Question: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Also on the homework, I am not sure where the <math>m_A</math> and <math>m_B</math> come into play. Do we just use them for the self consistent equations like we did in class: | Also on the homework, I am not sure where the <math>m_A\;</math> and <math>m_B\;</math> come into play. Do we just use them for the self consistent equations like we did in class: | ||
<math>tanh(\beta(\frac{1}{2}Jzm+h)) = m_0</math> | <math>tanh(\beta(\frac{1}{2}Jzm+h)) = m_0</math> | ||
or are we supposed to substitute one of them into the initial equation of the Ising Model? | or are we supposed to substitute one of them into the initial equation of the Ising Model? | ||
'''Vlad: you see, here the same IDEA applies. However, the magnetization on sublattice A is expressed in therms of the magnetization on sublattice B. Thus we get a similar self-consistency conditions:''' | |||
'''<math>m_A = tanh(\beta(\frac{1}{2}Jzm_A +h))''' | |||
and | |||
'''<math>m_B = tanh(\beta(\frac{1}{2}Jzm_B +h))</math>, etc.''' |
Revision as of 23:03, 2 February 2009
I am looking at your page 6 of your lecture notes from here.
Looking at the Ising Model:
Then going to the formula for . Does the subscript i have anything to do with the index of summation i or does it stand for internal?
Vlad: it is the index of the considered site i. It feels an internal field from all the z sites connected to site i.
Also, why is the third formula:
I thought it would be:
since the external field is being subtracted in the initial equation above.
Vlad: there actually is a typo in these old notes. The correct expression should be:
since in the first expression , and the sum over the neighbors of the site just produce a factor .
Also on the homework, I am not sure where the and come into play. Do we just use them for the self consistent equations like we did in class:
or are we supposed to substitute one of them into the initial equation of the Ising Model?
Vlad: you see, here the same IDEA applies. However, the magnetization on sublattice A is expressed in therms of the magnetization on sublattice B. Thus we get a similar self-consistency conditions:
, etc.