Talk:Kosterlitz-Thouless transition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Any chance to mention V.L. Berezinskii (who showed the existence of phase transition and demonstrated the role of vortices)?
I just did an ambiguation page for Thouless. How about something that tells us what field this is? maybe "...interacting spin systems in theoretical physics of the electron". (That's wrong no doubt, but you get my drift? Thanks --Singkong2005 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] hardly understandable
I am experimentalist working in superconductivity, but for me it is hard to understand this explanation (language).
For example, "...This is because the expected ordered phase of the system is destroyed by transverse fluctuations".....what transverse fluctuations?
Further "the Goldstone modes (see Goldstone boson) associated with this broken continuous symmetry". Which "this" symmetry?
In analysis, what is S1? What is "universal cover R"?
Then, the positions of the vortices are denoted by xi, then they become zi??? Can it be explained how this transition is done? I assume that real and imaginary axes are just x and y axes in our 2D problem.
It is written "it is easy to see that the second term is positive infinite". For me it is not so easy to see, although I can guess that gradient is constant all over, so it integrates to infinity. But what about "branch cuts"? do we ignore them or what?
How the expression with logarithm was obtained?
The phrase "This is nothing other than a Coulomb gas". What this? The sum above?
In the last paragraph I found a hint that vortices can actually move as a result of fluctuations or something? So, what are the assumptions? Can they be fully formulated?
In summery, the present version can be understood only by specialists and very mathematical. It does not look like a an enciclopedia article which can be read and understood by a student studying e.g. atomic physics.
Edward 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
