Government College University, Faisalabad

Physics Department

M. Phil Physics 2nd (E) Sub section 2

PHY-720-Magnetic Materials

Assignment 1 Total Marks 50;

Deadline: May 1st, 2020

Roll No.1025

Explain the following topics briefly:

1. Review of diamagnetism and
paramagnetism.
Diamagnetism
Diamagnetism is an inherent property of the orbital motion of the individual
electron in a field. Since it is even a weaker effect than paramagnetism, it is only
observed when the atom does not have a net spin or orbital moment. The orbital
motion even though compensated sets up a field opposite to the applied field in a
manner similar to the back emf of Lenz's Law. The effect leads to a negative
susceptibility or the actual lowering of the net moment in the material as an
external field is applied. Diamagnetism is so weak an effect that a small
paramagnetic impurity can Offer mask out the effect.

Diamagnetism is a very weak form of magnetism that is nonpermanent and

persists only while an external field is being applied. It is induced by a change in
the orbital motion of electrons due to an applied magnetic field. The magnitude of
the induced magnetic moment is extremely small and in a direction opposite to that
of the applied field. Thus, the relative permeability is less than unity (however,
only very slightly), and the magnetic susceptibility is negative—that is, the
magnitude of the B field within a diamagnetic Solid is less than that in a vacuum.
When placed between the poles of a strong electro-magnet, diamagnetic materials
are attracted toward regions where the field is weak.

Figure 1a illustrates schematically the atomic magnetic dipole configurations for a

diamagnetic material with and without an external field; here, the arrows represent
atomic dipole moments, whereas for the preceding discussion, arrows denoted only
electron moments. The dependence of B on the external field H for a material that
exhibits diamagnetic behavior is presented in Figure 2. Table 1 gives the
susceptibilities of several diamagnetic materials. Diamagnetism is found in all
materials, but because it is so weak, it can be observed only when other types of
magnetism are totally absent. This form of magnetism is of no practical
importance.

Paramagnetism
For some solid materials, each atom possesses a permanent dipole moment by
virtue of incomplete cancellation of electron spin and/or orbital magnetic moments.
In the absence of an external magnetic field, the orientations of these atomic
magnetic moments are random, such that a piece of material possesses no net
macroscopic magnetization. These atomic dipoles are free to rotate, and
paramagnetism results when they preferentially align, by rotation, with an external
field as shown in Figure 1b. These magnetic dipoles are acted on individually with
no mutual interaction between adjacent dipoles. In as much as the dipoles align
with the external field, they enhance it, giving rise to a relative permeability that is
greater than unity and to a relatively small but positive magnetic susceptibility. A
schematic B-versus-H curve for a paramagnetic material is shown in Figure 2.

Both diamagnetic and paramagnetic materials are considered nonmagnetic because

they exhibit magnetization only when in the presence of an external field. Also, for
both, the flux density B within them is almost the same as it would be in a vacuum.
Figure 1 (a) the atomic dipole configuration for a diamagnetic material with
and without a magnetic field. In the absence of an external field, no dipoles
exist; in the presence of a field, dipoles are induced that are aligned opposite
to the field direction. (b) Atomic dipole configuration with and without an
external magnetic field for a paramagnetic material.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the flux density B versus the magnetic field
strength H for diamagnetic and paramagnetic material.

Table 1.Room-Temperature Magnetic Susceptibilities for Diamagnetic and

Paramagnetic material.

2. Magnetic moments
If a system of charged particles is rotating, it has a magnetic moment
proportional to its angular momentum, a result from classical
electrodynamics sometimes known as the Larmor theorem. Consider a
 particle of mass Mand charge q moving in a circle of radius r with speed v
and frequency f =v/2(3.14)r; this constitutes a current loop. The angular
momentum of the particle is L= Mvr. The magnetic moment of the current
loop is the product of the current and the area of the loop. For a circulating
charge, the current is the charge times the frequency,

and the magnetic moment is

From Figure 1 we see that, if q is positive, the magnetic moment is in the same
direction as the angular momentum. If q is negative, -and L point in opposite
directions, that is, they are antiparallel.

Above equation, which we have derived for a single particle moving in a circle,
also holds for a system of particles in any type of motion if the charge-to-mass
ratio q/M is the same for each particle in the system.

