PHYS 123B: Lecture Notes for Phase Transitions

Daniel Ish

Well, here we are: the main event. Ultimately, the idea here is that we would like to say something sensible
about how a material can be a ferromagnet at one temperature and a paramagnet at another, using our model
Hamiltonian
X
H =J i S
S j (1)
hi,ji

that we arrived at by thinking about the physics at play in a generic solid. This is a hefty task, and one that
we will only scratch the surface of. The general plan is this: we will start with a bit of formalism that we have
been avoiding so far and talk about density matricies and the general method for handling quantum systems
at finite temperature. Then, I will say qualitative things about the general phenomena associated with phase
transitions and spontaneous symmetry breaking. This will lead straight into a discussion of mean field theory
and the Holstein-Primakoff transformation. So, lets go:

Density Matrices
We can ask a very simple formal question to motivate the introduction of desity matrices: how do we describe
a system when we do not know for sure what state it is in? That is, lets imagine that Im performing some
experiment over and over. To start the experiment, I try to prepare some state |i. But, I am not very good at
my job and I only succeed with probability p and with probability p = 1 p I instead produce some other
state |i. Im not so bad at my job, though, and I know p , |i and |i. With this information, I can actually
with a little bit of work. Let |ii be an eigenbasis of A:
still find the expected value of any observable A,

A |ii = ai |ii (2)

For simplicity, lets assume that the spectrum of A is non-degnerate. That is, all the ai are distinct. We know
that the probability of recieving the value ai for A in the state |i is p(i|) = |hi|i|2 and that the probability
of recieving the value ai for A in the state |i is p(i|) = |hi|i|2 . So, since we know the probability of starting
out in state |i is p and the probability of starting out in state |i is p , the overall probability of recieving
ai as our value for A is

p(i) = p p(i|) + p p(i|) = p h|ii hi|i + p h|ii hi|i (3)

Using this, we can compute our expected value for A as

D E X X X D  E D  E
A = ai p(i) = ai p h|ii hi|i + ai p h|ii hi|i = p h|ii iA + p h|ii iA
   
i i i
*  !  + *  !  +
 X   X  D   E D   E
= p  |ii hi| A + p  |ii hi| A = p A + p A (4)
       
   
i i

which seems like a viscerally reasonable answer. We have used the fact that
X
I= |ii hi| (5)
i

which follows from the fact that the |ii form a basis.
This is a pretty nice result, but computing it was kind of annoying. I had to separately carry around the
probabilities that I was in some state and the states. Itd be nice if I could package all of this information into
some kind of single object. In fact I can! Consider the operator:

= p |i h| + p |i h| (6)

1
 is called a density matrix and it captures all of the intormation of the probability distribution over states and
the states themselves. We can use it to compute expectations1
h i XD  E X D  E D  E
Tr A =

iA (p |i h| + p |i h|)i =
  
p iA h|ii + p iA h|ii
 
i i
*  !  + *  !  +
 X   X  D   E D   E
= p  |ii hi| A + p  |ii hi| A = p A + p A = hAi (7)
       
   
i i

which is most of what we do on a daily basis anyway. You can perhaps see from this that contains all the
information about |i, |i and p . has a few other properties that will prove useful. We can notice first that
is Hermitian. Additionally, we can see
*  ! + *  ! +
X  X   X 
Tr[] = p hi|i h|ii + p hi|i h|ii = p  |ii hi|  + p  |ii hi| 
   
   
i i i
= p h|i + p h|i = p + p = 1 (8)

It turns out that any that is Hermitian with Tr[ ] = 1 can be interpreted as a probability distribution
over states in this way. To see this, notice that since is Hermitian, it must have a complete set of eigenvectors
|ii with eigenvalues i . Using these eigenvectors, I can write2
X
= i |ii hi| (9)
i

