Template talk:Magnetic states

Remanence

I wonder whether remanence is a good property to use in classifying magnetic states. @ReyHahn, do antiferromagnets really display remanence? My (possibly naive) theoretical intuition tells me they do not, since the domains that form in them will have internal antiferromagnetic ordering with close to zero net magnetic moment once the field is turned off. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jähmefyysikko: you are right, remanescence is for a remaining magnetic field. One alternative is to move antiferromagnetism to "non-remanescence". A second alternative is to change the category. I think we need to separate diamagnetism and paramagnetism from anything that has a frozen-magnetic structure at zero field.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the category name would probably be more useful. Find the correct word is bit tricky though. How about Induced and Spontaneous, and the latter would link to Spontaneous symmetry breaking? "Permanent" could also be an alternative for the latter, but that is harder to link without making an WP:EASTEREGG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could also be Unordered/Ordered (in the sense of having an order parameter). I feel there should be some wikilink to explain the intended meaning, but e.g. Magnetic ordering is not currently very useful for that, since the unordered and ordered states are not distinguished. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the terms "order" and "disorder" can also relate to the crystal symmetry, e.g. ferromagnetism vs asperomagnetism. Magnetic structure also does not help for the same reason. I am trying to look for a good distinction from textbooks but cannot find any.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]