P28 of phase transitions and the renormalization group

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential error in Nigel Goldenfeld's "Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group," specifically on page 28. Participants express confusion regarding the computation of potential energy for a uniformly charged sphere with an interaction potential of 1/rσ, noting that the change of variables (x,y) to (u,v) may neglect the necessary restriction of u's range. Additionally, the final result does not align with the case of σ=2, and this discrepancy is not addressed in the book's errata.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of phase transitions and critical phenomena
  • Familiarity with the renormalization group technique
  • Knowledge of electrostatics, particularly Gauss's law
  • Proficiency in mathematical transformations and variable changes
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Nigel Goldenfeld's "Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group" for detailed context
  • Examine the implications of the interaction potential 1/rσ in electrostatics
  • Study the mathematical techniques for variable transformations in physics
  • Investigate the significance of the case σ=2 in phase transition theory
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, particularly those specializing in statistical mechanics, researchers studying phase transitions, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of the renormalization group methodology.

A_B
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I'm confused about the discussion on p28 of Nigel Goldenfeld's "Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group" (this question can only be answered by people who have access to the book.)

The goal is to compute the potential energy of a uniformly charged sphere where the interaction potential goes as 1/r^\sigma (So Gauss's law isn't valid). I think that, after the change of variables (x,y) -> (u, v) he neglects to restrict the range of u to the intersection of two unit spheres that are translated a distance v with respect to each other. The final result of the computation also does not agree with the case \sigma=2.

This is however not mentioned the errata (http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/errata.html) so maybe I'm missing something.Thanks,

A_B
 
Seconded. I think it is a mistake.
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K