Talk:Bohr–Van Leeuwen theorem

Physics C‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restricted to thermal equilibrium?

Is this proof simply saying there is no magnetism in a classical system that is in thermal equilibrium? That sounds plausible. The usual example of a classically produced magnetic field, a solenoid (perhaps powered by any classic electrostatic generator), persists only while work is being done (i.e., while parts of the total system are very far from thermal equilibrium), and the field dissipates if the device is left to run down. However, the wording of the article (esp. introduction) seems to imply something stronger than this (i.e., that by thermodynamic argument, magnetism is not possible at all in the first place in any entirely classical system, so even a solenoid would not work except thanks to the quantum nature of the particles it is made of). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theorem does say that there can't be any magnetism in solids - diamagnetism, paramagnetism or ferromagnetism - but I don't know if it rules out a magnetic moment in a solenoid. In view of this, I have made a more cautious statement in diamagnetism. --RockMagnetist (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis for assuming thermodynamic equilibrium. For example, in what sense could electrons be in thermodynamic equilibrium with atomic nuclei? Maybe the existence of magnetic fields simply implies a deviation from a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? After all, one would think that the presence of a magnetic field would change the probability that some particle would have some momentum at some particular position. Such changes would be systematic in the sense that particular motions are to be preferred than others, particularly around the axis of the magnetic moment or around induced magnetic moments.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a solid, electrons can be in thermal equilibrium in the sense that they occupy energy levels with the correct Boltzmann statistics. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Proof - energy dependence

"Since the distribution of motions does not depend on the energy" Shouldn't this instead read: "Since the distribution of motions depends on the energy which is, in turn, independent of the field"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.211.85 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. To avoid repeating earlier text, I shortened it to "does not depend on the magnetic field". RockMagnetist (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAGNETISM IS LIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.147.148 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Proof

It is written "The above equation shows that the magnetic moment is a linear function of the position coordinates". I guess it is a typo? According to the rest of the proof, being linear function in coordinate is irrelevant, it is the fact of being a linear function of the "velocity" that matters. Could someone check? Gamebm (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]