Home page
Electron spin is unreal
Spintronics is irrelevant to spin
Skyrmion quasiparticle memory is unreal
(Fig.1) Quantum mechanical spin hampers and contradicts spintronics, MRAM.
Magnetic (or magnetoresistive ) random access memory (= MRAM ) is a type of non-volatile memory storing data as two ferromagnetic materials' magnetizing direction.
This MRAM representing spintronics is based on giant magnetoresistance (= irrelevant to quantum mechanical spin ) where two parallel (or antiparallel ) magnetizations in two adjacent ferromagnets causing low (or high) electric resistance is measured as bit "0" (or "1", this Fig.1 ) state.
Electron spin (or this ) is known to be unreal, so these magnetizations used in the overhyped spintronics or MRAM are caused by electron's orbits (= two antiarallel orbits crash into each other, causing higher electric resistance in magnetoresistance ), Not by spins.
Overhyped media often baselessly claim spin-magnetic MRAM memory will replace today's mainstream non-spin DRAM, SRAM memory (= storing data as classical electric voltage without using quantum mechanical spin ) someday, like the exaggerated graphene and deadend overhyped quantum computers.
Despite extremely-long years of researches (= 1996~ ), MRAM (= spin-transfer-torque or STT-MRAM is today's standard MRAM ) remains in niche market forever (= cannot replace the mainstream DRAM, SRAM ), hindered by the unphysical quantum mechanical spin model lacking real particle shape.
It is No longer possible to discover new dreamlike revolutionary magnetic memory material (= in the current unphysical old quantum mechanical model or methods ), because researchers across the world have already tested all ( macroscopic ) electromagnetic properties of all materials which are possibly suitable for memories.
So the current deadend quantum mechanical spintronics research is wasting time only in the hopeless spin-orbit-torque (= SOT ) MRAM and antiferromagnet (or altermagnet ) with zero magnetization, which can never be used for practical magnetic memory that needs ferromagnets' magnetization.
To hide today's deadend quantum mechanical spintronics research, an incredible amount of overhyped news for imaginary practical use needs to be spread every day.
The 1st-paragraph of this overhyped news (5/26/2025) baselessly claims
" STT-MRAM chips market expansion, positioning it as a promising (= still unrealized ) alternative for future memory technologies"
↑ This misleading word "promising" MRAM (= "promising" means "still useless now" ) has been repeatedly used in the hyped news for a long time (= the word "promising" was constantly used in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2020 .. ).
The 4th-paragraph of this overhyped news (2/16/2025) says
"SOT-MRAM is considered a promising alternative (= still useless ) to static RAM due to its lower energy consumption and non-volatile nature.... Reducing the high input current required for writing data while ensuring compatibility with industrial applications has remained a challenge, so the team,.. addressing these issues and improving performance."
↑ This research paper's p.4-right-last-paragraph says
"In conclusion,.. These results highlight the promising potential (= so still can Not realize practical use, after all ) of..
next-generation of SOT MRAM devices"
This 6th-paragraph says
"While MRAM pioneers such as Everspin... it remains a niche memory (= forever )"
Because MRAM is energy-inefficient, slower, lower-endurance. more error-prone than DRAM.
This-challenges & limitation (5/28/2025) says
"MRAM technology still faces several important challenges that must be addressed before achieving widespread adoption:"
The 2nd paragraph of this site (8/2023) says
"There are still plenty of skeptics when it comes to MRAM,.. That has limited MRAM to a niche role over the past couple decades, hampered by high costs, low density, and lower endurance" ← MRAM is far inferior to today's mainstream SRAM without spin.
This 2nd-paragraph (6/12/2024) says
"However, challenges facing the MRAM market include high manufacturing costs, limited scalability"
This 2nd-paragraph (5/3/2024) says
"MRAM has Not been able to make much progress outside specialist low volume markets" ← MRAM or (fictitious) spintronics has been deadend, remaining in niche market despite longtime researches.
