Why are there not more ferromagnetic Materials?

In summary, the conversation is discussing the reasons why there are only a few solids that exhibit ferromagnetism. These reasons include the breaking of spherical symmetry in the crystal environment, which leads to orbital quenching of the magnetic moment, as well as the band structure, which inhibits spin polarization due to the kinetic energy cost associated with moving electrons from lower-energy filled states to higher-energy unoccupied states. This results in most solids not being ferromagnetic. The connection between these two factors and the cost of kinetic energy for spin flipping is explained, ultimately leading to the understanding that it is the movement of electrons to higher energy states that results in the inhibition of spin polarization.
  • #1
JanSpintronics
32
2
Hellooo

I have another questions about that fact that we have only a few solids that are ferromagnetic. In ferromagnetics i also read a few time ago it is important to consider 2 things about the reason why there is no magnetizaion. And i don't really understand both reasons, so i hope you can help me. So the both things are:

1. "The hybridization breaks spherical spherical symmetry for the environment of each atom, which tends to quench any orbital component of the magnetic moment."
So i don't see really why the case of no spherical movement of an electron will give less orbital magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of the electron is defined by its motion around a core and this motion will be still a motion around the core.

2. "Bandstructure also inhibits spin polarization. If one starts with a system of unpolarized electrons and imagines flipping spins to create alignment, then there is a kinetic-energy cost associated with moving electrons from lower-energy filled band states to higher-energy unoccupied band states. As a result, most solids are not ferromagnetic."

So i read that 2. sentence a thousand times but i really don't understand it...or what the author meant...
So far i know the consider a band with an unpolarized spin and than he imagines spin flipping of some electron in this band (correct?). Then he says its cost kinetic energy to move an electron from the lower band to the higher bbut what's the connection to the spin flipping and why does it cost kinetic energy besides the potentiell energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
JanSpintronics said:
1. "The hybridization breaks spherical spherical symmetry for the environment of each atom, which tends to quench any orbital component of the magnetic moment."
So i don't see really why the case of no spherical movement of an electron will give less orbital magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of the electron is defined by its motion around a core and this motion will be still a motion around the core.
To begin, your quote from an unnamed source speaks of the "spherical symmetry of the environment" which you then took upon yourself to recast as "spherical movement of an electron" (a statement that is problematic in and of itself, but one that I am not going to address.) If we focus on what the author actually said, he is alluding to orbital quenching which takes place when the crystal field environment from the surrounding lattice (which is not spherically symmetric) is larger than the spin orbit interaction, thereby overriding Hund's 3rd rule. The simple hand-wavy explanation as to why this leads to orbital quenching is that the orbital components precess in the crystal field which result in them averaging to zero: ##<L_{i}> = 0## for ##i = x,y,z##. The non hand-wavy, mathematical reason why you get orbital quenching is entirely due to the fact that the crystal field Hamiltonian is real, ie: no imaginary component. That is quite a spectacular result when you stop to think about it. It is also straightforward to see why this leads to quenching. Namely, a real Hamiltonian guarantees that one can write out a full set of real eiganstates. However, since the crystal field Hamiltonian commutes with ##L_{i}## these eigenstates still carry a factor ##e^{im_{l}\phi}##. Thus, in order for the eigenstate to be real, linear combinations are required of ##\pm m_l## so that the complex exponentials take the form of cosines or sines, which in turn leads to our desired result of ##<L_{i}> = 0##.

JanSpintronics said:
consider a band with an unpolarized spin and than he imagines spin flipping of some electron in this band (correct?)
That is correct.

JanSpintronics said:
Then he says its cost kinetic energy to move an electron from the lower band to the higher bbut what's the connection to the spin flipping
If you have a band that is full up to the Fermi energy, then this implies that each filled energy state includes both a spin up and spin down electron. This means you cannot just flip an electrons spin while simultaneously leaving it in the same energy state, that would break the exclusion principle. Thus, if you want to flip its spin, then you need to move it to a free energy state. Since all the states are filled up to the Fermi energy, this guarantees that it will cost extra energy to move it above the Fermi energy.

JanSpintronics said:
why does it cost kinetic energy besides the potentiell energy?
The main take away is that the electron will need to move to a higher energy state, and that will cost energy. The bands themselves already encapsulate both the kinetic energy of the electrons and the potential energy from the lattice (at the very least). Indeed, depending on what new state the electron moves to, its own kinetic energy could increase or decrease, but its total energy will definitely go up. The question then is, who is supplying this energy and in what form? Thermal fluctuations are the typical culprit and they are kinetic at heart.
 
  • Like
Likes Torbert and JanSpintronics

1. Why are there not more ferromagnetic materials?

Ferromagnetism is a property exhibited by certain materials where they can become permanently magnetized when exposed to an external magnetic field. However, not all materials have this property due to their atomic and molecular structures. In order for a material to be ferromagnetic, it must have unpaired electrons in its outermost energy level. This is not a common occurrence, which is why there are not many ferromagnetic materials.

2. Can any material be made ferromagnetic?

No, not all materials can be made ferromagnetic. As mentioned before, a material must have unpaired electrons in its outermost energy level to be ferromagnetic. This is a natural property of the material and cannot be altered. Additionally, some materials may exhibit ferromagnetism at low temperatures, but lose this property at higher temperatures due to changes in their atomic structure.

3. Are there any benefits of having more ferromagnetic materials?

Yes, there are several benefits of having more ferromagnetic materials. These materials are commonly used in the production of magnets, which have a wide range of applications such as in motors, generators, and magnetic storage devices. Having more ferromagnetic materials would allow for more efficient and versatile use of magnets in various industries.

4. Are there any ongoing research efforts to discover new ferromagnetic materials?

Yes, there are ongoing research efforts to discover new ferromagnetic materials. Scientists are constantly studying the properties of different materials and searching for ways to manipulate their atomic and molecular structures to make them ferromagnetic. This research is crucial in expanding our understanding of materials and potentially discovering new and useful ferromagnetic materials.

5. Can ferromagnetic materials be harmful to humans?

Ferromagnetic materials are not inherently harmful to humans. However, some of these materials may contain toxic substances, which can be harmful if ingested or inhaled. Additionally, strong magnetic fields produced by these materials can be dangerous for individuals with certain medical devices such as pacemakers. It is important to handle ferromagnetic materials with caution and follow proper safety protocols.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
911
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top