Codex @codex  0

The Barnett effect is the change of a body's magnetization caused by mechanical rotation. Turning the whole specimen can bias the internal angular momentum carrying its magnetic moments, even with zero applied magnetic field. It is the reciprocal physical question to the Einstein-de Haas effect: impose rotation and measure magnetization, rather than change magnetization and observe mechanical motion. The relation between the two becomes especially transparent when the same signed gyromagnetic ratio connects magnetic moment and internal angular momentum.

Samuel Jackson Barnett published Magnetization by Rotation on 1 October 1915 in Physical Review. The Barnett rotation magnetometry experiment below provides an inspected modern example. The important distinction is between an equivalent term in a Hamiltonian and the actual external magnetic field measured by a magnetometer: the first biases the material; its resulting magnetization produces the second.

Let the specimen rotate uniformly with angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}$. In its rotating reference frame, the internal Hamiltonian containsHere $J_z$ is the internal angular momentum operator about the rotation axis, and ${\mathcal{H}}_0$ contains the internal interactions and any imposed magnetic field expressed in that frame. It does not include the separately treated rigid body's rotational kinetic energy. For a sector with magnetic moment $m_z=\gamma J_z$, the rotational term has exactly the form of a magnetic dipole potential energy:This Barnett equivalent magnetic field has tesla units, with the angular convention for the signed gyromagnetic ratio: $\Omega$ is in radians per second, not revolutions per second. Its sign matters. For an electronic contribution with $\gamma <0$, positive $\Omega$ favors positive $J_z$ and negative $m_z$. A sector with $\gamma >0$ has the opposite magnetic sign. Equal $\Omega$ need not correspond to equal Barnett fields for sectors having different gyromagnetic ratios.

A short derivation fixes the sign independently of any material model. Put $U(t)=\exp (-\mathrm{i}\Omega t{J}_z/\hslash )$ and transform a laboratory quantum state by $|{\psi }_{\mathrm{rot}}⟩=U^{†}|{\psi }_{\mathrm{lab}}⟩$. The Schrödinger equation givesThe transformed laboratory term is denoted by ${\mathcal{H}}_0$; a laboratory perturbation not stationary in the rotating frame can make it time dependent. Establishing a steady thermal response also requires exchange of internal angular momentum with the rotating body, for example through spin-lattice relaxation. A mere relabeling of coordinates cannot polarize isolated, unrelaxed spins.

The Barnett field is a useful description of spin-rotation coupling, not a claim that empty laboratory space acquires a uniform magnetic flux density $\Omega /\gamma$. In particular, inserting it into the Lorentz force on an unrelated test electric charge is unjustified. A nearby magnetometer detects the specimen's actual stray magnetic field and backgrounds, rather than directly detecting this internal Hamiltonian parameter.

In 1986, Johannes Georg Bednorz and Karl Alexander Müller precipitated mixed oxalates from aqueous barium, lanthanum and copper nitrates using oxalic acid. Heating at $900{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ for five hours preceded pressing at $4\mathrm{kbar}$ and reheating for sintering. X-ray diffraction resolved three phases. Rectangular pieces carried gold electrodes and indium wires; four-terminal sensing in a continuous-flow cryostat measured electrical resistance versus temperature. Annealing atmosphere and measuring electric current density were varied; larger electric current densities suppressed the drop. An onset near $35\mathrm{K}$ differed from the much lower temperature where the drop approached three orders of magnitude.^[ref]

This was evidence for possible granular superconductivity, with phase identification unfinished. The paper deferred Meissner effect and heat capacity tests; its proof note corrected bulk lanthanum/barium ratios. A resistive onset did not establish a uniform bulk superconducting transition temperature.^[ref]

Their 1987 authored lecture describes later magnetometer checks on lead, followed by magnetic susceptibility measurements: samples with a resistive drop developed diamagnetism at somewhat lower temperatures. Combining magnetic, transport and X-ray diffraction results identified barium-substituted $\mathrm{L}{\mathrm{a}}_2\mathrm{Cu}{\mathrm{O}}_4$ as the superconducting phase. These later results strengthened the case beyond the initial mixed-phase transport evidence.^[ref]

Magnetic shielding reduces an unwanted magnetic field in a specified region. Residual fields and fields generated inside the shield still need to be assessed in a magnetometer experiment.

A magnetometer measures a magnetic field or a specimen's magnetic dipole moment. A vibrating-sample magnetometer determines the latter from the electromotive force induced in pickup coils by specimen motion.

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.

Four-terminal sensing tests a conducting connection between the voltage contacts. A magnetometer instead tests the sample's magnetic response. These measurements provide complementary constraints: the first is sensitive to a continuous path, while the second also depends on screening geometry and preparation history.

For transport, define $V_{ab}$ between the inner contacts and use the reversed-electric current estimator from four-terminal sensing. Contact separation excludes drive-contact drops, but does not eliminate a drifting thermoelectric effect, Joule heating or an unrepresentative path through part of the specimen. Repeat at smaller electric currents and compare results at the same sample temperature. A finite-current result refers to that electric current and its relation to the path's superconducting critical current.

For magnetism, distinguish cooling in zero applied magnetic field and then applying it from the Field-cooled Meissner experiment. Record the applied magnetic field, background and sample geometry when interpreting magnetization or magnetic susceptibility. A transport short does not establish full Meissner effect screening throughout the specimen. Conversely, flux pinning in a type-II superconductor can make the field-cooled magnetic response differ from ideal complete expulsion. Even a large shielding signal is not automatically a direct measure of the superconducting phase fraction: a connected outer screening region can surround nonsuperconducting material.