The behavior of a system with a magnetic moment -in an external (to the sys-tem)
magnetic field B can be visualized by considering a small bar magnet (Figure 2).
When placed in an external magnetic field B, the bar magnet’s magnetic moment
experiences a torque that tends to align the magnet with the field B. If the magnet
is spinning about its axis, the effect of the torque is to make the spin axis precess
about the direction of the external field, just as a spinning top or gyroscope
precesses about the direction of the gravitational field. To change the orientation of
the magnet relative to the applied field direction (whether or not it is spinning),
work must be done on it. If it is moved through angle , the work required is

The potential energy of the magnetic moment in the magnetic field B can thus

be written

Figure 1. A particle moving in a circle has angular momentum L. If the particle has
a positive charge, the magnetic moment due to the current is parallel to L.
Figure 2. Bar-magnet model of magnetic moment. (a) In an external magnetic
field, the moment experiences a torque that tends to align it with the field. If the
magnet is spinning (b), the torque causes the system to precess around the external
field.

3. Magnetic Dipoles
A magnetic dipole is the limit of either a closed loop of electric current or
pair of poles as the size of the source is reduced to zero while keeping the
magnetic moment constant.
It is magnetic analogue of the electric dipole , but analogy is not perfect. In
particular, the magnetic analogue of electric charge, has never been
observed. Moreover, one form of magnetic dipole moment is associated with
a fundamental quantum property , the spin of elementary particles.
The magnetic field around any magnetic source look like the field of a
magnetic dipole as the distance from the source increases.
External magnetic field produced by a magnetic
dipole moment

An electrostatic analogue for a magnetic moment two opposing charges

separated by a finite distance. Each arrow represents the direction of the
field vector at that point.
The magnetic field of a current loop. The current loop , which goes into the
page at the x and comes out at the dot.
In classical physics, the magnetic field of a dipole is calculated as the limit
of either a current loop or a pair of charges as the source shrinks to a point
while keeping the magnetic moment constant. For the current loop, this limit
is most easily derived for the vector potential. Outside of the source region,
this potential is (in SI units)

With 4(3.14)r2 being the surface of a surface of radius r.

And the magnetic flux density(strength of the B-field) in tesla is

Equivalently,

In spherical coordinates with the magnetic moment aligned with the Z-axis,
then this relation can be expressed as
Alternatively one can obtain the scalar potential first from the magnetic pole
limit,

And hence the magnetic field strength H in ampere turns per meter is

The magnetic field is symmetric under rotations about the axis of the
magnetic moment.
Internal magnetic field of a dipole
The two models for a dipole (current loop and magnetic poles) give the same
predictions for the magnetic field far from the source. However, inside the
source region the give different predictions . The magnetic field between
poles is opposite direction to the magnetic moment (which point from
negative charge to positive charge) , while inside the current loop it is in the
same direction. Clearly, the limit of these fields must also be different as the
source shrink to zero size. The distinction only matters if the dipole limit is
used to calculate fields inside a magnetic material.
If a dipole is formed by making a current loop smaller and smaller , but
keeping the product of current and area constant , the limiting field B is

The limit is correct for the internal field of the dipole.

If a magnetic dipole is formed by taking a north pole and a south pole
bringing them closer and closer together but keeping the product of magnetic
pole-charge and distance constant , the limiting field H is
 These fields are related by

Where M is the magnetization.

4.Magnetic parameters and their relation

To study magnetic properties , we describe magnetic behavior in terms of
several field vectors.
Magnetic field strength
The externally applied magnetic field, sometimes called the magnetic field
strength ,is designated by H. If the magnetic field is generated by means of a
cylindrical coil (or solenoid) consisting of N closely spaced turns having a
length land carrying a current of magnitude I, then

This is Magnetic field strength within a coil dependence on number of

turns, applied current, and coil length.
A schematic diagram of such an arrangement is shown in Figure 1. The
magnetic field that is generated by the current loop and the bar magnet in
Figure 2. is an H field. The units of Hare ampere-turns per meter, or just
amperes per meter.

Figure 1 (a) The magnetic field has generated by a cylindrical coil is

dependent on the current I, the number of turns N, and the coil length l,
according to above equation. The magnetic flux density B0 is in the presence
of a vacuum. (b) The magnetic flux density B is within a solid material.

