Is "micromagnetics" an excuse to rebrand old physics as something new? What is the motivation? All materials magetic phenomena is "micro". Lots of good device physicists have used mean field theories and everything else for half a century of mag memory development.
Micromagnetics was coined by William Fuller J. Brown. It is a continuum theory of magnetism, and generally phenomenological (which is probably the most important thing about it). The point of it being "micromagnetism" is that it works on micro/nano scales, where it is sufficiently large to not explode your computer (at least these days) but small enough that you can see detail without having to interact with the lattice structure directly. Maxwell's equations are fine, but they are generally too macro to be used for what we want. Quantum theory is excellent, unless your system is not teeny tiny. Micromagnetism is a middleground, and designed specifically to investigate the phenomena at those scales. If you would like to control things precisely at the scales we care about, micromagnetics is generally where you go. The other option is domain theory. The other things you mention aren't bad, they just have different uses.
I will add a quote from Hubert and Schafer (1998): "It should be mentioned that the term “micromagnetic” is getting fashionable also outside the range of its original description. Almost every magnetic investigation that touches microscopical aspects is found to be called “micro-magnetic” (some recent examples are [39-41]). We stick (in agreement with still the vast majority of authors) with the classical definition of W.F. Brown [34], restricting the term micromagnetics to the continuum theory of magnetically ordered materials, to the second level in Fig. 1.5."
@@hOREP245 "Terms of art" coined in conjunction with some certain applied formalism in engineering physics can often seem contrived and trendy, but if that formalism actually provides a powerful tool in predictive modeling in that application, then I suppose it is justified. Would you say that is the case here?
![L0PB Introduction to Spintronics: Basics of Magnetostatics [ENG]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mQ1FjQfwpTY/mqdefault.jpg)
Nice lecture , if we decreases the temperature why exchange coupling length decreases and lower the exchange coupling effect.
Excellent lecture!
Excellent lecture.
Is "micromagnetics" an excuse to rebrand old physics as something new? What is the motivation? All materials magetic phenomena is "micro". Lots of good device physicists have used mean field theories and everything else for half a century of mag memory development.
Micromagnetics was coined by William Fuller J. Brown. It is a continuum theory of magnetism, and generally phenomenological (which is probably the most important thing about it). The point of it being "micromagnetism" is that it works on micro/nano scales, where it is sufficiently large to not explode your computer (at least these days) but small enough that you can see detail without having to interact with the lattice structure directly.
Maxwell's equations are fine, but they are generally too macro to be used for what we want. Quantum theory is excellent, unless your system is not teeny tiny. Micromagnetism is a middleground, and designed specifically to investigate the phenomena at those scales. If you would like to control things precisely at the scales we care about, micromagnetics is generally where you go. The other option is domain theory.
The other things you mention aren't bad, they just have different uses.
I will add a quote from Hubert and Schafer (1998):
"It should be mentioned that the term “micromagnetic” is getting fashionable also outside the range of its original description. Almost every magnetic investigation that touches microscopical aspects is found to be called “micro-magnetic” (some recent examples are [39-41]). We stick (in agreement with still the vast majority of authors) with the classical definition of W.F. Brown [34], restricting the term micromagnetics to the continuum theory of magnetically ordered materials, to the second level in Fig. 1.5."
@@hOREP245 "Terms of art" coined in conjunction with some certain applied formalism in engineering physics can often seem contrived and trendy, but if that formalism actually provides a powerful tool in predictive modeling in that application, then I suppose it is justified. Would you say that is the case here?