3 ms·
The physics-y way to answer this question is usually to define things in terms of the scales at which it's probed. If everything you can sense with macroscopic
by jessriedel 7y ago
The physics-y way to answer this question is usually to define things in terms of the scales at which it's probed. If everything you can sense with macroscopic instruments is consistent with the liquid properties and the magnetic properties, it's a magnetic liquid. That it's "really" just solid magnets suspended in a liquid seems not much more relevant than the fact that solids are "really" fluids if you watch them on the astronomically long timescales on which they lose solid form due to tunneling.
In this case, it's a liquid magnet down to roughly the scales of the nanoparticles, which is only a bit bigger than the atomic scale on which nothing is a normal liquid.
- foobar1962 7y agoThe tunneling sounds interesting. Can you post a reference?
- jessriedel 7y agoThe example is from a Freeman Dyson paper, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242654/7911 https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/242654/7911 There are better example from condensed matter physics.