• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  List of known universality classes

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I am working with RG and have a pretty good idea of how it works. However I have noticed that even though the idea of universality class is very general and makes it possible to classify critical systems, textbooks seem to always end up with the Ising model as an example. As a consequence my knowledge of other universality classes is very poor.

My question is simple: What other universality classes are there and what are their properties (in particular, the value of their critical exponents)?

I know that there are as many universality classes as there are RG fixed points and that my question can never be answered completely. A list of 4 or 5 (thermal equilibrium) universality classes that are well established and understood would however give me the feeling that there is more than Ising model out there.

I will of course very much welcome references to literature. The reviews that I know on RG usually focus on general aspects and give few examples.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-09 19:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user Steven Mathey
asked Oct 8, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Steven Mathey (350 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Oct 9, 2014
Perhaps the question could be phrased something like "is there a well-known classification of universality classes for (insert relevant integer here)-dimensional field theories?" If so, is it possible to write this classification in a succinct way? What does that look like?" I think that in a form that is something like this, it's a very useful conceptual question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-09 19:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user joshphysics
Universality classes are classified by space dimensionality and realised symmetries. That is what the textbooks say before they go to Ising model. I'm asking about particular examples.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-09 19:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user Steven Mathey

Any CFT can be a RG fixed point. So for instance, in 2D, all the minimal models may be viewed as universality classes of which the 2D Ising would be a particular example.

Could one say that there is same kind of a (one to one?) correspondance between fixed point and a universality class? Can a universality class generally be discribed/characterized by a certain fixed point?

Yes, I would say that every distinct fixed point is a universality class.

''every distinct fixed point is a universality class'' doesn't make sense as different theories will have different fixed points but may belong to the same universality class. A universality class is an equivalence class of fixed points with the same local asymptotic behavior. It is the latter that characterizes the universality class.

A fixed point, which simplistically I take to be a CFT, is uniquely determined by things like central charge, spectrum of primaries, and so on. I don't particular pay emphasis on how the CFT is reached which is the equivalence class that Neumaier mentions. That is the basis of my statement "Every distinct fixed point is a universality class."

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights