1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \input{psfig.sty}
3: \topmargin0cm
4: \textwidth14cm
5: \textheight22.5cm
6: \oddsidemargin1cm
7: \evensidemargin1cm
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \begin{document}
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: \title{
13: \textbf{Monte Carlo test of critical exponents
14: in 3D Heisenberg and Ising models}
15: }
16:
17: \author{J. Kaupu\v{z}s
18: \thanks{E--mail: \texttt{kaupuzs@latnet.lv}} \\
19: Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Latvia\\
20: 29 Rainja Boulevard, LV--1459 Riga, Latvia}
21:
22: \date{\today}
23:
24: \maketitle
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We have tested the theoretical values of critical exponents,
28: predicted for the three--dimensional Heisenberg model,
29: based on the published Monte Carlo (MC) simulation data for
30: the susceptibility. Two different sets of the critical exponents
31: have been considered -- one provided by the usual (perturbative)
32: renormalization group (RG) theory, and another predicted by
33: grouping of Feynman diagrams in $\varphi^4$ model (our theory).
34: The test consists of two steps. First we determine the critical
35: coupling by fitting the MC data
36: to the theoretical expression, including both confluent and analytical
37: corrections to scaling, the values of critical exponents being taken
38: from theory.
39: Then we use the obtained value
40: of critical coupling to test the agreement between
41: theory and MC data at criticality. As a result, we have found
42: that predictions of our theory ($\gamma=19/14$, $\eta=1/10$,
43: $\omega=3/5$) are consistent, whereas those of the perturbative
44: RG theory ($\gamma \simeq 1.3895$, $\eta \simeq 0.0355$,
45: $\omega \simeq 0.782$) are inconsistent with the MC data.
46: The seemable agreement between the RG prediction for $\eta$ and
47: MC results at criticality, reported in literature, appears due to slightly
48: overestimated value of the critical coupling.
49: Estimation of critical exponents of 3D Ising model from complex
50: zeroth of the partition function is discussed. A refined analysis
51: yields the best estimate $1/\nu \simeq 1.518$. We conclude that
52: the recent MC data can be completely explained within our
53: theory (providing $1/\nu=1.5$ and $\omega=0.5$)
54: rather than within the conventional RG theory.
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57: {\bf Keywords}: Heisenberg model, Ising model, Monte Carlo data,
58: critical exponents, partition function zeroth
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61: In our previous work~\cite{my3}, we have reported the possible
62: values of exact critical exponents for the Ginzburg--Landau phase
63: transition model predicted from a reorganized perturbation theory.
64: These predictions are in exact agreement with the known exact and
65: rigorous results in two dimensions~\cite{Baxter}, and are equally
66: valid also in three dimensions.
67: Our predictions have been compared to some original data of
68: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and experiments~\cite{IS,SM,GA},
69: and a remarkable agreement has been found.
70:
71: However, there is still rather paradoxical and unclear situation
72: regarding the MC results. On the one hand, we have
73: shown theoretically~\cite{my3} the invalidity of the
74: conventional RG expansions~\cite{Wilson,Ma,Justin},
75: but, on the other hand, the published
76: papers on MC simulations usually claim to confirm the values of critical
77: exponents coming from these expansions and being in contradiction
78: to our results.
79:
80: Contrary to the usual claims in the published papers
81: that the values of critical exponents can be obtained from the
82: Monte Carlo data with a striking accuracy, i.~e. with an
83: error much smaller than $0.01$, our expierence in analysis
84: of several such data shows that in reality it is very difficult
85: to extract accurate and reliable estimates therefrom.
86: The problem is that a fitting of MC data to a simple theoretical
87: ansatz (including no corrections to scaling) can provide a rather
88: small statistical error, but the obtained result is not reliable
89: since it contains an uncontrolled systematical error due to
90: the neglected corrections to scaling. Moreover, confluent
91: (i.~e., those related to the universal properties of the critical
92: point) and analytical corrections can be equally
93: important at finite values of the reduced temperature
94: at which the simulations have been done, since the amplitude
95: of the leading analytical correction can be remarkably larger than
96: that of the confluent correction. Our analysis of the
97: susceptibility data for the three--dimensional Heisenberg model
98: (Sec.~\ref{sec:gam}) has shown that
99: the estimated value of the critical exponent $\gamma$ decreases
100: by several percents due to the confluent correction, and the
101: result can be changed remarkably by the analytical correction
102: too. Thus, both kind of corrections should be taken
103: into account, but this is not possible in the usual
104: applications related to the determination of
105: critical exponents, since inclusion of both kind of corrections in a
106: theoretical ansatz strongly increases the statistical errors.
