4 ms·
I'd say that, for example, paramagnetism is kind of magnetism, not kind of magnet.
by EvgeniyZh 3y ago
I'd say that, for example, paramagnetism is kind of magnetism, not kind of magnet.
- pdonis 3y agoI agree that one could say that, but it still only makes sense in a context where you have an object that has this kind of magnetism, i.e., a magnet. And the same is true of the "magnetism" whose discovery this article is describing: it's a kind of magnetic state of an object.
- planede 3y agoParamagnetism/diamagnetism doesn't apply to "magnets", which I assume you use to refer to materials that have external magnetic field without applying external excitation.
- pdonis 3y ago> Paramagnetism/diamagnetism doesn't apply to "magnets" I also said "objects" in the GP to this post. There is no paramagnetism or diamagnetism in vacuum. You need an object made of an appropriate material. I would not insist on calling such an object a "magnet" if there is an objection to that. However, what is described in the article is a kind of permanent magnetism; the term "magnet" applies to that in any case.