models:spin_models
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
models:spin_models [2018/05/07 07:22] jakobadmin [Overview] |
models:spin_models [2018/05/07 07:24] jakobadmin [Overview] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| For $n=1$ and $Q=2$ the two types of models overlap and this special model is known as the [[models:spin_models:ising_model|Ising model]]. | For $n=1$ and $Q=2$ the two types of models overlap and this special model is known as the [[models:spin_models:ising_model|Ising model]]. | ||
| - | <tabbox Why is interesting?> | + | ---- |
| <blockquote>"Empirically, one finds that all systems in nature belong to one of a comparatively small number of such universality classes. Two specific microscopic interaction Hamiltonians appear almost sufficient to encompass the universality classes necessary for static critical phenomena. | <blockquote>"Empirically, one finds that all systems in nature belong to one of a comparatively small number of such universality classes. Two specific microscopic interaction Hamiltonians appear almost sufficient to encompass the universality classes necessary for static critical phenomena. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [...] [T]he Q-state Potts model (Potts, 1952; Wu, 1982) [and] the n-vector model (Stanley, 1968). | ||
| The first of these is the Q-state Potts model (Potts, 1952; Wu, 1982). One assumes that each spin i can be in one of Q possible discrete orientations $\chi_i$ $(\chi_i =,1,2,\ldots,Q)$. If two neighboring spins i and j are in the same orientation, then they contribute an amount $-J$ to the total energy of a configuration. If i and j are in different orientations, they contribute nothing. Thus the interaction Hamiltonian is | The first of these is the Q-state Potts model (Potts, 1952; Wu, 1982). One assumes that each spin i can be in one of Q possible discrete orientations $\chi_i$ $(\chi_i =,1,2,\ldots,Q)$. If two neighboring spins i and j are in the same orientation, then they contribute an amount $-J$ to the total energy of a configuration. If i and j are in different orientations, they contribute nothing. Thus the interaction Hamiltonian is | ||
| Line 37: | Line 39: | ||
| Both the Potts and n-vector hierarchies are generalization | Both the Potts and n-vector hierarchies are generalization | ||
| of the simple Ising model of a uniaxial ferromagnet. | of the simple Ising model of a uniaxial ferromagnet. | ||
| + | <cite>[[https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S358|Scaling, universality, and renormalization: Three pillars of modern critical phenomena]] by H.Eugene Stanley</cite></blockquote> | ||
| + | <tabbox Why is interesting?> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>"Empirically, one finds that all systems in nature belong to one of a comparatively small number of such universality classes. Two specific microscopic interaction Hamiltonians appear almost sufficient to encompass the universality classes necessary for static critical phenomena. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [...] [T]he Q-state Potts model (Potts, 1952; Wu, 1982) [and] the n-vector model (Stanley, 1968). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| <cite>[[https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S358|Scaling, universality, and renormalization: Three pillars of modern critical phenomena]] by H.Eugene Stanley</cite></blockquote> | <cite>[[https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S358|Scaling, universality, and renormalization: Three pillars of modern critical phenomena]] by H.Eugene Stanley</cite></blockquote> | ||
models/spin_models.txt ยท Last modified: 2020/04/12 14:47 by jakobadmin
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