107:
108: As regards the fitting of MC data at
109: criticality, only confluent corrections are present, but
110: the usual estimations are rather sensitive to the precise
111: value of the critical coupling.
112: In this aspect, our estimation of the critical exponent
113: $\eta$~\cite{my3} from the MC simulated fractal
114: dimensionality of the three--dimensional Ising model
115: at the critical point
116: (i.~e., from MC data of~\cite{IS}) is preferable
117: to a more conventional, but much more sensitive
118: to the precise value of the critical coupling $\beta_c$, estimation
119: of this exponent from the susceptibility data at criticality.
120: According to the published results~\cite{Janke},
121: the second method seems to give smaller values of $\eta$
122: in three dimensions (about $0.027$ for Heisenberg
123: model~\cite{Janke}) as compared to the
124: first one (about $1/8$ for Ising model~\cite{my3}),
125: but the reason for the discrepancy could be an inaccuracy in the
126: estimated value of $\beta_c$. In the case of the Heisenberg
127: model, this value has been overestimated, indeed,
128: as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:coupl}.
129: More recent MC results reported in~\cite{Ballesteros}
130: also provide rather small values of $\eta$ (about $0.04$
131: for $O(n)$ models with $n=2,3,4$).
132: However, the infinite volume
133: extrapolation in~\cite{Ballesteros} is erroneous in view of
134: our theory, and a selfconsistent treatment, based on our theoretical
135: predictions, reveals no contradiction to the MC data
136: (Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}).
137:
138: In the present work we have proposed a Monte Carlo test,
139: based on a high quality susceptibility data~\cite{Janke}, where
140: the above discussed problems with corrections to scaling
141: are solved on a higher level than
142: it has been done in the currently published papers.
143: Namely, our method enables us to test
144: the agreement of MC data with given (fixed) theoretical values
145: of critical exponents by taking into account both the leading
146: confluent and the leading analytical correction.
147: Our test consists of a very accurate determination of
148: the critical coupling followed by a fitting of the susceptibility data
149: at criticality. It has shown (Sec.~\ref{sec:test}) that the actually
150: discussed MC data are in agreement with our theoretical values
151: of critical exponents, but not with those of the RG expansions.
152:
153:
154: \section{Critical exponents from our theory} \label{sec:crex}
155:
156: Our theory provides possible values of exact critical exponents
157: $\gamma$ and $\nu$ for the $\varphi^4$ model whith $O(n)$
158: symmetry ($n$--component vector model) with the Hamiltonian
159: \begin{equation} \label{eq:H}
160: H/T= \int \left[ r_0 \varphi^2({\bf x})
161: + c (\nabla \varphi({\bf x}))^2
162: + u \varphi^4({\bf x}) \right] d{\bf x} \; ,
163: \end{equation}
164: where $r_0$ is the only parameter depending on temperature $T$,
165: and the dependence is linear. At the spatial
166: dimensionality $d=2, 3$ and $n=1, 2, 3, ...$ these values are~\cite{my3}
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: \gamma &=& \frac{d+2j+4m}{d(1+m+j)-2j} \label{eq:gamma} \; , \\
169: \nu &=& \frac{2(1+m)+j}{d(1+m+j)-2j} \label{eq:nu} \; ,
170: \end{eqnarray}
171: where $m \ge 1$ and $j \ge -m$ are integers. At $n=1$ we have
172: $m=3$ and $j=0$ to fit the known exact results for the
173: two--dimensional Ising model. As proposed in Ref.~\cite{my3},
174: in the case of $n=2$ we have $m=3$ and $j=1$, which yields in
175: three dimensions $\nu=9/13$ and $\gamma=17/13$.
176:
177: In the present analysis the correction--to--scaling
178: exponent $\theta$ for the susceptibility also is relevant. The susceptibility
179: is related to the correlation function in the Fourier representation
180: $G({\bf k})$, i.~e., $\chi \propto G({\bf 0})$~\cite{Ma}. In the
181: thermodynamic limit, this relation makes sense at $T > T_c$, where
182: $T_c$ is the critical temperature.
183: According to our theory, $G({\bf 0})$ can be expanded in a Taylor
184: series of $t^{2 \nu -\gamma}$ at $t \to 0$.
185: In this case the reduced temperature $t$ is defined as
186: $t=r_0(T)-r_0(T_c) \propto T-T_c$.
187: Formally, $t^{2 \gamma - d \nu}$ appears as second expansion
188: parameter in the derivations in Ref.~\cite{my3}, but,
189: according to the final result represented by
190: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gamma}) and~(\ref{eq:nu}),
191: $(2 \gamma - d \nu)/(2 \nu -\gamma)$ is a natural number.
