Solving Antiferromagnetic Ising Model on Square Lattice

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on developing a mean field theory for the antiferromagnetic Ising model on a square lattice, specifically addressing the Hamiltonian defined as H = + J ∑} si sj - B ∑i si with J > 0. The main challenge identified is the self-consistency requirement for the parameter i> = m, leading to the equation m = -tanh(β(4mJ-B)), which yields only one solution and highlights the issue of zero magnetization when spins are evenly distributed. Suggestions include using a modified parameter (-1)r(m), although its effectiveness is questioned in the presence of an external magnetic field. The discussion concludes with a recommendation to explore variational methods for selecting an effective field and order parameter.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Ising model and its Hamiltonian formulation
  • Familiarity with mean field theory concepts
  • Knowledge of statistical mechanics, particularly magnetization and expectation values
  • Experience with variational methods in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the application of variational methods in statistical mechanics
  • Explore the implications of external magnetic fields on the antiferromagnetic Ising model
  • Study the role of symmetry in phase transitions within the Ising model
  • Investigate advanced techniques for solving self-consistency equations in mean field theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in statistical mechanics, and researchers focusing on magnetic systems and phase transitions, particularly those working with the Ising model.

coolbeets
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am trying to work out a mean field theory for an antiferromagnetic Ising model on a square lattice. The Hamiltonian is:

## H = + J \sum_{<i,j>} s_{i} s_{j} - B \sum_{i} s_{i} ##
## J > 0 ##

I'm running into issues trying to use

## <s_{i}> = m ##

together with the self-consistency requirement that ## <s_{i}> ## also satisfies the definition of expectation value. I end up with

## m = -tanh(\beta(4mJ-B)) ##

which doesn't make much sense. No matter what, I get only one solution. I think the issue is arising from the fact that my parameter (m) is a bad one. When half the spins are up and half are down, there is zero magnetization.

I have seen some suggestions around about choosing the parameter to be something like

## (-1)^{r}(m) ##,

but people also seem to claim that this only works in the case of no external magnetic field (due to some symmetry, which is broken by the filed).

What is a good way to think about this? What is a smarter choice of parameter in this case?

Any insight is appreciated. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've actually seen that function before in my stat mech class, the ##m = \tanh m## one, so I think you're on the right track. I remembered me and my classmates were puzzled as well...I don't have anything else useful to say about this, sorry...
 
Thanks for your response! Yeah, the m=tanhm one is what you get for the regular (ferromagnetic) Ising model, which is already not so simple, as you said, but I think it's even more complicated in the antiferromagnetic case. In the latter case, nearest neighbors have opposite spins at low T, and the net magnetization is zero.

I believe I should use a variational method, in which I choose some trial, effective field and order parameter. I'm just not sure how to choose them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
941
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K