This (5/23/2025) says
"However, their (= MRAM ) widespread adoption faces several challenges related to scalability"
This 14th-paragraph (8/5/2024) says
"Technologies like ReRAM, MRAM, etc. will remain niche embedded market alternatives because of this restriction".
The 3rd-last-paragraph of even this hyped site (3/5/2025) says
"it will take another decade or so before these alternative memory (= MRAM ) technologies supplant Flash memory and SRAM in embedded applications (= No progress )"
This-1. says
"One of the biggest challenges with MRAM technology is making the write error rate (WER) as low as possible"
This 2nd-last paragraph (3/19/2024) says
"On the one hand, MRAM isn't the Holy Grail of memories because it lacks the raw capacity of DRAM."
↑ So contrary to the overhyped media, the spintronics or MRAM is already deadend with No hope of progress.
(Fig.2) Spin-torque, MRAM, spintronics cannot be predicted by quantum mechanics. Electron spin is unreal.
The present mainstream ( niche ) magnetic MRAM memory is spin-transfer-torque (= STT)-MRAM as seen in Everspin.
This STT-MRAM's mechanism can be explained by giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) that disagreed with quantum mechanics and unphysical spin, contrary to the misleading news.
As shown in the upper figure-①, when electrons' current ( consisting of orbits, Not the unphysical spin ) flows through the fixed magnetization (= ferromagnetic ) layer (= magnetization caused by electron's orbit, Not by spin ) toward the right-side free-magnetization layer, the free layer's magnetization tends to have the same magnetization as the fixed layer, because the electrons' orbits in the opposite magnetization are rebounded by (= cannot penetrate ) the fixed layer due to increased resistance by crash between the opposite orbits in magnetoresistance.
As a result, in the case of upper figure-①, the free (= thin ) layer in the right side comes to have the same magnetization as the fixed layer (= which is bit "0" state ) dominated by the electrons' orbits flowing through fixed layer (= having the same magnetization as the fixed layer ) ( this 12~13th-paragraphs, this p.7, this p.41 ).
When electrons' current flows from the right side as shown in the upper figure-② electrons' orbits whose magnetization is opposite to the fixed layer tend to rebound off the fixed layer back to the free layer (= due to magnetoresistance ), and the free layer's magnetization becomes opposite to the fixed layer (= bit "1" state, this p.23 ) occupied by the electrons' orbits (= Not spin ) rebounded by the fixed layer.
As shown here, spin-transfer-torque MRAM can be naturally explained by electrons' orbits (= magnetoresistance ), which has nothing to do with the fictional spin's torque.
Quantum mechanical (unphysical) spin model just shows abstract artificial model or equation with freely-adjustable spin-torque, damping parameters lacking real particle picture ( this p.3-left-(1)~p.3-right, this p.2-lower~p.3 ). ← Reliance on artificial spin model and free parameters means No quantum mechanical prediction of spin-torque-MRAM.
Spin-transfer-torque-MRAM remains a deadend niche product inferior to today's mainstream DRAM, SRAM (= without spin ) forever due to this unphysical quantum mechanical model lacking real particle picture.
This p.1-right-1st-paragraph says " This renders STT-MRAM unsuitable for ultrafast applications such as cache memories. Moreover, the single path for both reading and writing makes it challenging to attain reliable reading operations."
STT-MRAM also has the reliability issues or high failure rate ( this p.5-right-2 challenge ).
This p.1-left-2nd-paragraph says
"Despite various advantageous features, STT-MRAM is
facing various reliability challenges including write failure,
decision failure, retention failure and failures due to read
disturb..
a write failure occurs when the bit-cell does Not flip
to its required value during the given write period. This can
happen, since the write process in STT-MRAM is of stochastic (= random, erroneous switch ) nature."
This 1st-paragraph says
"Magneto-Resistive Random Access Memory (MRAM) has so far generally failed to replace SRAM (= using electric current transistors instead of the unphysical spin ) because its Spin Transfer Torque (STT-MRAM) implementation is too slow and doesn't last long enough."