However, taking the trace in this eigenbasis and using Tr[

] = 1 gives
X
i = 1 (10)
i

so that we can interpret i as the probability of occupying state |ii. Identically to our previous work, we can
see that this correctly gives us any expectation value.
Okay, but why? Well, up to this point whenever we have discussed a thermal system, weve been carrying
our probabilities and states separately. We have said that if my system is in thermal equilibrium with a resevoir
at temperature T then I will find it in the energy eigenstate |i which has energy E with probability

eE /kB T X
p() = Z= eE /kB T (11)
Z

This is a bit cumbersome, if in nothing else but writing. So, if I want to be slightly quicker, I can now say that
a thermal system has density matrix
1 X E /kB T
= e |i h| (12)
Z
1 by
In case you are unfamiliar with the trace operation, it is defined for any operator O
X D   E
Tr[O] = i
iO
i

1
where |ii is any basis. The value of the trace is actually independent of the basis chosen. It will also be useful to note that for O
2 operators and c1 and c2 complex numbers
and O

Tr[c1 O1 + c2 O
1 ] = c1 Tr[O
1 ] + c2 Tr[O
2 ]

2
This is just the statement of my ability to diagonalize , in terms of bras and kets. If you do not believe me, let this formula
act on a general state. Then, compare the result to expanding that state in eigenvectors and acting on that expansion with .

2
which is a bit of an improvement. But, we can do better still! Lets define3

  X 1 n
exp A = A (13)
n!
n=0

I now claim
 
h  i BT
exp H/k
BT
Z = Tr exp H/k = (14)
Z
To see this, notice that if I let this operator act on one of my eigenkets |i

!n
E n
 
  X 1 H X 1

exp H/kB T |i = |i = |i = eE /kB T |i (15)
n! kB T n! kB T
n=0 n=0
 
BT
by recognizing the series expansion for the regular old exponential. Thus, |i is an eigenket for exp H/k
with eigenvalue eE /kB T . Since the |i form a basis, I can see
  X
exp H/k BT = eE /kB T |i h| (16)

which is enough to give our result for in a thermal system.

This might seem very formal at this stage, but as we go forward I trust you will be able to appreciate the
power and cleanliness of the density matrix. Many of the techniques we will use in the coming sections would
be confusing, disorganized and borderline impossible to formulate without this tool.
One final thing before we move on: the exponential of an operator has many of the properties of the scalar
exponential, but not all of them. Most glaringly
      h i
exp A + B = exp A exp B if and only if A, B
=0 (17)

I would caution you to be very careful when attempting to use some property of the scalar exponential when
working with the operator exponential. Its a good policy to check the property directly from the series definition
unless you are very sure.

A Touch of Formalism and Some Facts About Phase Transitions

To start off with, well be ignoring the antiferromagnet and thinking only about the ferromagnet to paramagnet
transition. So, well mostly be concerned with observing the static magnetization as a function of temperature
and applied field4 :
1 X D E
M(T, B) = Si (18)
N
i

where of course this average is the thermal and quantum mechanical average:
D E h i
i = Tr S
S i (19)
3
You might be tempted to worry about convergence issues in this series. Do not. It always converges. That n! in the denominator
is powerful.
4
For all of our talk of linear response, well only be concerned with a spatially and temporally constant field.

