• 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 , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Measure of Lee-Yang zeros

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Consider a statistical mechanical system (say the 1D Ising model) on a finite lattice of size $N$, and call the corresponding partition function (as a function of, say, real temperature and real magnetic field) $Z^{(N)}(t, h)$, where $t$ is temperature and $h$ - the magnetic field.

The partition function $Z$ is analytic (in finite volume $N$) and doesn't admit any zeros. However, as soon as one passes to complex field $h$ (or temperature, but let's consider complex field here), $Z$ admits zeros on the unit circle $S^1$ in $\mathbb{C}$.

Call the set of zeros $\mathcal{Z}_N$, where $N$ emphasizes finite lattice of size $N$. It is in general a nontrivial problem to decide whether the sequence of sets $\{\mathcal{Z}_N\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ accumulates on some set in $S^1$, and if it does, to describe the topology of this limit set, which we'll call $\mathcal{Z}$.

Now, suppose that for a given system we proved that there does indeed exist a nonempty set $\mathcal{Z}$ such that $\mathcal{Z}_N\rightarrow\mathcal{Z}$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$ (in some sense - say in Hausdorff metric).

Is there a natural measure $\mu$ defined on $\mathcal{Z}$ that has physical meaning? If so, what sort of properties of this measure are physically relevant (say, relating to phase transitions)?

In my mind this is quite a natural question, because it translates into "Is there a natural way to measure the set where the system develops critical behavior?"

For example, one candidate would be the Hausdorff dimension. But I am interested more in something that would measure the density of zeros in a natural way (such as, for example, the density of states measure for quantum Hamiltonians).

EDIT: I know, of course, that the 1D Ising model is exactly solvable when interaction strength and magnetic field are constant. Here I implicitly assume that interaction (nearest neighbor, to keep it simple) and/or the magnetic field depend on lattice sites.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Mar 1, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by WNY (45 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
@Yvan: Also, in dimension one, as far as I know, depending on choice of interaction, distribution of zeros may also present a nontrivial problem, or am I wrong? In other words, I think even in dimension one, results and techniques are model dependent. Is this true?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@WNY: I guess that it depends what information you want to extract (obviously, if the coupling constants are uniformly bounded and decay fast enough with the distance between the corresponding spins, then there won't be a phase transition in the model). Now, independently of what you want to extract, I'd guess that the determination of the asymptotic locations of zeros is certainly difficult (and usually impossible), in general, when the interaction is not finite-range and periodic...

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@YvanVelenik: I think I agree with what you wrote, but just to make sure: one can certainly be sure of the analyticity on the way to the thermodynamic limit --- and always the limit should be the last step, as is the whole point of the Y/L papers.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@WNY: approaching thermodynamics via the zeros seems very elegant, and I think people stochastically and independently re-discover this fact, work on it, and find that it's essentially intractable. Certainly, I know of no influential (physics) literature which builds in this direction --- despite having friends who work exactly on this. I don't know if that meta-observation is worth something ;-)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@genneth: I'm not sure I see which of my comments you are adressing... If you mean to say that we can be sure that the free energy is real analytic in finite systems, then yes, of course I agree. But if you don't make it quantitative, this does not tell you anything of interest about the limiting behaviour. Concerning your other comment (to WNY), the LY approach can be used to derive consequences of analyticity of the free energy to other quantities (say, exponential decay of correlations, for example); many interesting results were obtained this way a few decades ago.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
I think the original paper by Yang and Lee explains this. I believe they actually show (or just assume) that in the thermodynamic limit there is a well-behaved density of zeros, and then use this density to calculate things like critical exponents.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I of course suspected that it should be (naturally) zero distribution. In fact, I think the distribution of zeros measure in the thermodynamic limit is just weak limit of distribution of zeros measures on finite lattices (as the lattice size grows to infinity). Thank you for the reference!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

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