This-p.2-left-1st-paragraph says
"The long write latency (= slower ) and the limited write endurance of
STT-MRAM are critical obstacles preventing it from directly
substituting SRAM cells"
This p.1-introduction-1st-paragraph says
"STT-MRAM faces various challenges along with
its merits such as, the reliability of a tunnel barrier, long write latency and small energy efficiency due to still high
write current."
This-p.4-last~p.5 says
" STT-RAM has Not yet reached sufficient maturity to be introduced in
mass-produced devices. The critical current, required for the switching, is still too high for real-world applications." ← STT-MRAM is energy-inefficient, which is why it cannot be mainstream.
This-p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says
"STT-MRAM still
exhibits higher write energy and latency. This is primarily
attributed to the need for large write voltages and long write
pulse durations to ensure reliable switching of the magnetization. The high writing cost of STT-MRAM presents a major
barrier"
↑ Spin-transfer-torque (= STT )-MRAM memory relies on stochastic collision of electrons' orbits (= Not unreal spin ), which take more time and energy than the present mainstream non-spin SRAM, DRAM memory (= faster, energy-efficient ) that can easily change bit state by simply applying voltage or flowing small amount of electricity.
In fact, quantum mechanics, which is unable to predict the mechanism of (spin-transfer-torque)-MRAM, has to artificially fit free parameters of unphysical spin-torque toy model or equation ( this p.14-31 = classical LLG model, this-p.4 ) to experiment ( this p.5-lower, this p.3-TableI, this p.10-right, this p.3-left-last-paragraph ).
This p.2-right-last~p.3 says "We used equation (2) to fit the experimental results by choosing βST, βFT, resonance angular frequency ω0 and spectrum linewidth ∆ as fitting parameters" ← Reliance on artificially-fitting free parameters means No quantum mechanical prediction of STT-MRAM's fictional spin
This-introduction-1st-paragraph says "A popular method for the description of STT in magnetic multilayers is the model of Slonczewski....
However, it introduces free variables that depend on various system parameters... These parameters are usually determined in a phenomenological fashion "
This p.18-last-paragraph says "Note that some parameters are to date Not known fully. In the term aj an unknown polarization function appears. Furthermore the Gilbert damping term is not exactly known." ← No quantum mechanical prediction of STT-MRAM depending on artificially-chosen damping parameter.
This p.17-last says "No consensus (theoretically and experimentally) over the ratio β/α, which can vary between 0.1 and 10 (= free parameters )"
This p.3-right-last-paragraph says "The effective damping (αeff) of the TaS2/Py bilayer is evaluated by fitting the μ0ΔH versus f data (= parameters adjusted by experiment Not by quantum mechanical theory )."
This p.24-left-3rd~4th-paragraph says "Both show that the agreement between theory and experiment is still incomplete (= wrong prediction )"
This paper ↓
p.39(or p.28)-last-paragraph says "a fit can be obtained only by leaving numerous free parameters: "
p.121(or p.110)-2nd-paragraph says "where B and C are free parameters"
As a result, there is No evidence of spin in spin-torque-MRAM that cannot be predicted by quantum mechanics relying on various free parameters.
This research paper (2020) ↓
p.4-lower~p.5 says "STT-RAM has Not yet reached sufficient maturity to be introduced in mass-produced devices. The critical current, required for the switching, is still too high for real-world applications,.. reliability errors can arise" ← energy-inefficient spin-MRAM
p.8-4th-paragraph says "do provide a simple toy (= fictional ) model (= for STT-MRAM)"
p.13 uses various ad-hoc spin model and artificial parameters
p.15-last-paragraph says "In conclusion,... The main disadvantage is that only the free layer is properly simulated, leaving out many possible complications" ← quantum mechanical spin model can Not explain STT-MRAM
(Fig.3) Overhyped spin-orbit-torque (= SOT )-MRAM is far from practical.