192: Some of the expansion coefficients can be zero, so that in general we have
193: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Delta}
194: \theta=\ell \, (2 \nu -\gamma) \; ,
195: \end{equation}
196: where $\ell$ may have integer values 1, 2, 3, etc. One can expect
197: that $\ell=4$ holds at $n=1$ (which yields $\theta=1$ at $d=2$ and
198: $\theta=1/3$ at $d=3$) and the only nonvanishing
199: corrections are those of the order $t^{\theta}$, $t^{2 \theta}$,
200: $t^{3 \theta}$, since the known corrections to scaling for
201: physical quantities, such as magnetization or correlation length,
202: are analytical in the case of the two--dimensional Ising model.
203: Here we suppose that the confluent corrections become analytical,
204: i.~e. $\theta$ takes the value $1$, at $d=2$.
205: Besides, similar corrections to scaling are expected for
206: susceptibility $\chi$ and magnetization $M$ since both these
207: quantities are related to $G({\bf 0})$, i.~e.,
208: $\chi \propto G({\bf 0})$ and $M^2=\lim_{x \to \infty}
209: \langle \varphi({\bf 0}) \varphi({\bf x}) \rangle
210: = \lim_{V \to \infty} G({\bf 0})/V$
211: hold where $V=L^d$ is the volume and $L$ is the linear size of
212: the system. The above limit is meaningful at $L \to \infty$,
213: but $G({\bf 0})/V$ may be considered as a definition of $M^2$
214: for finite systems too. The latter means that corrections
215: to finite--size scaling for $\chi$ and $M$ are similar at $T=T_c$.
216: According to the scaling hypothesis and finite--size scaling
217: theory (Sec.~\ref{sec:gam}),
218: the same is true for the discussed here corrections at $t \to 0$.
219: Thus, the expected expansion of the susceptibility $\chi$ looks
220: like $\chi = t^{-\gamma} \left( a_0+a_1 t^{\theta} +a_2 t^{2 \theta}
221: + \cdots \right)$.
222:
223: Our general hypothesis is that $j=j(n)$ and $\ell=\ell(n)$
224: monotoneously increase with $n$ to fit the known exponents
225: for the spherical model at $n \to \infty$.
226: In particular, we expect that $j(n)=n-1$,
227: $\ell(n)=n+3$, and $m=3$ hold at $n=1, 2, 3$ and, probably,
228: also in general. This hypothesis is well confirmed by MC results
229: discussed here and in Ref.~\cite{my3}.
230:
231: We allow that different $\ell$ values correspond to
232: the leading correction--to--scaling exponent for different
233: quantities related to $G({\bf k})$. The expansion of
234: $G({\bf k})$ by itself contains a nonvanishing term of order
235: $t^{2 \nu -\gamma} \equiv t^{\eta \nu}$ (in the form
236: $G({\bf k}) \simeq\linebreak t^{-\gamma} \left[ g({\bf k} t^{-\nu})
237: + t^{\eta \nu} g_1({\bf k} t^{-\nu}) \right]$ whith
238: $g_1({\bf 0})=0$, since $\ell >1$ holds in the case of susceptibility)
239: to compensate the corresponding correction term (produced
240: by $c \left( \nabla \varphi \right)^2$) in the equation
241: for $1/G({\bf k})$ (cf.~\cite{my3}).
242: The latter means, e.~g., that the correlation
243: length $\xi$ estimated from an approximate ansatz like
244: $G({\bf k}) \propto 1/ \left[{\bf k}^2+ (1/\xi)^2 \right]$
245: used in~\cite{Janke,Ballesteros} also contains a correction
246: proportional to $t^{\eta \nu}$. Since $\eta \nu$ has a rather small value,
247: the presence of such a correction (and, presumably, also the higher order
248: corrections $t^{2 \eta \nu}$, $t^{3 \eta \nu}$, etc.) makes the above
249: ansatz unsuitable for an accurate numerical correction--to--scaling
250: analysis. Due to this reason the susceptibility data,
251: but not the correlation length data of Ref.~\cite{Janke},
252: are used in our further analysis.
253:
254: The correction $t^{\eta \nu}$ is related to the correction $L^{-\eta}$
255: in the finite--size scaling expressions at criticality.
256: The existence of such a correction in the asymptotic
257: expansion of the critical real--space Green's (correlation) function,
258: i.~e.\linebreak $\widetilde G(rL) \propto L^{2-\eta-d} \left(1 + o(L^{-\eta}) \right)$
259: where $r$ is a constant, is well confirmed by our recent (preliminary)
260: results for the 2D~Ising model. These results for
261: $L=2, 4, 6, \ldots, 16$ have been obtained by an exact numerical
262: transfer--matrix algorithm.
