Renormalisation group in statistical mechanics

AI Thread Summary
Renormalization group (RG) in statistical mechanics involves defining a microscopic system with a Hamiltonian, coarse-graining it to derive a new Hamiltonian, and ensuring self-similarity near critical points. The challenge arises when understanding the meaning of recursion relations away from critical points, as they seem to only apply under specific conditions. Fixed points are crucial as they relate to critical phenomena and describe the long-distance behavior of phases, often existing only at the critical temperature. The discussion highlights the importance of rescaling and the implications of having similar Hamiltonians for finding fixed points. Clarifying these concepts can enhance understanding of RG and its applications in statistical mechanics.
tun
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am currently trying to get my head round RG in the context of statistical mechanics and am not succeeding! I would be grateful for any help. I have a specific question, but any clarification of RG in general would be useful. Here is my understanding of the main ideas:

1. Define microscopic system with some Hamiltonian H.
2. Coarse grain this system in some (arbitrary) fashion, which gives rise to a system with a new H in terms of the coarse grained variables.
3. Now we use some input from experiment: near the critical point the system appears to be self similar at all scales, so we impose the requirement that H is of the same form in the new system so that the coarse grained system behaves as it should; the new H has some different set of constants in general given by a transformation.
4. We can then go on to find critical exponents and the critical coupling.

The problem comes when I read or hear statements such as in Leo Kadanoff's book where he says that "each phase of the system can be described by a special set of couplings, K*, which are invariant under the RG transform". The procedure outlined above (if I've got it right!) only applies around the critical point from step 3 onwards, as elsewhere the system certainly doesn't look the same on all scales. Why does the recursion relation we previously obtained have any meaning away from the critical point?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I understand it something like this:
(i) Start from a microscopic Hamiltonian
(ii) Coarse grain and rescale
(iii) At the critical point, there should be self similarity, ie. there will be a fixed point of step (ii).
(iv) Search for fixed points of step (ii).
(v) If a fixed point of step (ii) is related to critical phenomena, it should have some properties eg. existing only for T=Tc.
 
atyy said:
I understand it something like this:
(i) Start from a microscopic Hamiltonian
(ii) Coarse grain and rescale
(iii) At the critical point, there should be self similarity, ie. there will be a fixed point of step (ii).
(iv) Search for fixed points of step (ii).
(v) If a fixed point of step (ii) is related to critical phenomena, it should have some properties eg. existing only for T=Tc.

Right, I forgot the rescaling but was nearly there! It seems to me though that having the same Hamiltonian or close enough so that we can find fixed points corresponds to a rather special situation.

I'll take a look at that book though, hopefully that will clear things up.

Thanks for your help!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top