3
and
 
BT
exp H/k X X h  i
= =J
H i S
S j i
BS BT
Z = Tr exp H/k (20)
Z
hi,ji i

where J > 0 and the final term includes the effect of our constant applied field. If youre a stickler for checking
units, youll note that there are a lot of missing Bohr magnetons and g factors here. Ive dropped those using
the excuse Im a theorist, I only care about functional forms or, if you like put them back at the end to fix
units. This is all to say that carrying Bohr magnetons around doesnt inform our analysis in any conceptually
significant way, so Ill save myself some typing. Also, you might complain that depending on the way that
we made these spins, the coupling Ive written down for the magnetic field is only true to first order. There
are additional terms involving more spins arising from spin orbit coupling. But, I want to keep this discussion
simple and, not for nothing, well only be concerned about observables to first order in the field.
Before we get into trying to characterize this phase transition, lets talk a bit about some of the general
properties of phase transitions. To inform this discussion somewhat, we define
kB T
F = ln Z (21)
N
F is called the (Helmholtz) free energy density. If you remember your stat mech, you might anticipate one
thing we can do with this quantity. Consider
F kB T 1 Z kB T 1 h 
BT
i
= = Tr exp H/k (22)
B N Z B N Z B
But if we let |i be any basis, we can see
h 
BT =
i X D    E
B T 
Tr exp H/k exp H/k
B B

     
X  


=  exp H/kB T  = Tr
 exp H/kB T (23)
B
B B

At this moment, it is profitable to take a step back and make sure that the derivatives of the operator exponential
work in the way we expect them to. So, lets consider some operator A(s) which is a function of some real
number s. Well compute



 X 1  n X 1  n A(s) X n  n1 A(s) 


exp A(s) = A(s) = A(s) = A(s) = exp A(s)
s s n! n! s s n! s
n=0 n=0 n=0

since A(s) commutes with itself. So, this is one of those places that the operator exponential works like the
scalar exponential. Cool, that makes our lives easier. So, we find

B T = 1 H exp H/k
BT = 1
    X  
exp H/k i exp H/k
S BT (24)
B kB T B kB T
i

Plugging this back into Equation (22) we find

 
exp
H/k B T
F 1 X = 1
X D E
= Tr S i Si = M (25)
B N Z N
i i

So we can compute the value of our observable simply by taking derivatives of the free energy! This might
be old hat to you depending on what you did in your stat mech class. If so, just take solace in the fact that

4
quantum mechanics, despite all its operators and things failing to commute, did not mess this up.5 Also, here
we see an argument for the density matrix formalism in quantum thermodynamics. Look how quick that was!
Try doing that without a density matrix. Youll be doing first order perturbation theory and itll be awful.
So, since we have defined our susceptibility as

M 


= (26)
B B=0

which means that, using our newfound formula for the magnetization in terms of the free energy, we find

2 F 


= (27)
B B B=0

This is the formula for the susceptibility we will use. Notice also that we can see that easily from this formula
that the susceptibility must be a symmetric matrix, by the equality of mixed partials. This is easy to see
mathematically, but seems quite non-trivial physically.
With this tool, we can now start to understand the formal properties of phase transitions. To start off with,
we give a puzzle. Let R be any rotation and consider Z(T, RB). Using spin rotation symmetry to make the
substitution S i R1 S
i , we see

X X
Z(T, RB) = Tr exp J i S
S j i
(RB) S
hi,ji i

X    X
= Tr exp J R1 S
i R1 S
j i
BS
hi,ji i

X X
= Tr exp J i S
S j i = Z(T, B)
BS (28)
hi,ji i

where we have used that the dot product is preserved by rotations liberally throughout. Done right, this
argument is actually a touch subtler that what I have given here, but this gives the flavor of it at least. So, this
rather trivially shows that

F (T, B) = F (T, RB) (29)

which, since we are in three dimensions shows that

F (T, B) = F (T, B) (30)

which shows that this function is symmetric with respect to inversion in B, so its first derivative vanishes at 0
since
  
F (T, B)  F (T, B)  F (T, B) 
= = (31)
B B=0 B 
B=0 B B=0

which implies

F (T, B) 
=0 (32)
B B=0
5
In fact, you make take precisely a quantum of solace.