Figure 2. The magnetic moment as designated by an arrow.

Magnetic Induction or Magnetic field strength
The magnetic induction, or magnetic flux density, denoted by B, represents
the magnitude of the internal field strength within a substance that is
subjected to an H field. The units for Bare teslas [or webers per square meter
(Wb/m2)]. Both B and H are field vectors, being characterized not only by
magnitude, but also by direction in space.
The magnetic field strength and flux density are related according to
This is Magnetic flux density in a material dependence on permeability and
magnetic field strength.
Permeability
The permeability is a property of the specific medium through which the H
field passes and in which B is measured, as illustrated in Figure 1b.
The permeability has dimensions of webers per ampere-meter (Wb/Am) or
henries per meter (H/m).
Magnetic flux density In a vacuum,

Several parameters may be used to describe the magnetic properties of

solids. One of these is the ratio of the permeability in a material to the
permeability in a vacuum, or

This is called the relative permeability ,which is unit less . The permeability
or relative permeability of a material is a measure of the degree to which the
material can be magnetized, or the ease with which a B field can be induced
in the presence of an external H field.
Magnetization
Another field quantity, M, called the magnetization of the solid, is defined
by the expression
This is Magnetic flux density as a function of magnetic field strength and
magnetization of a material. In the presence of an H field, the magnetic
moments within a material tend to become aligned with the field and to
reinforce it by virtue of their magnetic fields .
The magnitude of M is proportional to the applied field as follows:

Magnetization of a material depends on susceptibility and magnetic field

strength.
Magnetic susceptibility
Xm is called the magnetic susceptibility, which is unit less. The magnetic
susceptibility and the relative permeability are related as follows

There is a dielectric analogue for each of the foregoing magnetic field

parameters. The B and H fields are, respectively, analogous to the dielectric
displacement D and the electric field , whereas the permeability is analogous
to the permittivity. Furthermore, the magnetization M and polarization P are
correlates. Magnetic units may be a source of confusion because there are
really two systems in common use. The ones used thus far are SI
[rationalized MKS(meter-kilogram-second)]; the others come from the cgs-
emu(centimeter-gram-second–electromagnetic unit) system. The units for
both systems as well as the appropriate conversion factors are given in Table
1.
 Table 1.Magnetic Units and Conversion Factors for the SI and cgs–emu
Systems.
4. Pauli paramagnetism. Wave functions of
magnetic ions (3d, 4f);
Pauli paramagnetism is the tendency of electrons to align with an
external magnetic field. The magnetic field at which Pauli paramagnetic
splits occur is known as the critical field or the Clogston-Chandrasekhar
limit.
For some alkali metals and noble metals, conduction electrons are weakly
interacting and delocalized in space forming a Fermi gas.
For these materials one contribution to the magnetic response comes from
interaction between the electron spin between the electron spins and
magnetic field known as Pauli paramagnetism.
For a small magnetic field H the additional energy per electron from the
interaction between an electron spin and the magnetic field is given by:

This energy depends on vacuum permeability, the electron magnetic

moment, Bohr magnetron ,Planck constant , g-factor and spin s, where g-
factor cancels with the spin S. The + indicates that the sign is positive
(negative) when the electron spin component in the direction of H is parallel
(antiparallel) to the magnetic field.

In a meta , the application of an external magnetic field increases the density

of electrons with spins antiparallel with field and lowers the density of
electrons with opposite spin. Note: The arrows in this picture indicate
magnetic moment, not spin direction.
For low temperatures with respect to the Fermi temperature TF (around 104
Kelvins for metals) the number density of electrons pointing parallel to the
magnetic field can be written as:

With ne the total free electron density of states (number of states per energy
per volume) at the Fermi energy.
In this approximation the magnetization is given as the magnetic moment of
one electron times the difference in densities:

