1
$\begingroup$

The specific heat usually diverges at a phase transition - typically as a power-law, giving a critical exponent $\alpha > 0$. (Although in 2D, sometimes the divergence is only logarithmic, as with the Ising model, and sometimes the specific heat remains smooth but non-analytic so there is no divergence at all, as with the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. In both cases we formally have $\alpha = 0$.) This makes sense intuitively: the heat capacity roughly counts the number of "actively fluctuating" internal degrees of freedom through which a temperature increase can raise the internal energy, and at a second-order phase transition you have huge domains that are actively fluctuating together. (Or at a first-order transition, any additional thermal energy you add to the system goes into changing chunks of the low-temperature phase into the high-temperature phase, so it doesn't raise the temperature at all.)

But this paper claims that for 3D locally-coupled spin glasses (of either Ising, XY, or Heisenberg spins), $\alpha \approx -2$ is strongly negative at the spin-glass transition, so the singular part of the specific heat goes as $\sim |\tau|^{2 + \epsilon}$ for some $|\epsilon| \ll 1$. This seems to imply that the specific heat reaches a local minimum at the spin-glass transition temperature, which seems very counterintuitive to me. What is the physical interpretation of this strange temperature dependence of the specific heat?

$\endgroup$
1
+50
$\begingroup$

Actually, a negative exponent doesn't mean the specific heat has to be at a local minimum at criticality. For instance, Fischer's paper Renormalization of Critical Exponents by Hidden Variables, writes (Eq. 2.46, where $\alpha_\mathrm{x}>0$)$^1$

$$ C(\tau) \approx A - B\tau^{\alpha_\mathrm{x}}, $$

which means the specific heat reaches a (finite) maximum at the critical temperature.

As for why $\alpha$ is negative, it's already clear from the paper linked in the question: absence of divergence, since a positive $\alpha$ would mean $|\tau|^{-\alpha}$ diverges. Fisher argues in the paper mentioned above that that is a general characteristic of non-ideal systems, a statement that should stand at least for frustrated systems.

But it can be a minimum: in 2D, for instance, $T_c=0$ and, as Jorg et al (arxiv) put it:

at any low temperature, a fraction [...] of the system’s spins can be thermally activated

which explains why $C(\tau\to 0)$ should tend to a minimum, given the intuition that "the heat capacity roughly counts the number of "actively fluctuating" internal degrees of freedom through which a temperature increase can raise the internal energy".


$^1$: Here the positive exponent $\alpha_\mathrm{x}$ is the exponent of the real system, which can be written as a function of the ideal exponent $\alpha$ as $\alpha_\mathrm{x}=-\alpha/(1-\alpha)$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.