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!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top