undefined | Better HN

0 pointspdonis2y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

planede2y ago· 1 in thread

Paramagnetism/diamagnetism doesn't apply to "magnets", which I assume you use to refer to materials that have external magnetic field without applying external excitation.

pdonisOP2y 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse