slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Order by Disorder PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Order by Disorder

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

Order by Disorder - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The 93 rd Statistical Mechanics Conference . RUTGERS UNIVERSITY. Order by Disorder. • A new method for establishing phase transitions in certain systems with continuous, n –component spins. • Applications to transition metal oxides. Cast of characters :. M. Biskup (UCLA Math).

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Order by Disorder' - melissan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

The 93rdStatistical

Mechanics Conference


Order by Disorder

• A new method for establishing phase transitions

in certain systems with continuous, n–component spins.

• Applications to transition metal oxides


Cast of characters:

M. Biskup (UCLA Math)

And, the physicists:

Relevant papers

Z. Nussinov

(Th. Div. Los Alamos)

M. Biskup, L. Chayes, Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, Orbital order in classical models of transition-metal compounds, Europhys. Lett. 67 (2004), no. 6, 990–996

M. Biskup, L. Chayes and S.A. Kivelson, Order by disorder, without order, in a two-dimensional spin system with O(2) symmetry, Ann. Henri Poincaré 5 (2004), no. 6, 1181–1205.

J. van den Brink

(Lorentz ITP, Leiden)

M. Biskup, L. Chayes and Z. Nussinov, Orbital ordering in transition-metal compounds: I. The 120-degree model, Commun. Math. Phys. 255 (2005), no. 2, 253–292

S.A. Kivelson

UCLA Physics

… more to come …



What can this system do?

MW: Certainly no magnetization

Ground states:

Now add “weak” NN ferromagnetic coupling.

General considerations:

Ground states still

¿ Disorder?

(Exactly zero message from nearest neighbors.)

Systems of interest: Continuous spins O(2), O(3), …

– huge degeneracy in the ground state.

Example: 2D NNN Antiferromagnet. (Say XY spins.)


= direction of bond

Transition Metal Compounds

• Levels in 3d shell split by crystal field.




• Single itinerant electron @ each site

with multiple orbital degrees of freedom.

Super–exchange approximation(and neglect of strain–field induced interactions among orbitals):

[Kugal–Khomskii Hamiltonian]

120º–model (eg–compounds)

V2O3, LiVO2, LaVO3, …

orbital compass–model (t2g–compounds)

LaTiO3, …


• Orbital only approximation: Neglect spin degrees of freedom.

• Large S limit (for pseudo–spin operators): Go classical.

Classical 120º Hamiltonian:

unit vectors spaced @ 120º.

Classical orbital compass Hamiltonian:

– usual Heisenberg spins.

For simplicity, today focus on 2D version of orbital compass.



L ´ L torus

May as well take

The 2D Orbital Compass Model

+ constant.

Attractive couplings (ferromagnetic).

$ other ground–states but these

play no rôle and will not be discussed.

Couples in x–direction with x–component.

Couples in y–direction with y–component.

Clear: Any constant spin–field is a ground state.

* O(2) symmetry restored *

(a) Not clear what are the “states”.

Can’t even begin to talk about contours:

(b) No apparent “stiffness”.

¿Hints from SW–theory?



Very IR–divergent.

Indeed, spherical version of this

model has no phase transition.

But infrared bounds only give upper bounds on the scattering function.

And MW–theorem (strictly speaking) does not apply.

–– The O(2) symmetry is in the ground states, not the Hamiltonian itself. ––

Theorem. For the d = 2 orbital compass model, for all b sufficiently large,$ (at least) two limiting translation invariant Gibbs states.

One has

close to one.

The other has

close to one.


Really clarified matters; put things on a firm foundation in a general context.

Key ideas:

In the physics literature since the early 80’s

J. Villain, R. Bidaux, J. P. Carton and R. Conte, Order as an Effect of Disorder, J. Phys. (Paris) 41 (1980), no.11, 1263–1272.

E. F. Shender, Antiferromagnetic Garnets with Fluctuationally Interacting Sublattices, Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 178–184 .

C. L. Henley, Ordering Due to Disorder in a Frustrated Vector Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 2056–2059.

Plus infinitely many papers (mostly quantum) in which specific calculations done.

Our contribution to physics general theory: Modest.

All of this works

even in d = 2.

(But TMO models of some topical interest.)

At b < ∞, weighting of various ground states

must take into account more than just energetics:

• Fluctuations of spins will contribute to overall statistical weight.

These (spin–fluctuation) degrees of freedom will

themselves organize into spin–wave like modes.

• Can be calculated (or estimated).


Key ideas:

1) At b < ∞, weighting of various ground states

must take into account more than just energetics:

Gaussian like SW–free energetics

will tell us which of the ground

states are actually preferred

@ finite temperature

• Fluctuations of spins contribute to overall statistical weight.

2) These (spin–fluctuation) degrees of freedom will

themselves organize into spin–wave like modes.

• Can be calculated (or estimated).


(1) Not as drastic an approximation as it sounds;

• Infrared divergence virtually non–existent at

the level of free–energetics.

(2) In math–phys, plenty of “selection due

to finite–temperature excitations”.

• Excitation spectrum always with (huge) gap.


• Finite (or countable) number of ground states.


Will square this.

Neglect quadratic (and beyond).

Let’s do calculation. Write:

[q = fixed “ground state”]

Look @ H, neglect terms of higher order than quadratic in j’s

Well, got:



and similarly


Fact that we are talking about “q” means that we do not integrate over the k = 0 mode.

Approximate Hamiltonian is therefore:

Go to transform variables:

So, after some manipulations,

Now, total weight can easily be calculated:

Take logs:


A free energy;



Want as small as possible.

Scales with b.

Pause to refresh: No difficulty doing these integrals; some infrared “action” but no big deal (logarithmic). We are only interested in a free energy.

Now log is a (strictly) concave function:

Do kx, ky integrals on RHS, these come out the same. We learn

Use strict concavity,



– and hence –

Calculation indicates:

There are “states” at

which will dominate any other “state”.

Outline of a proof.

(1) Define a fluctuation scale.

Look @ situation where each deviation variable jr has:


means that quadratic approximation is “good”.


means that the effective Gaussian variables

are allowed to get large.


Proposition: With the constraints (globally) enforced, the spin wave formula for the q – dependent limiting free energy is asymptotic as

Not important; for technical

reasons, this is notD(b).

(a) Each neighboring pair of fluctuation variables



(b) Each spin variable

Not hard to see:

(2) Define a running length scale, B – and another, interrelated spin–scale, e.


A block LB of scale B is defined to be good if

(You can add .)

Clear: There are two types of good blocks.


(ii) Energetics good, but q not particularly near 0 or .

Can use method of chessboard estimates.







A] Gives estimates on probability of bad blocks in terms of constrained partition function where all blocks are bad blocks.

Type (i) indeed suppressed exponentially.

Type (ii) has probability bounded by

where N is the block size. This goes to zero as

Note: Type (ii) is independent of .

Also: Two types of bad blocks.

Energetic disaster. (Should be suppressed

exponentially with rate ~ bD2 )

More important, more interesting:


Reiterate: Two distinct types of goodness. A single box cannot exhibit both types of goodness. Thus, regions of the distinctive types of goodness must be separated by closed contours.

Bad blocks form contour element which separate

regions of the two distinct types of goodness.







B] Gives estimates on probability of contour bad blocks by the product of the previously mentioned probability estimates.

• Standard Peierls argument, implies existence of two distinct states.

Remarks: Same sort of thing true for antiferromagnet, 120º–model & 3D orbital compass model (sort of).

Interesting feature: Limiting behavior of model as T goes to zero is not the same as the behavior of the model @ T = 0.

In particular, non–trivial stiffness at T = 0 (and presumably  as well)..