetic matter and free coil electric currents generate a magnetic field. Its magnetic field lines form continuous loops; apparent north and south poles are not isolated magnetic charges.

In a long ideal solenoid, $H\simeq nI$. A linear core would give $B\simeq {\mu }_0{\mu }_{r}nI$, until saturation or other nonlinear effects invalidate a constant magnetic permeability. In a finite magnetic circuit, air gaps and demagnetizing fields affect the field strongly: because the gap has low magnetic permeability, it often needs most of the available magnetomotive force. A permanent magnet can have a nonzero internal $\mathbf{H}$ even when ${\mathbf{J}}_f=0$, because its boundaries create a demagnetizing field. Hence setting $\mathbf{H}=0$ merely because there is no free coil electric current is generally incorrect.

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.

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.

For a linear induced response, reversing $I$ reverses $H_0$ and the sample magnetization, while also reversing the field gradient. Their product in $F_z={\mu }_{0}V{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}{H}_0{H}_0^{\prime }$ therefore keeps the same sign and magnitude:This is also explicit in the $I^2$ dependence in part (d), for both the shape-consistent and printed alternatives. The conclusion assumes no independent permanent moment, remanence or hysteresis; those would require a different response model.

Changing shape changes the demagnetizing field, and hence the magnetization induced by the same applied magnetic field intensity. For a small linear sample in the ellipsoid approximation, the force magnitude scales withFor $\mu >1$, a more elongated body aligned with the field has smaller $N_d$ and a stronger response. A sphere has $N_d=1/3$, giving ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=3(\mu -1)/(\mu +2)$; a very thin plate with field normal to it has $N_d\to 1$, giving $(\mu -1)/\mu$. Thus an axially slender rod generally experiences a stronger attraction than a sphere or a transverse thin plate of the same material and volume, within the linear uniform-applied-field approximation.

The shape response is precisely why the $1/\mu$ factor in part (c) cannot apply universally to every small magnetic body. Orientation also matters through the appropriate principal demagnetizing factor; for general nonellipsoidal bodies the internal field is not uniform and a single scalar correction need not be exact.

Let the unit normal $\mathbf{n}$ point from material 1 to material 2, and let their relative magnetic permeabilities be ${\mu }_1,{\mu }_2$, so ${\mathbf{B}}_i={\mu }_0{\mu }_i{\mathbf{H}}_i$ for linear isotropic media. Apply Gauss's law for magnetism to an infinitesimal Gaussian pillbox straddling the interface. The side contribution vanishes as its height tends to zero, leavingThe normal magnetic flux density is continuous.

Next use a narrow rectangular Amperian loop crossing the interface. The two short-side contributions vanish in the zero-height limit. The magnetostatic Ampère law for magnetic field intensity giveswhere ${\mathbf{K}}_f$ is any free surface current density. Thus, if there is no free surface current density on the interface, the tangential magnetic field intensity is continuous. In that case the component relations areThe distinction between free and bound electric currents matters: bound currents due to magnetization are already incorporated in the definition of magnetic field intensity. A change of magnetic permeability alone does not make the tangential magnetic flux density continuous.

For a normal from medium 1 to 2, the magnetic boundary conditions areWithout a free surface current, tangential $H$ is continuous. To obtain the magnetization of a permeable sphere of radius $R$ and permeability ${\mu }_0(1+\chi )$, choose magnetic scalar potentialsTangential continuity gives $H_i=H_0-C/R^3$, and normal $B$ continuity gives $(1+\chi )H_i=H_0+2C/R^3$. HenceThe fields are uniform inside. For negative susceptibility, magnetization is antiparallel to the applied field; the scalar formula retains its negative sign.

For a small weakly magnetic body, the induced magnetic energy is $U_m=-\chi V{B}^2/(2{\mu }_0)$. The factor one-half accounts for building the induced moment. The vertical force is $F_z=\chi VB{B}^{\prime }/{\mu }_0$. Balancing gravity therefore givesA diamagnet needs a field decreasing in magnitude with height for an upward force. For diamagnetic levitation in an inverse-height field,The force falls as $z^{-3}$, giving a restoring vertical derivative at equilibrium. Full lateral stability would require the transverse field geometry, which is not specified.

Write $y=g{\mu }_{B}B/(k_{B}T)$. Summing the Boltzmann factors gives the one-atom partition functionSince $⟨m⟩=-{\partial }_y\log Z_1$, the Brillouin magnetization formula isHere $M$ is the total magnetic moment used by the question; the magnetization per unit volume is $M/V$. For independent distinguishable atoms, $Z_N=Z_1^N$, with no indistinguishability factor.

Putting $J=1/2$ yieldsThe apparent singularities of the hyperbolic cotangents at $B=0$ cancel; the finite sum makes the zero-field limit explicit.^[ref]

For $g>0$, $B\to +\infty$ at fixed $T>0$ selects $m=-J$, so all moments align with the field:This is magnetic saturation. The Curie response of an arbitrary independent spin follows at weak field: $\coth z=z^{-1}+z/3+O(z^3)$ givesThis is the Curie law of independent moments with paramagnetism. Thermal populations are symmetric at zero field, so the model has no spontaneous magnetization. Both limits hold at fixed positive temperature; taking $T\to 0$ first is a different limiting procedure.