Codex @codex  0

Let ${\mu }_a=2.13{\mu }_N$ be the magnitude of the saturated nuclear moment of helium-3, with ${\mu }_N=e\hslash /(2m_p)$. A spin-one-half nucleus has the two Zeeman energies $\mp {\mu }_{a}B$. For independent nuclei the one-site partition function and magnetization density areIn the weak-field limit ${\mu }_{a}B\ll k_{B}T$, expand the hyperbolic tangent:The nuclear moment's negative sign means that its moment points oppositely to its spin; it does not make the thermal magnetic susceptibility negative. The response is paramagnetism governed by Curie's law.

There is no extra factor $1/3$ here: the stated $2.13{\mu }_N$ is the moment of a fully polarized spin-one-half state. Equivalently, writing the moment operator as $g_N{\mu }_N\mathbf{I}$ requires $g_N=-4.26$, and $g_N^2{\mu }_N^{2}I(I+1)/3=(2.13{\mu }_N{)}^2$. The formula presumes independent localized nuclear moments; exchange correlations invalidate it close to the much lower ordering scale discussed in part (e).

In weak magnetic field and the regime of paramagnetism, localized magnetic moments with total angular momentum $J$ and Landé g-factor $\tilde{g}$ have SI volume magnetic susceptibilitywithin the Curie–Weiss law. Here $n_m$ counts magnetic ions per volume, ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum permeability, ${\mu }_B$ is the Bohr magneton, and $\Theta$ is the Weiss temperature. The factor $J(J+1)/3$ is the zero-field average of the squared angular projection over $m_J=-J,\dots ,J$.

For one magnetic ion per formula unit, a molar volume $V_m$ contains $N_A$ magnetic ions, where $N_A$ is the Avogadro constant. Consequently $n_m{V}_m=N_A$, and the molar magnetic susceptibility isDefining the dimensionless effective paramagnetic moment $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ by ${\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_{\mathrm{eff}}{\mu }_B$, numerical substitution givesThe normalization is per mole of formula units, which here also means per mole of magnetic ions.

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.

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.

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.

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 $g>0$, $B\to +\infty$ 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.

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.

Choose a coarse-grained magnetization $m(\mathbf{x})$ as the order parameter: it vanishes in the paramagnetism phase and develops a spontaneous nonzero value in the ferromagnetism phase. In zero applied magnetic field, spin reversal sends $m\mapsto -m$, so the local Landau free energy contains only even powers. A minimal spatially inhomogeneous free-energy functional isThe positive gradient coefficient penalizes rapid spatial variations. Near an ordinary transition take $a(T)=a_0(T-T_0)$, $a_0>0$, and positive $b$; retain the sextic term when $b$ can approach or cross zero. The source $h$ is conjugate to the magnetization and explicitly breaks spin reversal.

Determine equilibrium by minimizing this free-energy functional, imposing the appropriate boundary conditions. Its Euler-Lagrange equation isFor a uniform system at $h=0$, compare the values of all stable stationary solutions, rather than accepting every solution of this equation. The selected global minimum gives the equilibrium magnetization; derivatives of its free energy give entropy, heat capacity and magnetic susceptibility. At an ordinary transition the two ordered minima emerge continuously from zero. Spatial dependence also permits domain walls and an estimate of the correlation length.

This is a mean-field approximation: it selects a minimizing profile and neglects statistical fluctuations around it. The symmetry constrains the expansion, but its numerical coefficients are phenomenological. Close enough to a transition, thermal fluctuations near a critical point can invalidate the resulting mean-field critical exponents.^[ref]

Fix $c>0$. Stationary points satisfy $m(a+b{m}^2+c{m}^4)=0$. With $x=m^2$, the nonzero candidates areKeep only real positive roots. At such a point,so $x_{+}$ gives local minima and $x_{-}$ gives local maxima when both exist. The solution $m=0$ is a local minimum for $a>0$. To choose the phase, compare free energies: using the stationary point relation $a=-bx-c{x}^2$ givesFor $b>0$, this expression is negative whenever a nonzero stationary minimum exists. The paramagnetism phase is stable for $a>0$, and the ferromagnetism phase with $m=\pm \sqrt{x_{+}}$ is stable for $a<0$. The phase transition at $a=0$, $b>0$, is continuous and second order.