5
 But, wait a second, weve already shown that

F (T, B) 
M (T, 0) = (33)
B B=0

so this argument gives that the magnetization at zero field is alway zero because of symmetry. Arg! This isnt
what we wanted. We were hoping to describe a permanent magnet, which still posesses a magnetization even
at zero applied field. What gives?
The answer here is that we must actually be exceedingly careful about limits and continuity. So, up until
this point, we have been ignoring that our free energy density is a function of another variable as well, N , our
total number of spins. We have just shown that for finite N ,

M(T, 0, N ) = 0 (34)

But, we can consider

lim lim M(T, B, N ) =? (35)

B0 N

Could this be non-zero? In fact it can, depending on what we mean by the B 0 limit. Start by defining

MT D (T, B) = lim M(T, B, N ) (36)

N

the subscript T D is due to the fact that this N limit, the limit of infinite system size, is referred to as
the Thermodynamic limit. Now, since it is true for finite B and N that

M(T, B, N ) = M(T, B, N ) (37)

it must be true that

MT D (T, B) = MT F (T, B) (38)

So, if our desired limit exists, it must be zero. To see this a bit more concretely, consider the case B = B x ex .
For finite B x , we have

MT D (T, B x ex ) = MT D (T, bx ex ) (39)

which implies

lim MT D (T, B x ex ) = lim MT D (T, B x ex ) (40)

B x 0+ B x 0

So if the two sided limit exists, it must be 0. However, this is also consistent with a jump discontinuity in
the magnetization. This is the way that we can arrive at our desired non-zero magnetization in zero field.
By considering the one sided limit, one can find that in certain systems, in the thermodynamic limit, the
magnetization will begin to exhibit these jump discontinuities at zero field. We can set the magnitude of the
spontaneous (zero field) magnetization by taking the limit along any fixed axis (e.g. out B x 0+ limit above).
This magnitude will be fixed, but the direction of the magnetization will depend on the direction of the limit
is taken in.
Physically, some direction will be chosen for our system to magnetize in. This is referred to as spontaneous
symmetry breaking, because the system breaks the symmetry all on its own. If this notion is disconcerting to
you, you can always remember that in a lab one can never truly purge all errant magnetic fields and we can
simply imagine that the history of the magnet is responsible for setting this direction. Once this direction
is fixed, you can wonder how it remains fixed. After all, this rotation symmetry means that all the different
directions for magnetization have the same energy and free energy. The obstacle here is entropic. To steal an

6
analogy from Altland and Simons Condensed Matter Field Theory, a hot tea pot has the same energy as a
teapot flying rapidly towards the far wall but we do not often see warm tea pots spontaneously flying at walls
due to the unlikeliness of a concerted motion of all of the constituent atoms in the teapot.
Looking back at the free energy, we can develop a general criterion for a phase transitions. In general,

FT D = lim F (41)
N

always exists. But, from the above, we can see that it might fail to have finite derivatives. So, we say that
a phase transition occurs wherever F exhibits a point of non-analyticity in temperature. This transition is
first order if the first derivative (read: the magnetization) is not continuous at the transition temperature and
second order when the first derivative is continuous but the second (read: the susceptibility) is not.

Mean Field Theory

How do we begin to tackle understanding these phenomena in the Heisenberg model? We will be using a
technique called Mean Field Theory, which is actually a version of the variational principle. In your quantum
mechanics classes, you learned that if E0 is the ground state energy of some Hamiltonian H and |i is any
state then
D   E
 
H  E0 (42)

You then probably used this to find the best approximation to the ground state from among a class of states.
Typically, one choses a family of states thats a function of some parameter (your trial states) and then
minimizes the expectation value of the energy with respect to this parameter. That is, one minimizes
D   E
 
E() = H  (43)

typically by solving the equation resulting from

E()
=0 (44)

and claims that if is the argument for which E() attains its minimum then | i is the best approximation
to the ground state. In Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, for example, this technique is used to
calculate an approximation to the ground state of He.
It turns out that a similar variational principle is true in thermal systems. There are a few different ways
to write it, and they are all a little impenetrable until you work with them a bit. As you might imagine, since
our true system is thermal, a pure state would make a poor approximation. So, what we want is to find some
varaitional principle for trial density matrices

t () (45)

which are functions of some parameter and are intended to serve as approximations to the true thermal
density matrix. Since the true density matrix of our system is a thermal density matrix, it seems reasonable to
try to approximate it by a thermal density matrix of a different, easier Hamiltonian at the same temperature:
! " !#
1 H t () t ()
H
t () = exp Zt = Tr exp (46)
Zt kB T kB T

where parametrizes some family of Hamiltonians that we can solve (i.e. diagnonalize). These density matrices
must satisfy the Gibbs-Delbruck variational principle
1 h
t t kB T ln Zt
 i
F Tr H H (47)
N N

