In the Ising model (2D for simplicity), the magnetic susceptibility casts the form

$$ \chi = \beta\left(\langle M^2\rangle - \langle M\rangle^2\right) $$

We know that the susceptibility peaks at the transition temperature between ferromagnetic and paramagnetic phase. However, we can see that in the paramagnetic phase, $$ \langle M^2\rangle=\frac{1}{N}\sum_iM_i^2=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i (\pm1)^2=1 $$ $$ \langle M\rangle^2=\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_iM_i\right)^2=\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_i(\pm 1)\right)^2 = 0 $$ since $M_i = \pm 1$ and there is no net magnetisation in the paramagnetic phase. This means that the susceptibility becomes $\chi = \beta\sim1/T$, contradicting to the Curie-Weiss law. Where did I make my mistake?

  • $\begingroup$ Is $\beta=1/(k_BT)$? $\endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    Jul 28 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is correct $\endgroup$
    – Kimari
    Jul 28 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ For $T>T_c$, we have $\chi \propto (T-T_c)^{-1}$. My focus is only in the paramagnetic phase ($T>T_c$), and gives $\chi=\beta$, clearly contradicts to the Curie-Weiss law. $\endgroup$
    – Kimari
    Jul 28 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ But the condition 'net magnetisation vanishes' applies for all $T>T_c$. How can you explain this discrepancy between $\chi \propto (T-T_c)^{-1}$ and $\chi \propto T^{-1}$? $\endgroup$
    – Kimari
    Jul 29 at 0:59
  • $\begingroup$ Did you check out Wikipedia? This seems very on-point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$
    – David
    Jul 29 at 4:11

You are misunderstanding the notation. Let us denote by $\sigma_i$, $i\in V\subset\mathbb{Z}^2$, the spins in your system.

The magnetization the takes the form $$ M_V = \sum_{i\in V} \sigma_i. $$ Therefore (note that the brackets denote expectation with respect to the Gibbs measure, not an average over spins as you seem to be doing), $$ \langle M_V^2 \rangle = \Bigl\langle\Bigl( \sum_{i\in V} \sigma_i \Bigr)^2\Bigr\rangle = \Bigl\langle\sum_{i,j\in V} \sigma_i\sigma_j\Bigr\rangle = \sum_{i,j\in V} \langle\sigma_i\sigma_j\rangle. $$ Similarly, $$ \langle M_V\rangle^2 = \Bigl( \Bigl\langle\sum_{i\in V} \sigma_i \Bigr\rangle\Bigr)^2 = \Bigl( \sum_{i\in V} \langle\sigma_i\rangle \Bigr)^2 = \sum_{i,j \in V} \langle\sigma_i\rangle\langle\sigma_j\rangle. $$ Its variance is thus given by $$ \operatorname{Var}(M_V) = \langle M_V^2 \rangle - \langle M_V \rangle^2 = \sum_{i,j\in V} \bigl( \langle\sigma_i\sigma_j\rangle - \langle\sigma_i\rangle\langle\sigma_j\rangle \bigr). $$ In the thermodynamic limit, using translation invariance, the susceptibility can then be written as $$ \chi = \lim_{V\to\mathbb{Z}^2} \frac{\beta}{|V|}\operatorname{Var}(M_V) = \beta \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}^2} \bigl( \langle\sigma_0\sigma_i\rangle - \langle\sigma_0\rangle\langle\sigma_i\rangle \bigr). $$ Concerning your computations, note that, when $i\neq 0$, $\langle\sigma_0\sigma_i\rangle\neq 1$ except at $T=0$, while $\langle\sigma_0\rangle=\langle\sigma_i\rangle = 0$ if $T>T_{\rm c}$.

In fact, the truncated 2-point function $\langle\sigma_0\sigma_i\rangle - \langle\sigma_0\rangle\langle\sigma_i\rangle$ decays exponentially fast in $\|i\|$ at all $T\neq T_{\rm c}$ (in pure phases), but the decay becomes a non-summable power law at $T_{\rm c}$, which is the cause of the divergence of the susceptibility $\chi$.

  • $\begingroup$ How do we use this fact that the variant decays exponentially to derive the Curie-Weiss law? $\endgroup$
    – Kimari
    Jul 29 at 8:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You don't. The Curie-Weiss law only holds in the mean-field approximation, or above 4 dimensions. You can see the list of critical exponents of the Ising model here. The relevant one is $\gamma$. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 at 8:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If your more general question is "how do you obtain the critical behavior of the susceptibility?", then the answer is that this is hard. When $d=2$, you can make explicit computations to obtain the exact critical exponent. When $d=3$, you can obtain a good estimate of the critical exponent using, for instance, conformal bootstrap. The mean-field behavior above $4$ dimension can be rigorously derived, but this is not trivial either. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 at 9:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, the derivation of the Curie-Weiss law in the mean-field approximation is easy. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 at 9:07

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.