Today's MRAM or STT-MRAM representing spintronics is already deadend, stuck in niche market forever.
They pin all their hopes on new spin magnetic MRAM memory model called spin-orbit-torque (= SOT )-MRAM (= still impractical ).
SOT-MRAM is said to utilize spin-Hall effect to provide the magnetically-polarized electrons' current (= electric current is scattered by the surrounding electron's orbits into the upper and lower directions depending on its magnetization direction by classical Magnus effect ) to each memory ( this 2nd-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ). ← This mechanism is stochastic, unreliable, impractical.
Electron's spin is unreal, and relativistic spin-orbit effect allegedly used in spin-Hall effect is paradoxical, wrong.
This spin-Hall effect can be naturally explained by realistic electron's orbit veering into the upper or lower directions due to classical Magnus effect (= friction between the orbiting electrons and their surroundings ).
Actually, the unphysical quantum mechanical spin model still can Not clarify the mechanism of this spin-orbit-torque (= SOT )-MRAM, as this-p.1-right-last-paragraph (2020) says
"the physical mechanism of SOT still remains to be clarified"
Today's deadend spintronics places all its hope on the spin-orbit-torque (= SOT )-MRAM as a "promising" memory potentially replacing today's non-spin SRAM.
But this current only hope SOT-MRAM can never be of practical use nor outperforming today's mainstream non-spin SRAM or DRAM memory.
Because SOT-MRAM must use two-different electric currents in two different directions (= bit reading and bit writing must use different electric currents in different directions in SOT-MRAM ), which take too much space to be practical.
This-middle-Reducing the bit-cell size says
"A more challenging issue is the fact that while the STT cell has two terminals shared by read and write currents, the SOT cell has three terminals, since the write current has its own path. That means another select transistor. This is the default configuration, and it makes for a larger bit cell than STT has. "
"Nevertheless, the SOT cell is still bigger than the STT cell,... it's unclear whether they will be commercialized."
This-2nd-last-paragraph says
"The three-terminal point means that an SOT-MRAM cell requires an extra select transistor — one per terminal — and this makes an SOT cell bigger than an STT cell. Unless this conundrum can be solved, SOT-MRAM may be restricted to specific niche markets within the overall SRAM market."
One bit size of today's non-spin SRAM, DRAM transistor and hard-disc drive is less than 50nm, which is far more compact and smaller than the impractical bulky SOT-MRAM bit size > 540nm ( compare this p.6-compact-hard disc and p.41-bulkier-SOT-MRAM, Compare this-p.3-Fig.1-bigger-SOT and this-SRAM ).
Requirement for additional peripheral electric-current instruments prevents SOT-MRAM from scaling up to the the practical memory ( this-2/27/2025, This-last-paragraph-1/29/2024, this-p.5-right-2nd-paragraph ) forever.
This introduction-1st-paragraph (2024) says
"However, a challenge for SOT-MRAM is that each bit cell requires two access transistors, resulting in a larger unit area (= miniaturization is impossible ), limiting its application in high-density memory scenarios."
Despite longtime researches, this "(overhyped) promising" spin-orbit-torque (= SOT )-MRAM is still useless. ← "always promising" means unrealized forever ( this-p.11-left-last-paragraph, SOT-MRAM was first proposed in 2012, this-1.introduction ).
This-p.1-left-1st-paragraph (3/27/2025) says
"SOT-MRAMs must overcome
several challenges before they can be adopted by the industry" ← still useless
This p.1-right-last~p.2-left-upper (2024) says
"However, the development of
SOT-MRAM for ultrafast applications still remains challenging...
which is an obstacle for practical SOT-MRAM
applications...