263: In such a way, the infinite volume extrapolation in~\cite{Ballesteros}
264: appears to be incorrect, therefore the obtained there
265: results do not represent a serious argument against our theory.
266: Moreover, if the extrapolation in~\cite{Ballesteros} is done
267: including the correction $L^{-\eta}$, then the results for
268: $O(n)$ models with $n=2, 3$ appear to be in a satisfactory agreement
269: (within the extrapolation errors)
270: with our values $\eta=1/9$ and $\eta=1/10$, respectively.
271:
272: Our consideration can be generalized easily to the case
273: where the Hamiltonian parameter $r_0$ is a nonlinear analytical
274: function of $T$. Nothing is changed in the above expansions
275: if the reduced temperature $t$, as before, is defined by
276: $t=r_0(T)-r_0(T_c)$. However, analytical corrections to scaling appear
277: (and also corrections like\linebreak $(T-T_c)^{m+n \theta}$ with integer $m$ and
278: $n$) if $t$ is reexpanded in terms of $T-T_c$ at $T>T_c$. The
279: solution at the critical point remains unchanged, since the phase
280: transition occurs at the same (critical) value of $r_0$.
281:
282: \section{Estimation of the critical exponent
283: $\gamma$ from MC data} \label{sec:gam}
284:
285: In this section we discuss the estimation of the susceptibility
286: exponent $\gamma$ for the classical three--dimensional Heisenberg
287: model. Our analysis is based on the fitting of
288: the susceptibility (MC) data to a theoretical ansatz.
289: According to the finite--size scaling theory, the susceptibility
290: $\chi$ depending on the reduced temperature
291: \linebreak $t= 1 - \beta / \beta_c$ (where $t>0$) and the linear size of
292: the system $L$ reads
293: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sc1}
294: \chi = L^{\gamma/\nu} g \left( L/\xi \right) \; ,
295: \end{equation}
296: where $g(L/\xi)$ is the scaling function and $\xi \sim t^{-\nu}$
297: is the correlation length of an infinite system. Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc1})
298: holds precisely at $L \to \infty$ and $t \to 0$ for any given
299: value of $L/\xi$. At finite values of $t$ and $L$ corrections
300: to~(\ref{eq:sc1}) exist. Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc1}) can be rewritten as
301: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sc2}
302: \chi = t^{-\gamma} f \left( t L^{1/\nu} \right) \; ,
303: \end{equation}
304: where $g(y)=y^{-\gamma/\nu} f \left( y^{1/\nu} \right)$.
305: In the thermodynamic limit $L \to \infty$ Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc2})
306: reduces to $\chi = b_0 \, t^{-\gamma}$,
307: where $b_0 = \lim\limits_{x \to \infty} f(x)$
308: is the amplitude. A natural extension of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sc2}),
309: including corrections to scaling, is
310: \begin{equation} \label{eq:exp}
311: \chi = t^{-\gamma} \sum\limits_{l \ge 0} t^{\gamma_l}
312: f_l \left( t L^{1/\nu} \right) \; ,
313: \end{equation}
314: where $\gamma_0 \equiv 0$, $f_0(x) \equiv f(x)$,
315: and the terms with $l>0$ represent
316: all the corrections in the asymptotic expansion of $\chi$ at $t \to 0$
317: for any given value of $x = t L^{1/\nu}$. In the thermodynamic
318: limit we have $\lim\limits_{x \to \infty} f_l(x) =b_l$, where
319: $b_l$ are the amplitudes. The most important correction terms
320: in the sum over $l$ are the leading confluent correction $b_1 t^{\gamma_1}$
321: with the exponent $\gamma_1=\theta$ and the leading analytical
322: correction $b_2 t^{\gamma_2}$ with $\gamma_2=1$.
323: Although $\theta<1$ holds, the analytical correction also
324: should be included at finite values of $t$ used in practical
325: simulations: because of absence of a direct correlation between
326: the amplitudes of confluent and analytical corrections, the
327: ratio $r=b_2/b_1$ can be arbitrarily large.
328: One can expect that the higher order confluent corrections
329: (i.~e., those proportional to $t^{2 \theta}$,
330: $t^{3 \theta}$, etc.) are small as compared to
331: the leading confluent correction, and the same is true
332: for analytical corrections.
333: We consider the case of small $t$ and large $x$, i.~e., small $f_l(x)-b_l$.
