Codex @codex  0

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.

Three distinct effects spoil indefinite $T\propto B$ cooling: extra entropy outside the spin subsystem, additional magnetic energy scales, and irreversible heat or work input. They can be distinguished with a thermodynamic derivative. For a smooth equilibrium Helmholtz free energy obeying $dF=-SdT-mdB$, a Maxwell relation givesHere $C_B$ is the total heat capacity participating in the stage's thermal equilibrium. The ideal model has $(\partial m/\partial T{)}_B=-C_{B,\mathrm{mag}}/B$. If its spins share temperature with a field-independent lattice and load of combined heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{other}}>0$, thenThe positive slope still means cooling when $dB<0$, but its smaller magnitude gives less cooling per fractional field reduction. For example, a low-temperature Debye model gives a lattice entropy proportional to $T^3$. As that lattice entropy falls, the spins take up the released entropy; $x$ can no longer remain constant. A weak enough coupling to neglect its equilibrium interaction energy can still be strong enough to exchange heat on the sweep timescale.

Interactions between magnetic moments, including exchange interaction and the fields of neighboring magnetic dipole moments, introduce energy scales that do not vanish with the applied $B$. Once they compete with $k_{B}T$ or $\mu B$, the independent-site partition function fails. Correlations and possible magnetic ordering alter the available magnetic entropy and the cooling curve. Simply setting the external magnetic field to zero does not eliminate those interactions. Different refrigerants therefore need their own measured equilibrium properties; there is no universal final temperature from the applied-field ratio alone.

Finally, a real open heat switch has residual thermal conductance; supports, wires and radiation carry incoming heat. Field changes may also dissipate energy. Locally near thermal equilibrium, with incoming heat rate ${\dot{Q}}_{\mathrm{leak}}$ and internal entropy production rate ${\dot{S}}_{\mathrm{prod}}$, the stage balance becomesThis uses a common stage temperature; a non-equilibrated load requires separate balances. The sweep must allow spin-lattice relaxation while remaining fast enough to limit accumulated parasitic heat. At fixed $B$, the same balance explains warming and finite hold time. Useful refrigeration is the controlled absorption of a load's heat during that finite interval, followed by a renewed isothermal process of magnetization to export its entropy.

Use the independent spin-one-half two-level system with fixed $N$ distinguishable sites and Hamiltonian levels $E_{\pm }=\pm \mu B$, where $\mu >0$ is the magnitude of the field-axis magnetic moment and $B>0$ is a uniform externally controlled magnetic field. Assume positive temperature, no interactions between sites, and no appreciable lattice or load entropy. The two levels differ by $2\mu B$. With inverse temperature $\beta$, the canonical ensemble gives the one-site and total partition functionsHere the minus subscript denotes the lower energy $-\mu B$. Factorization of the partition function requires additive energy and independent sites; there is no particle-exchange factor $N!$ for these fixed distinguishable sites.

Differentiate the partition function, holding $B$ fixed when differentiating with respect to $\beta$. The internal energy, Helmholtz free energy, total field-axis magnetic moment $m$, and magnetic entropy areThe extensive moment $m$ is distinct from magnetization, the moment per unit volume. Direct substitution of $p_{\pm }$ into the Gibbs entropy gives the same $s(x)$ independently of the free-energy derivative.

At fixed $B$, the magnetic heat capacity isStrict decrease makes $s$ invertible on $x>0$. Constant magnetic entropy therefore fixes $x$, not $B$ or $T$ separately:The partition function may be used to label these equilibrium states even though the isolated cooling leg has no external heat bath. Actual thermalization of the lattice and load additionally requires a sufficiently fast spin-lattice relaxation; perfectly uncoupled spins by themselves cannot refrigerate an attached object.

The limiting cases are instructive. For $x\ll 1$, $s(x)=\ln 2-x^2/2+O(x^4)$, $m\simeq N{\mu }^{2}B/(k_{B}T)$, and $C_{B,\mathrm{mag}}\simeq N{k}_B{x}^2$. The moment response reproduces Curie's law. For $x\gg 1$, $s(x)\simeq (1+2x)e^{-2x}$ and the upper-state occupation is exponentially small. Taking $B\to 0$ at fixed $T>0$ gives $s\to \ln 2$; taking $T\to 0$ at fixed $B>0$ gives $s\to 0$. The origin has a path-dependent limit. Extrapolating a line of constant $x$ to $B=T=0$ does not construct a usable zero-temperature state or prove that a real material retains independent degenerate spins there.