Despite some progress, a clear field-free solution
for ultrafast SOT operations remains elusive for real applications"
This-last-paragraph (1/29/2024) says
"it needs high currents for write operations, so its dynamic power consumption is still quite high (= energy-inefficient ). Furthermore, SOT-MRAM cells are still larger than SRAM (= today's mainstream non-spin memory ) cells, and they are harder to make. As a result,.. it is unlikely that it will replace SRAM" ← spintronics MRAM is hopeless.
This-p.4-lower says
"Lowering the energy demand and enhancing the energy efficiency is an outstanding problem for the SOT-MRAM.
Today, though, the biggest problem with SOT-MRAM is that it only switches about 50% of the time (= too many errors to be practical )."
Today's mainstream non-spin SRAM is faster, more energy efficient, needing smaller energy of only less than 20 fJ/bit operation than energy-inefficient SOT-MRAM needing more than 100 fj energy in writing its bit ( this-p.5-Table II, this-3rd-last-paragraph, )
Spin-orbit-torque (= SOT ) MRAM is not only more energy-inefficient but also slower than the current mainstream non-spin SRAM memory.
↑ This-p.12-Fig.11 shows the spin-torque-STT and SOT-MRAM consume much more energy (= WR or writing energy = ~100 fJ ), and are slower (= RD or reading latency = 3 ~ 10 ns ) than today's mainstream non-spin SRAM memory (= WR energy < 28 fJ, latency < 1 ns = energy-efficient and faster ).
The 1st paragraph of this (5/20/2025 or this ) just vaguely says
"This finding may (= just speculation, so SOT-MRAM is still useless ) lead to revolutionary advancements in memory storage device technology that also contribute to a greener, more efficient future."
The last paragraph of this overhyped news (3/20/2025) also says
"it's uncertain exactly how well this new technology will hold up under consistent use (= still impractical MRAM ),.. Like most emerging technologies, it's unlikely that MRAM will be seen on laptop spec sheets anytime soon,"
The 2nd, 5th paragraphs of this overhyped news (2/6/2025) say
"Their innovation, based on Spin-Orbit Torque (SOT) Magnetic Random-Access Memory (MRAM), offers a highly efficient and powerful solution for data processing and storage—a transformative step (= still unrealized ) forward for technologies ranging from smartphones to supercomputers."
"However, one key challenge has been to reduce the high input current required during the writing process"
↑ This research-p.4-Fig.3(a) shows this spin-MRAM bit needing external magnetic field H (= Fig.3b ) is impractically larger and bulkier (= 1000nm ) than the non-spin DRAM of 50nm.
This-p.1-right-1st-paragraph (4/2/2025) says
"To
obtain deterministic switching, a small external symmetry
breaking magnetic field is applied along the direction of
charge current. To provide an external magnetic field onchip requires more complicated setup and is therefore the
major roadblock for the industry adoption of SOT-MRAM."
This-Fig.3-lower says
"There are two fundamental challenges to SOT technology that remain the subjects of much research and development. The first deals with the need for an external magnetic field while writing ( this-p.19-Fig. 1-5 ). The second relates to the size of the bit cell"
This 2nd-paragraph (2024) says
"an in-plane bias magnetic field (= additional device generating magnetic field is needed for SOT-MRAM ) which has hindered progress in developing practical SOT-MRAM devices ( this-introduction-1st~2nd-paragraphs ). "
The recent research paper on spin-orbit-torque or SOT-MRAM in 2024 ↓
p.1-rigt says ". This renders STT-MRAM unsuitable for ultrafast applications such as cache memories. Moreover, the single path for both reading and writing makes it challenging to attain reliable reading operations." ← No improvement in the problematic STT(= spin-transfer-torque )-MRAM
"However, the development of SOT-MRAM for ultrafast applications still remains challenging (= both STT and SOT-MRAM are still useless, problematic )"
p.2-Fig.1a shows even this latest SOT-MRAM switch is very bulky, as large as micrometer (= μm = 1000nm ), which is far bigger and bulkier than today's compact DRAM memory of only 20 nanometers.
p.3-Fig.2 shows switching probability (= PSW ) of this SOT-switch is bad and uncertain between 80 ~ 100% (= about 10% error rate ), which is too error-prone to be a practical memory.
p.5-right just artificially chose free parameters without quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation ( this p.2-STT-SOT model, p.3-Table.1,p.7-methods also used input free parameters without quantum mechanical prediction, depending on chosen model, this-p.6-7, this-p.5 ).