7
Theres a lot to unpack here. We view the right hand side as an approximation to the true free energy of the
system and will refer to it as Ft :
1 h
t t kB T ln Zt
 i
Ft = Tr H H (48)
N N
With this interpretation, the Gibbs-Delbruck variational principle simply says that in the same way the expec-
tation value of the energy will always overestimate the ground state energy, our trial free energy will always
overestimate the true free energy of the system. One immediately wonders why, then, does this quantity make
a reasonable trial free energy? Squinting and thinking vaguely leads one to believe that its certainly plausible
to think that this is the case. After all,
kB T
ln Zt
N

is the free energy of a system whose Hamiltonian is H t which is equilibrium with a bath at temperature T and

1 h
H t t = 1 H
 i D
H t
E
Tr H (49)
N N t

is the average value of the difference in the Hamiltonians divided by our system size. In some sense, this is how
much our trial density matrix gets the energy density wrong because it calculates the energy using H t rather
than H.
Mathematically, this comes from the statement that for any two density matrices P and Q
h     i
Tr P ln P ln Q 0 (50)

applied to P = t and Q = . The matrix log here is defined in the same manner as the matrix eponential:
simply plug the relevant matrix into the taylor series for the log.6 Since this inequality is pretty clearly saturated
when P = Q, we can see that minimizing the left hand side for some restricted class of P provides the best
approximation to Q from among that class.
We have this variational principle, so now we just need to decide on a family of trial Hamiltonians. Wed
like something that we can diagonalize exactly and easily compute the expectation of H in. For these reasons,
and some physical ones, we will choose
X
H t = h i
S (51)
i

for the ease of use that I assert, youll have to wait until we start actually computing with this trial Hamiltonian.
On physical grounds, we are imagining that for the most part the neighboring sites, being magnetized along
some axis, mostly just provide some average field h. Since we are trying to model a material with a permenant
magnetization, this seems quite reasonable.
The critically important feature of this Hamiltonian is that it is a sum of operators which act only on a
sinlge site. Since spins on different sites commute, we can see
! !
t
H Y hSi
exp = exp (52)
kB T kB T
i

If we take the trace in the standard basis

|S1z , S2z , . . .i = |S1z i |S1z i . . . (53)

  
6
To see the Gibbs-Delbruck variational prinicple from this statement, one needs only that ln exp A = A.
This statement is
a touch more subtle than it looks at first, but it works here.

8
 i acts only on the ith member of the tensor product
we find that, since S
" !#
Ht 
(1) N

Zt = Tr exp = Zt (54)
kB T

where
" !#
(1) hS |h|
2k
|h|

|h|

Zt = Tr exp =e 2kB T
+e BT = 2 cosh (55)
kB T 2kB T

by taking the trace in the eigenbasis of h setting ~ = 1 and restricting our analysis to S = 1 . In case it is
S,
|h| 2
unclear,
q
|h| = h2x + h2y + h2q (56)

