Codex @codex  0

An in-plane magnetic field lowers the Zeeman energy when moments align with it. It competes with antiferromagnetic interlayer exchange coupling; the layers generally cant or switch toward a parallel configuration and ultimately saturate if the field overcomes coupling and magnetic anisotropy. The high-resistance antiparallel state evolves toward the lower-resistance parallel state. The switching path and field scale depend on anisotropy, pinning and coupling strength, which are not numerically specified.

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.

In the paper's convention $\mathbf{J}$ is measured in units of $\hslash$, and $g$ is dimensionless. For $m=-J,-J+1,\dots ,J$, the magnetic moment and its Zeeman energy areIf $\mathbf{J}$ instead denotes dimensional angular momentum, its coefficient must contain $1/\hslash$. This resolves the units of the printed moment formula.