3 ms·
If the anti/alter difference is not obvious the first time you see https://web.archive.org/web/20250716153436im_/https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/upl
by nailer 1y ago
If the anti/alter difference is not obvious the first time you see https://web.archive.org/web/20250716153436im_/https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/08163029/SEI_258285089.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20250716153436im_/https://images... look at the halo around each magnet.
- russellbeattie 1y agoThank you!! I didn't see the enlarged version of the image and was wondering if that had made a mistake.
- card_zero 1y agoIt's a New Scientist diagram, so it's still going to be wrong somehow. We have the quantum "up" and "down", which are not actual directions. The diagram has arrows pointing up or down. Redundantly, every atom with an up arrow is red and every atom with a down arrow is blue. The article also speaks of "enough atoms with magnetic moments pointing in the same direction" to create a strong field, which I think is a literal direction. Then it speaks of "magnetic arrows", presumably a term invented for the article which could mean anything. Then it also speaks of "rotated atoms". Does an atom have a direction? The diagram has oval blobs around the atoms. These rotate alternatingly in the altermagnet. But the arrows don't rotate. So what are the blobs, and what are the arrows?
- rollcat 1y agoPopular science for you. To be able to explain something, is to have a good understanding of it. To explain something in simple terms, takes much more.