By the same logic, if we define

" !#

m(h) =
1 exp h S
Tr S (57)
(1) kB T
Zt

we can see that

D
H
E
t = J
XD E D E
i S
j +
X D E
i = J
X X JcN 2
H S h S m2 + hm= m + Nh m (58)
t t t t 2
hi,ji i hi,ji i

again because the spins act only on a single site. Now we see the virtue of this trial Hamiltonian! It has taken
a problem where the different sites are coupled (which is hard and we do not know how to approach it) and
approximated it with a problem where the different sites are independent. A note: the number c here is the
coordination number, defined to be the number of nearest neighbors of a given site on our lattice. We can use
this information to count the number of nearest neighbor pairs. Every site participates in c nearest neighbor
pairs. But N c overcounts the number, since each pair counted twice: once for each site in it. So there are N c/2
nearest neighbor pairs.
Cool! All thats left is to compute the magnetization m. To do this, we exploit the derivative trick we saw
in the previous section
 
|h|
 
|h|

h sinh 2kB T h

|h|

(1)
m = kB T h ln Zt = kB T h ln 2 cosh =  = tanh (59)
2kB T 2 |h| cosh |h| 2 |h| 2kB T
2kB T

Bringing this all together, we have computed our trial free energy (Equation (48)) as a function of h:
     
Jc |h| 1 |h| |h|
Ft = tanh 2
+ |h| tanh kB T ln cosh kB T ln 2 (60)
8 2kB T 2 2kB T 2kB T

Notice that this is independent of the direction of h, as we would expect from the spin rotation invariance of
our model. So, any minimum condition we derive is only going to depend on the magnitude of h as well. This is
our manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in mean field theory: we will still be at liberty to choose
the direction of our mean field. In order to make our lives simpler, we will choose h = hex with h > 0. Using
Equation (59), we find that m = mex with
 
1 |h|
m = tanh (61)
2 2kB T

9
 Since this is a variational calculation, we would like to minimize Ft . So, our first step is to seek places
where the derivative vanishes
Ft
=0 (62)
h
This is actually somewhat easier if we go back to a slightly earlier version of our equation:
Jc 2 (1)
Ft = m + hm kB T ln Zt (63)
2
Taking the derivative gives
Ft m m m
= Jcm +m+h m = (Jcm + h) (64)
h h h h
by remembering that
(1)
kB T Z =m (65)
h t
Hence, since h m > 0, the derivative of the trial free energy vanishes where
h = Jcm (66)
which is frequently called the self consistent equation. (Recall, if you are worried about signs, that J < 0.)
To see why we call it this, and why you should be deeply pleased with its appearance,
D E lets engage in some

tilde-ing. If we return to our original Hamiltonian and make the replacement S S on one of the spins, we
find
X XD E X  D E
H =J Si S
j J Si S
j Jc S S j (67)
hi,ji hi,ji j
D E
. Since we are modeling it by a Hamiltonian where the jth spin sees a field
so that jth spin sees a field Jc S
h, we should want these two values to match on physical grounds.

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

h h
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

h m h m

(a) T = 0.9Tc (b) T = 1.1Tc

Figure 1: Some representative curves for determining the sorts of point which can be solutions to the self
consistent equation for h.

Now on to the solution of this equation. We can re-write the self consistent equation as
 
Jc h
h = tanh (68)
2 2kB T

10
this equation is transcendental and so cannot be solved in general. Since tanh(0) = 0, the trivial solution always
exists. We will associate this solution with the paramagnetic phase since it posesses no magnetization. If we
look at a graph of the funtions tanh(x) and x, we can see that this equation has additional solutions if and only
if the tanh side starts off above the h (see Figure 1).
So, we have a non-trivial solution if and only if
 
Jc h  Jc
1 tanh  = (69)
2 h 2kB T h=0
 4kB T
or,

|J| c
T Tc (70)
4kB
Boom! We have a phase transition. Below our critical temperature, our self consistent equation aquires a new
solution with non-zero mean field. You can check by looking at the second derivative of the free energy that
below the critical temperature this new location where the derivative vanishes is in fact the global minimum.
To get some further intuition for this, lets look at some graphs of the free energy. A quick note on this: in
order to graph the free energy, we must make it dimensionless. We do this by graphing Ft / |J| c in terms of
the reduced magnetic field and temperature
h T
hr = Tr = (71)
2kB Tc Tc
which can both be seen to be dimensionless with our unit convention. In terms of these quantities, we find the
following graphs. This agrees well with our analysis above. Below Tc , the critical point at h = 0 turns from a
t t
c J c J