Which yields a positive paramagnetic susceptibility independent of

temperature:
The Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility is a macroscopic effect and has to be
contrasted with Landau diamagnetic susceptibility which is equal to minus
one third of Pauli’s and comes from delocalized electrons. The Pauli
susceptibility comes from the spin interaction with the magnetic field while
the Landau susceptibility comes from the spatial motion of electrons and it is
independent of the spin. In doped semiconductors the ratio between
Landau’s and Pauli’s susceptibilities changes as the effective mass of the
charge carriers can differ from the electron mass me.
The magnetic response calculated for a gas of electrons is not the full picture
as the magnetic susceptibility coming from the ions has to be included.
Additionally, these formulas may breakdown from the bulk, like quantum
dots, or for high fields, as demonstrated in the de Haas-van Alphen effect.
Pauli paramagnetism is named after the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Before
Pauli’s theory the lack of strong curie paramagnetism in metals was an open
problem as the leading model could not account for this contribution without
the use of quantum statistics.
6.spin-orbit coupling
The equation for the energy splitting ∆ℰ due to spin-orbit interaction was
first derived in 1926 by Llewellyn Thomas, using Bohr’s model of the
hydrogen atom, Schrödinger’s quantum mechanics, and relativistic
kinematics . This result turned out to be in complete agreement with the
predictions of Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics, which was formulated
two years later (1928). The Thomas result may be written as
 Here 𝑉𝑉(𝑟𝑟) is the potential energy of the electron at distance 𝑟𝑟 from the
nucleus, and 𝑳 is the orbital angular momentum of the electron, which, in
Bohr’s classical model, moves in a circular orbit of radius 𝑟 with velocity 𝒗
in the presence of the electric field 𝑬 of the nucleus. In the
Gaussian system of units, the relation between the magnetic dipole moment
𝝁 and the spin angular momentum 𝒔 of the electron is

In the above equation, 𝑚𝑚 is the mass and 𝑒𝑒 (a negative entity) is the

charge of the electron, 𝑐is the speed of light in vacuum, and 𝑔≅2 is the 𝑔-
factor associated with the electron’s spin magnetic moment. According to
Thomas, the interaction energy 𝑈𝑈 between the magnetic moment 𝝁 of the
electron and the effective magnetic field 𝑩
′ ≅−(𝒗/𝑐)×𝑬 (obtained by a relativistic transformation of the field 𝑬 of the
nucleus to the rest-frame of the electron) is

After quantization of 𝒔 and 𝑳, and aside from the so-called Thomas factor,
the interaction energy 𝑈 of above Eq. assumes the form of ∆ℰ given by Eq.(1). For
the convenience of the reader, we will derive this result in the following sections.

At the time Thomas proposed his model, it was expected that 𝑈 had to be added to
the basic quantized energy value ℰ𝑛𝑛 obtained via Bohr’s model and
Schrödinger’s wave equation. (Caution: The subscript 𝑛 of ℰ𝑛 refers to the 𝑛th
energy level, whereas the subscript 𝓃 of 𝑬 is a reminder that the 𝐸-field is that of
the nucleus.) Thus, after quantization, 𝑈 in principle should coincide precisely with
the experimentally observed shift in energy given by Eq.(1). The choice of 𝑈 given
by Eq.(3), however, leads to a spin-orbit coupling energy that is twice as large as
that in Eq.(1). In order to obtain the correct ½ factor, Thomas resorted to special
relativity and tracked the successive relativistic transformations of the electron’s
rest-frame in its circular orbit. By incorporating the contribution of this relativistic
precession, Thomas was able to derive the correct interaction energy, ½𝑈, in the
rest-frame of the electron.Although the Thomas ½ factor is fully explained by
Dirac’s equation, most physics textbooks prefer to describe the spin-orbit
interaction in simpler terms using the Thomas model, thus avoiding the more
complex formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics. In the words of W.H. Furry
, ―the original method that was used before the invention of the present quantum
mechanics…is lacking in rigor, but it does provide a physical picture for the effect.
As long as physics is unfinished business, and physicists must invent approximate
models to try to account for unexplained phenomena, the study of arguments of
this sort will be important in the physicist’s education.‖

