5
$\begingroup$

Here is an answer by @tparker which makes the following remark

"... a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, at which the free energy density is smooth but non-analytic..."

The expression for the Helmholtz free energy for the KT transition is $$F=E-TS=(\pi J-2k_BT)\ln \Big(\frac{R}{a}\Big)\tag{1}$$ where $J$ is a parameter that depends upon the system in which the vortex is located, $R$ is the system size, and $a$ is the radius of the vortex core. But $F(T)$ seems to be both smooth and analytic as a function of $T$. What's the caveat that I failed to catch?

Note I must admit that I am not well-familiar with KT transition. Got interested in 'crossovers' and that led me to the discussions in the post linked above.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is not the expression for the actual free energy, only what comes out of the naive heuristic energy/entropy argument. In reality, the correlation length blows up at the transition as $\xi(T) \sim \exp \bigl[c\bigl(T_{\rm BKT}/(T-T_{\rm BKT})\bigr)^{1/2}\bigr]$ for $T>T_{\rm BKT}$ (and is infinite below $T_{\rm BKT}$) and the singular part of the free energy behaves like $\xi(T)^{-2}$ above $T_{\rm BKT}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2020 at 7:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YvanVelenik I've actually always wanted to see the actual maths for this -- I've only ever seen the heuristic argument, which I wrote in my answer. Do you have a good reference for this? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2020 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ If by "the actual maths" you mean rigorous results, then, as far as I know, there are none (concerning this particular issue; even the rigorous proof of the existence of the KT transition requires rather sophisticated arguments). If you are happy with non-rigorous "maths", then you can start with Kosterlitz' own paper. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2020 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ You may also have a look at this overview, which contains more recent references. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2020 at 11:09

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

First, the expression given in the OP is not the expression for the actual free energy, only what comes out of the naive heuristic energy/entropy argument.

In reality, renormalization group computations lead to the following predictions: first, the correlation length should blow up at the transition as $$ \xi \simeq A\exp\bigl( B/\sqrt{t} \bigr) $$ for $t>0$ ($\xi$ is infinite for $t\leq 0$), where $t=(T-T_{\rm BKT})/T_{\rm BKT}$ is the reduced temperature. Observe how this is dramatically faster than the more common power-law divergence of the correlation length at a usual critical point.

Second, the singular part of the free energy should satisfy $f_{\rm sing} \sim \xi^{-2}$, that is, $$ f_{\rm sing} \simeq C \exp\bigl( -2B/\sqrt{t} \bigr) $$ for $t>0$ small.

Note that the function $$ t\mapsto \begin{cases} \exp\bigl( -2B/\sqrt{t} \bigr) & \text{for }t>0\\ 0 & \text{for }t\leq 0 \end{cases} $$ is infinitely differentiable but not analytic at $t=0$, since one does not recover the original function by summing its Taylor series. This is what is meant by "smooth yet not analytic" in this context.

I am not a specialist, so I won't go into more detail here. There are no mathematically rigorous proofs of the above claims in the XY model (even the proof of the existence of the Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition requires rather sophisticated mathematical arguments). There are, however, other simpler examples of phase transitions in which this type of "smooth but non analytic behavior" are found and for which rigorous results are available.

If you want to read more about these issues in the XY model, you can look at Kosterlitz's original paper (see also his recent review). You can also read about that in several textbooks, for instance this one (Itzykson and Drouffe) and this one (Kardar).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Although I think you are right about the lack of rigorous work at the KT transition for the XY model, one should mention that for the Coulomb gas, there is such work by the late Pierluigi Falco link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00220-012-1454-7 and arxiv.org/abs/1311.2237 $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 15, 2020 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @AbdelmalekAbdesselam : Thanks, these are indeed relevant references. However, do you know whether there are results on the super-polynomial divergence of correlation length (or the corresponding statement for the free energy) in these or other (rigorous) papers? I don't remember ever seeing any for this type of models. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 15, 2020 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ Not that I know. Pierluigi in his arXiv paper, p. 8, first remark, said the problem is open for $\beta$ just below the critical value. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 15, 2020 at 18:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The free energy you wrote corresponds to a system composed of a single vortex of unit charge. But there are many vortices in the system, they can have arbitrary integer charges and interact with each other (they essentially form a Coulomb gas). So this approximation of the free energy can only provide a very crude account of what is going on. This is especially so, since the BKT transition is due to the unbinding of the vortex pairs that proliferate in the system. All this seems to be reasonably well explained in the textbooks I link to in my answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The book Principles of condensed matter physics by Chaikin and Lubensky seems to also have a nice discussion of these issues. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 8:52
2
$\begingroup$

The typical heuristic argument here is to look at the case for an infinite system, i.e. at the limit $R\rightarrow \infty$.

For $T<\pi J/(2 k_{\mathrm{B}})$, the first term ($E$) dominates and the free energy will diverge $F\rightarrow \color{red}{+} \infty$. It can only lower $F$ by having the lowest $E$ and hence no vortices.

For $T>\pi J/(2 k_{\mathrm{B}})$, the entropy wins and the free energy will diverge $F\rightarrow \color{red}{-}\infty$, i.e. you want to be as “messed up as possible” so you create vortices.

To find the critical temperatures between these two régimes, set $F=0$ and get an expression for $T_{\mathrm{c}}$.

It should be noted that this is only possible because both the vortex energy and the entropy have the same logarithmic scaling. With a different energy scaling for the vortex, you could have vortices $\forall T$ or $\not \exists T$. So no phase transition.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure how it answers my question. How is it smooth but nonanalytic? @SuperCiocia $\endgroup$
    – SRS
    Commented Jul 11, 2020 at 17:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SRS ah well that's just because for every point T>0 the logarithmic function has derivatives of all orders (smooth) and in a sufficiently small neighbourhood it can be expanded in a power series, that is, it is an analytic function. But not at $T=0$. So it's not analytic everywhere. You could also claim that at $T_c$ you have non-analytic behaviour since the first derivative is $\propto \ln R$ which blows up for an infinite system size. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 11, 2020 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @SRS is right, this does not answer the question. Note that the singular part of the real free energy behaves like $\exp(-c/\sqrt{t})$ for $t>0$ small, where $t=(T-T_c)/T_c$ and $0$ for $t\leq 0$. This function is infinitely-differentiable at $t=0$, but not analytic at this point (you do not recover the original function by summing its Taylor series). This is what is meant by "smooth yet not analytic" in this context. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2020 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ I will delete the answer if you so wish. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2020 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SuperCiocia : Well, I am not really a specialist of this particular topic, so I hoped that one would come and write something better than I am able to. Anyway, I have now written up some answer based on my comments, as you suggested. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 15, 2020 at 9:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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