-0.153

-0.154
-0.180

-0.155

-0.156 -0.185

-0.157

h h
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 kB Tc 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 kB Tc

(a) T = 0.9Tc (b) T = 1.1Tc

local minimum to a local maximum and the minimum moves out to finite h. Remember that the point at the
middle of the trough there is actually a whole sphere of minima in h due to the symmetry.
Before we move on, let me make something explicit. The magnetization in the trial density matrix is
1 X D E
Mt = Si = m (72)
N t
i

This explains our identification of h 6= 0 at the minimum with the ferromagnetic phase. If h 6= 0 then m(h) 6= 0,
so that our trial density matrix predicts a non-zero magnetization.
We can also characterize how this magnetization depends on temperature, at least near the critical point.
In doing so, we will also argue that the transition is second order in this case. The technique here will be to
seek solutions for small h near the critical point. If such solutions exist and vanish continuously at the critical

11
point, then since there is only one family of non-trivial solutions to the self consistent equation, we will know
that the transition is second order. We could choose to expand the self consistent equation directly, but since
it will be thematically important, we expand the free energy instead. Using Equation (60), we find to fourth
order:
r(T ) 2 (T ) 4
Ft = F0 + h + O h6


h + (73)
2 4
with
cJ + 4kB T cJ 3kB T
F0 = kB T ln 2 r(T ) = 2 T2 (T ) = 4 T4 (74)
16kB 48kB

Lets start by trying to get a handle on the signs of these coefficients near the transition, since thats where
our expansion has any hope of being valid. So, we are considering

|J| c
T Tc = (75)
4kB
1
Now, since J < 0, (T ) > 0 provided that T < |J| c/3kB . So, since 4 < 13 , (T ) > 0 in the vicinity of the
transition. On the other hand, we can rewrite
T Tc
r(T ) = (76)
4kB T 2

to see that r(T ) changes sign exactly at T = Tc . Now that cant be a coincidence. Indeed it is not. Looking for
a minimum, we take our derivative

0 = h Ft = h r(T ) + (T )h2 + O h5



(77)

So, to this order, there are two possible solutions

s
r(T )
h = 0 or |h| = (78)
(T )

Since |h| is real, the second solution is only available when r(T ) < 0, i.e. when T < Tc . Since r 0 continuously
as T Tc , we can see that this second, non-trivial/Ferromagnetic solution goes to zero continuously at the
transition. Hence the transition is second order.
This treatment is actually quite general, so Im going to take a second to throw a great deal of vocabulary
and assertions at you without justification. This picture we have arrived at, with our free energy being some low-
order polynomial in h is typically called Landau Theory and is the star player in the story of phase transitions.
In this context h is typically called the order parameter, because it is non-zero in the symmetry-breaking phase
(the Ferromagnet) and zero in the symmetry-respecting phase (the Paramagnet). One can actually deduce
the general form of the Landau theory simply by the symmetry of Hamiltonian. In our case, since we have a
rotational symmetry for h, we know that Ft can only depend on |h|. From this, we can deduce that the free
energy must have the form given in Equation (73) up to fourth order, leaving only three constants unknown.
One can actually understand a great deal about a phase transition from symmetry alone in this way, simply
by studying Landau theories with modest assumptions about the coefficients. Generically, the second order
coefficient (r) will change sign at the phase transition. If the fourth order coefficient, , is positive at the
transition, we will get a second order transition by performing the analysis above. If < 0, we will need a sixth
order term in order to find the local minima and we will find that the transition is first order. Its also worth
noting that though our mean field theory approximation was uncontrolled (i.e. we have no way of estimating
its accuracy), more advanced techniques can obtain the Landau theory in a controlled way.

12