In the context of the above history of developments, the present paper aims to
introduce an alternative approach to calculating ∆ℰ based on a semi-classical
model of hydrogen-like atoms(similar to that of Bohr), but with the magnetic
dipole-moment 𝝁 of the electron and its related interaction energy 𝑈 explicitly
taken into account. Keeping the treatment in the rest-frame of the nucleus, we
show that, in our approach, the factor ½ emerges naturally and without the need to
introduce the Thomas precession. Our model represents an alternative to that of
Thomas, which, while corroborating his result, provides a simple yet intuitive
interpretation of the origin of the spin-orbit interaction energy. The present paper
may thus be regarded as a novel application of classical electrodynamics to
quantum physics and its interpretation. Our treatment of spin-orbit coupling in
hydrogen-like atoms may be summarized as follows. In its steady-state of motion,
the electron revolves around the nucleus in a circular orbit in the 𝑥-plane, with its
magnetic dipole-moment 𝝁 aligned either parallel or anti-parallel to the 𝑧𝑧-axis.
Thus, in the rest-frame of the nucleus, not only does the electron have a magnetic
dipole-moment 𝜇, but also a (relativistically-induced) electric dipole-moment
𝓹=𝓅𝒓=(𝒗/𝑐)×𝝁, pointing radially inward or outward, depending on the sign of 𝜇.
The nucleus exerts a Coulomb force on the charge 𝑒𝑒 of the electron, as well as a
(much weaker) force on the dipoles 𝝁 and 𝓹. While the Coulomb force is always
attractive, the force of the nuclear 𝐸𝐸-field on the dipole pair could be attractive or
repulsive, depending on whether 𝝁 is aligned with or against the 𝑧-axis. We take
the orbital radius of our classical electron circling the nucleus to be fixed by the
attractive Coulomb force of the nucleus on the charge 𝑒𝑒 of the electron. The
perturbing force arising from the action of the nuclear 𝐸-field on the dipoles 𝝁 and
𝓹 thus affects only the velocity of the electron in its orbit. The resulting change in
the kinetic energy of the electron turns out to be one-half the interaction energy
−𝓹∙𝑬𝓃 between the nuclear 𝐸-field and the dipoles 𝝁 and 𝓹. (Note that there is no
magnetic field 𝑩 in the rest-frame of the nucleus and that, therefore, the interaction
energy −𝝁∙𝑩 is zero.) The bottom line is that only one-half of the spin-orbit
interaction energy will be available for exchange with an absorbed or emitted
photon; the remaining half is needed to adjust the electron’s kinetic energy of
rotation around the nucleus. This simple mechanism provides the conceptual basis
for arriving at the Thomas ½ factor in the rest-frame of the nucleus without
invoking Thomas’s precession.

The search for the origin of the Thomas ½ factor in the rest-frame of the nucleus
(including an examination of the role of the induced electric dipole moment 𝓹) has
a long and distinguished history. In this connection, previous efforts have typically
aimed at clarifying the spin dynamics in the rest-frame of the nucleus, thus helping
to relate the behavior of the magnetic moment 𝝁 of the electron in its own rest-
frame to that in the rest-frame of the nucleus. To our knowledge, no previous
investigator has dismissed Thomas’s original argument in favor of an alternative
mechanism acting directly in the rest-frame of the nucleus; a mechanism that
would reduce the spin-orbit energy by the desired ½ factor. In contrast, the premise
of the present paper is that Thomas’s precession, being a kinematic effect in the
rest-frame of the electron, cannot account for the observed ½ factor. Instead, we
propose that the action of the nuclear 𝐸-field on 𝝁 and 𝓹 (within the rest-frame of
the nucleus) produces a change in the kinetic energy of the electron, which suffices
to explain the observed spin-orbit coupling energy.

7.crystal field effects

The crystal field theory (CFT) developed by Bethe [1] long ago was utilized by

physicists to explain magnetic properties and absorption spectra of transition

metals and other compounds. CFT treats the interaction between the metal ion and
the ligands as a purely electrostatic problem in which the ligand atoms or
molecules are considered to be mere point charges (or point dipoles). In spite of
this oversimplification CFT provides a very simple and easy way of treating
numerically many aspects of the electronic structure of complexes .The purpose of
this paper is to investigate an even simpler CFT model were the electrostatic
repulsion between the 3d electrons (assumed to be non interacting) and the ligands
is represented by a Dirac delta function in three dimensions centered at the ligand
positions. Although this extremely short-range interaction may appear to be rather
too unrealistic at first sight some of the results are surprisingly reasonable.

Crystal field

Estimate of strength of crystal field

Crystal field vs. Hund’s rule

Quenching of orbital momentum

Strength of crystal field effect

In short it describes the effect of the electric field of neighboring ions on energies
of the valance orbitals of an ion in a crystal.