Actually, in this-p.3 6th-paragraph, reviewer #2 says
"On the other hand, the study focuses on micro-sized magnetic dots, and it is well-documented that
reversal mechanisms and energies are very different in µm compared to sub-100 nm dots.
Meanwhile, practical applications are clearly projected for sub-100 nm dimensions (= so this device of micro-meter size is too big to be practical )"
"..In Figure 2, the switching probabilities hardly converge to 100%, but they are not zero either. I raise some doubts about the switching reliability (= this latest SOT-MRAM switch is too erroneous )"
This research paper on SOT in 2024 ↓
p.2-Fig.1c shows this SOT-switch is too bulky and big = about 10μm (= scale bar )
p.4-Fig.3-D shows this SOT-switch is too slow, one switch took about 3~5 seconds, and stochastic, unreliable ( this p.5-Fig.4-d ).
As a result, spin-orbit-torque or SOT-MRAM is too error-prone, too slow, too bulky to be practical, contrary to the media hype.
Quantum mechanics has to rely on unrealistic negative kinetic energy in tunnel current over extremely narrow space (= ~ nm ).
↑ In such a narrow space, their estimation of the potential barrier is wrong, and electrons can realistically flow over very short distance by thermal fluctuation or de Broglie wave interference pressure (= de Broglie wave has 'power' to push electrons and cause interference pattern ) even without the impossible negative kinetic energy (= so tunneling is Not the occult quantum mechanical phenomenon but realistic electron's current with positive kinetic energy by thermal fluctuation and de Broglie wave interference ).
(Fig.4) Only 4 elements (= Fe, Co, Ni, Gd ) can be ferromagnets usable for magnetic memory devices, which have already be known, so No more progress nor discovery of new useful magnetic atoms in today's spintronics researches looking only at macroscopic properties due to unreal quantum mechanical model.
Practical magnetic memory devices such as hard disc and MRAM always need ferromagnets as the source of strong stable magnetization.
But there are only four ferromagnetic atoms = Fe, Ni. Co, Gd whose electromagnetic properties have already been investigated and known.
↑ It means there will be No more progress nor new discovery of dreamlike magnetic ( ferromagnetic ) materials usable for more energy-efficient magnetic memory devices.
So today's deadend quantum mechanics or spintronics researches (= investigating only macroscopic electromagnetic properties of materials ) started to focus on useless materials such as antiferromagnets and altermagnets (= just ordinary antiferromagnets, Not new materials ) with zero magnetization, which can never be used for practical magnetic memory devices ( this-p.30-3.1 ) which need strong magnetization.
Or many researches are conducted at impractically low temperature, because there is almost nothing left to study at the practical room temperature in today's deadend quantum mechanical or spintronics research ( this-11th-paragraph, this-p.2-Fig.2 conducted at very low temperature of T = 25K ).
The unphysical quantum mechanics can only describe observed (macroscopic) electromagnetic properties of materials as fictional quasiaprticle models that are overhyped, useless (= fictional skyrmion quasiparticle racetrack memory ), unable to clarify the real microscopic atomic mechanism forever.
The only way to break the current deadlock physics is to use useful multi-probe atomic force microscopes for observing and manipulating single atoms and molecules to design and build atomic-level nano-devices, which is hindered by the unphysical quantum mechanical model.
This-p.1-left-1st-paragraph says
"One of the most thrilling challenges that currently limit
the application of antiferromagnetic spintronics is the
lack of large and robust magnetoresistance (MR) effect
comparable to that in ferromagnetic tunnel junctions."
