3 ms·
I 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 sa
by pdonis 3y ago
I 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.