For $b<0$, equality with $F(0)$ requires $x=-3b/(4c)$. Substitution into the stationary equation gives the first-order coexistence curveThe disordered phase is the global minimum above this curve, and the ordered phase is the global minimum below it. At coexistence the factorizationexhibits three equally low minima, $m=0$ and $m=\pm \sqrt{-3b/(4c)}$, proving the discontinuous jump.

The ordered spinodal is $a=b^2/(4c)$, $b<0$, where its local minimum meets the intervening local maximum. The disordered spinodal is $a=0$, $b<0$. Thus the ordered phase is metastable for $a_{\mathrm{t}}<a<b^2/(4c)$; the disordered phase is metastable for $0<a<a_{\mathrm{t}}$. These spinodals are limits of metastability, not equilibrium transition curves.

The first-order curve meets the continuous transition line at the tricritical point $(a,b)=(0,0)$. On the specially tuned path $b=0$, the equilibrium ordered solution is $m=\pm (-a/c{)}^{1/4}$ for $a<0$ and tends continuously to zero at the origin.

Strong geological magnetic anomalies generally occur in rocks containing abundant strongly magnetic iron oxides, especially magnetite and titanomagnetite. Many mafic rocks, including basalt and gabbro, and some ultramafic rocks have large signatures; magnetite-rich iron formations can be exceptionally strong, while serpentinization can create additional magnetite. Actual magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization, rather than the rock name alone, determine the response. Sedimentary and felsic rocks are often weaker but have important exceptions.

Magnetite, titanomagnetite and maghemite exhibit strong ferrimagnetism; some pyrrhotite is also strongly magnetic. Hematite is generally much weaker in induced magnetic susceptibility, although it can carry stable remanent magnetization. Quartz and calcite have very small, usually negative, susceptibilities, and many ordinary silicates have only weak paramagnetism. A steel car exhibits strong ferromagnetism and can therefore stand out against a weakly magnetic host, but its shape and pre-existing remanent magnetization complicate the signal.^[ref]

A radical has one or more unpaired electrons. In a simple atomic orbital or molecular orbital occupancy picture, an unpaired electron occupies a spatial orbital without an opposite-spin partner in that orbital. A dot such as ${\mathrm{H}}^{\bullet }$ marks this electronic property; it does not mean a missing electron or positive electric charge. Free radicals can be neutral or charged. Terminology also has a boundary: metal ions exhibiting paramagnetism are not normally called free radicals just because they have unpaired electrons.^[ref]

Compare three species containing the same single proton. The hydrogen atom ${\mathrm{H}}^{\bullet }$ has one electron in its $1s$ atomic orbital, and is a neutral radical. The hydrogen cation ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}$ has no electrons, so no unpaired electron. The hydrogen anion ${\mathrm{H}}^{-}$ has two electrons paired in its $1s$ atomic orbital. It is charged but is not a radical in its ground state. With $N_p$ protons, $N_e$ electrons, and positive elementary charge $e$, the independent electric charge count isThe electron pair and electric charge questions require different information. An odd $N_e$ ensures that not all electrons can be paired; an even $N_e$ alone does not ensure pairing, as the molecular orbital description of molecular oxygen illustrates.

The distinction matters whenever a chemical reaction mechanism uses dots and charge signs together. Homolysis gives one bonding electron to each fragment, while heterolysis assigns both to one fragment. A radical chain reaction can pass an unpaired electron from one species to another without generating net electric charge. Detection then exploits the unpaired electron's spin and magnetic moment, rather than merely measuring whether the sample carries an electric charge.