"For high-density memory applications, the structure could be resistive, electric current-driven, and it should have MR (= magnetoresistance ) not less than 100%. Unfortunately, No AFM(= antiferromagnetic )-based structure can satisfy all these demands at the same time at the moment." ← antiferromagnets with zero magnetization are useless as magnetic memory devices.
The last paragraph of this or this overhyped news (3/23/2025) says
"There are many challenges ahead, including innovative approaches for designing and synthesizing materials," ← still antiferromagnetic spintronics is useless with a lot of challenges.
The last paragraph of this hyped news (5/13/2023) says
"A further challenge, the researchers say, will be to figure out a way to electrically manipulate the magnetization on the A-type antiferromagnet so they can construct fully functioning spintronic devices."
↑ The present spintronics researches waste time in hopeless antiferromagnet or altermagnet (= no usable magnetization ) as a only hope for new magnetic devices.
This overhyped paper's abstract (6/10/2025) says
"Antiferromagnets have attracted widespread interest due to the advantages of no stray fields and ultrafast switching dynamics, promising (= still useless ) for next-generation high-speed, high-density memories. However, over a long period, the effective detection of antiferromagnetic (AFM) orders remained being one of the greatest challenges of its application in magnetic random access memories (MRAM) because of its zero net magnetization."
"Our work provides a promising device structure for future (= still useless after all ) nonvolatile high-speed, high-density, and multiple-state AFM memories."
This research paper in all-antiferromagnetic memory devices (2023) ↓
p.2-inroduction-2nd-paragarph says "However, the practical realization of AFM (= antiferromagnet ) memory devices requires mechanisms for both manipulation and detection of AFM order by electrical means. Until recently, the electrical detection of the magnetic state in AFM structures exclusively relied on the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) and spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) effects, which provided relative resistance variations (ΔR/R) that were too small for memory applications"
p.3-Fig.1 shows this antiferromagnetic device is impractical, much bulkier (= bigger than 10μm ) than today's practical DRAM memory of only 50nm.
p.7-Fig.4 shows each antiferromagnetic switch change needed more than 10 writing attempts (= one writing operation alone can Not change the useless antiferromagnetic bit state ), which is unreliable and too time-consuming.
p.9-last says "will (= just speculation, still useless ) open new possibilities for a wide range of AFM spintronics experiments (= just for publishing papers to academic journals, Not for practical use )"
The 5th, 8th, 3rd-last. 2nd-last paragraphs of this overhyped news (6/5/2025) say
"The team discovered the new p-wave magnetism in nickel iodide (NiI2),.. like an antiferromagnet, equal populations of opposite spins result in a net cancellation. " ← so this alleged new p-wave magnetism is just antiferromagnet with zero magnetization that is unsuitable for a practical magnetic memory.
"This breakthrough paves the way for a new class of ultrafast, compact, energy-efficient , and nonvolatile magnetic memory devices." ← wrong
"The team observed p-wave magnetism in nickel iodide flakes, only at ultracold temperatures of about 60 kelvins." ← impractically low temperature
"That's below liquid nitrogen, which is not necessarily practical for applications,"
↑ This p-wave magnetic material is used only at impractically-low temperature of only 60K, which is completely useless, energy-inefficient, contrary to the above hyped explanation.
↑ This research paper ( This ↓ )
p.9-Figure 3c and 3d says "Repeatable polarization switching by applying ±12 MV/m pulsed electric fields at 30 K (= impractically-low temperature ). The photocurrent"
↑ So this research just applied ± electric pulses to some antiferromagnet at impractically-low temperature where the direction of electric current (= photocurrent ) excited by light was measured to be changed extremely slowly (= at intervals of 100s ) after the ± electric pulses. ← No electron spin was measured. Only photocurrent was measured
↑ So this very slow, energy-inefficient antiferromagnetic switch is completely useless, contrary to the above hyped news.
Feel free to link to this site.
