Isothermal Magnetic Susceptibility

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12
My book says that "in the mean field approximation, the isothermal magnetic susceptibility just below the Curie temperature goes as ##(T_c-T)^{-1}##". I need some help understanding how to get this proportionality. My book does not contain any derivation or further explanations.

According to my notes the isothermal magnetic susceptibility ##\chi_T## diverges near ##T_c##:

##\chi_T = \frac{\partial M}{\partial H} |_T##

Differentiating the equation of state we get:

##\frac{1}{k_B T} = \chi_T (1- \tau) +3M_s^2 \chi_T \left( \tau - \tau^2 + \frac{\tau^3}{3} \right)##

Where ##\tau=T_c/T##. If Ms=0 we get:

##\chi_T = \frac{1}{k_B}\frac{1}{T-T_c}##

But how do we get ##T_c - T## in the denominator? We need ##\chi_T \propto (T_c-T)^{-1}## NOT ##(T-T_c)^{-1}##. :confused:

Also are we justified to set magnetization to 0 for ##T<T_c##? I did this because the books says "just below the Curie temperature", so I assumed it's almost 0 just as it would be for ##T>T_c##.

Any explanation is greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show the equation of state?
Something is not right. If τ=Tc/T, at T<Tc this will be larger than 1 so 1-τ will be negative.
So either kBT or the susceptibility should be negative in order to have that equation.
 
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately that information is not provided.

So how else can we demonstrate that magnetic susceptibility is inversely proportional to (Tc-T)? :confused:
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top