Isothermal Magnetic Susceptibility

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the isothermal magnetic susceptibility, denoted as ##\chi_T##, in the context of the mean field approximation just below the Curie temperature (##T_c##). Participants clarify that the susceptibility diverges near ##T_c##, following the relationship ##\chi_T = \frac{1}{k_B}\frac{1}{T-T_c}## when magnetization (##M_s##) is set to zero. The key point of confusion is the need to express the susceptibility as proportional to ##(T_c - T)^{-1}## instead of ##(T - T_c)^{-1}##, which is addressed through the understanding of the variable ##\tau = T_c/T##. The discussion also raises questions about the justification for setting magnetization to zero for temperatures below ##T_c##.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of isothermal magnetic susceptibility (##\chi_T##)
  • Familiarity with the mean field approximation in statistical mechanics
  • Knowledge of Curie temperature (##T_c##) and its significance in phase transitions
  • Basic proficiency in thermodynamics and differentiation of equations of state
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of isothermal magnetic susceptibility in the mean field approximation
  • Explore the implications of the Curie temperature on magnetic properties
  • Learn about the behavior of magnetization near phase transitions
  • Investigate the mathematical treatment of critical phenomena in statistical mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in condensed matter physics, students studying statistical mechanics, and researchers interested in magnetic materials and phase transitions.

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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K