Curie-Weiss Paramagnetism susceptibility

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Curie-Weiss paramagnetism, specifically focusing on demonstrating the Curie-Weiss behavior and estimating parameters such as the exchange energy and coordination number. The subject area includes statistical mechanics and magnetism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the Curie-Weiss behavior using the spin-1/2 Ising model and discusses the implications of the self-consistency equation. Some participants question the validity of the coordination number calculated, noting it results in a non-integer value, which raises concerns about the assumptions made in the model.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, particularly focusing on the implications of the calculated coordination number. There is a clear interest in clarifying the assumptions and definitions related to the number of nearest neighbors in the context of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted concern regarding the physical interpretation of a non-integer coordination number, which is typically expected to be a whole number in this context. This suggests a potential oversight or miscalculation in the original poster's approach.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



(a) Show the curie-weiss behaviour.
(b) Estimate ##\lambda## and ##B_e## and exchange energy.[/B]
2011_B6_Q8.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Part(a)
Since even when applied field is zero, ##B_{total} \neq 0## which gives rise to ##M\neq 0##. This is a fundamental property of ferromagnetism.
Consider the spin-1/2 ising model:
H = \sum\limits_{\langle i,j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j - \sum\limits_i g \mu_B \sigma_i \cdot \vec B
H_i = \left( g \mu_B B_{applied} - J \sum\limits_j \sigma_j \right)\sigma_i
We represent the term in the brackets by an effective field ##B_e##:
H_i = \left( g \mu_B B_e \right)\sigma_i
Average spin at site ##i## is given by
\langle \sigma \rangle = -\frac{1}{2} \tanh \left( \frac{\beta g \mu_B B_e}{2}\right)
By the mean-field approach, we assume that ##\langle \sigma \rangle## is the same at all sites, giving:
g \mu_B B_{app} - J z \sigma_j = g \mu_B B_e
where ##z## is the number of nearest neighbours, or coordination number.

This leads to a 'self-consistency' equation
\frac{1}{2}\tanh \left[ \frac{\beta}{2} \left( Jz\langle \sigma\rangle - g\mu_B B \right) \right] = \langle \sigma \rangle
At zero appleid field, Curie temperature is given when gradient = 1, so
\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\beta}{2}Jz \right) = 1
T_c = \frac{Jz}{4 k_B}

For the curie-weiss behaviour, we expand for small ##\langle \sigma \rangle##:
\langle \sigma\rangle = \frac{ \frac{\beta}{4}g \mu_B B_{app} }{frac{\beta}{4} Jz - 1}
\langle \sigma\rangle = \frac{\frac{1}{4} \frac{g \mu_B B_{app}}{k_B}}{T-T_c}
M = g n \mu_B \langle \sigma \rangle = \frac{\frac{1}{4} \frac{(g \mu_B)^2 n B_{app}}{k_B}}{T-T_c}
\chi = \mu_0 \frac{\partial M}{\partial B_{app}} = \frac{1}{4} (g\mu_B)^2 \frac{n}{k_B} \frac{1}{T-T_C}

Part(b)
I found the coordination number at ##T = 1024 K## and ##J=1## using
T_c = \frac{Jz}{4 k_B}
It gave ##z = 5.7 \times 10^{-20}## which seems wrong as the number of neighbours should be a whole number..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bumpp on part (b) - non-integer number of neighbours!
 
bump on (b) - doesn't make sense to have non-integer number of neighbours
 
Bump on - (b) please
 
part (b) - number of neighbours?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K