334: In this case Eq.~(\ref{eq:exp}) can be written as
335: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sc3}
336: \chi \simeq t^{-\gamma} \left[ 1 + b \,
337: \left( t^{\theta} +r t \right) \right] \,
338: f \left( t L^{1/\nu} \right) \; ,
339: \end{equation}
340: where $b=b_1/b_0$ is a constant.
341:
342: We have used the susceptibility data simulated by an improved
343: (cluster) MC algorithm reported in Ref.~\cite{Janke} ($\bar \chi^{imp}$
344: vs $\beta$, tab.~IV in~\cite{Janke}) to estimate the critical
345: exponent $\gamma$ by fitting the data to~(\ref{eq:sc3}). Such an
346: estimation has been done in~\cite{Janke},
347: neglecting either the analytical or the confluent correction
348: and setting $f \left( t L^{1/\nu} \right)=b_0$.
349: Since in the actual simulations the scaling argument
350: $x=t L^{1/\nu}$ has large enough values, about $6$ or $7$, which
351: are varied only slightly, the latter approximation is
352: reasonable. We have used even better approximation where $\ln f(x)$
353: has been linearized within the narrow range of $x$ variation,
354: and the simulated data points for $\ln \chi$ have been fitted to
355: the resulting theoretical expression
356: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fit}
357: \ln \chi (t,L) = a -\gamma \ln t + \ln \left[ 1+
358: b \left( t^{\theta} +rt \right) \right] + p \, tL^{1/\nu} \; ,
359: \end{equation}
360: where $a$ and $p$ are constants. The minimum of the sum of the
361: squared deviations for $N$ data points $S(N)$ corresponds to the
362: least--squares fit. Besides, it is reasonable to use the
363: least--squares method just for $\ln \chi$, but not for $\chi$,
364: since the errors for $\ln \chi$ data points are comparable, i.~e.,
365: the relative but not the absolute errors are more or less equal.
366: At large $N$, the inaccuracy in the fitted curve due to the statistical
367: errors can be characterised by the standard deviation
368: $\sigma = (S(N)/[N(N-1)])^{1/2}$. Obviously, the minimum of $\sigma$
369: corresponds to the least--squares fit at any given $N$.
370:
371: We have illustrated in Fig.~\ref{gamfit} the estimation
372: of $\gamma$ by minimizing $\sigma$ with respect to the parameters
373: $a$, $b$, $p$, and $\beta_c$
374: (where $\beta_c$ is incorporated in~(\ref{eq:fit})
375: via $t= 1- \beta/\beta_c$)
376: at fixed exponents $\theta=3/7$ and $\nu=5/7$,
377: taken from our theory (Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}).
378: \begin{figure}
379: \centerline{\psfig{figure=g.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
380: \vspace{-3ex}
381: \caption{\small Estimation of the critical exponent $\gamma$ in
382: 3D Heisenberg model. Solid line shows the standard deviation
383: $\sigma$ of the simulated data
384: points from the analytical curve~(\ref{eq:fit})
385: as a function of $\gamma$ with parameters $a$, $b$,
386: $p$, and $\beta_c$ obtained from the least--squares fit at
387: $\nu=5/7$, $\theta=3/7$ (our theoretical values), and $r=0$.
388: The dotted curve corresponds to fixed $p=0$. The minimum of the
389: solid curve gives the least--squres estimate
390: %of the susceptibility exponent
391: $\gamma=1.345$. All fits (for different data sets) lie in the marked
392: area which is shifted only slightly, as indicated by thin vertical dashed
393: lines, if the RG values of $\nu$ and $\theta$ are used instead of ours.
394: Our theoretical value $\gamma=19/14$ (thick vertical dashed line)
395: is inside of the marked region, whereas that of the RG theory
396: (vertical dot--dot--dashed line at $\gamma=1.3895$) is outside.}
397: \label{gamfit}
398: \end{figure}
399: The analytical correction to scaling has been neglected by
400: setting $r=0$. The solid line shows the accuracy of the fit,
401: i.~e. the value of $\sigma$, depending on the choice
402: of the exponent $\gamma$. The minimum of $\sigma$, indicated by
403: a vertical dotted line, is located at
404: $\gamma \simeq 1.345$, which corresponds to the least--squares fit.
405: The dotted curve corresponds to the case of fixed $p=0$.
406: From this we can see that inclusion of the term $p \, tL^{1/\nu}$
407: in~(\ref{eq:fit}), responsible for the variation of the scaling
408: function $f(x)$, affects the result only slightly.
409:
410: In spite of the very high accuracy of the fit (about $0.02 \%$
411: error in $\chi$), the minimum in $\sigma$ is too broad for a
412: reliable estimation of $\gamma$ with, e.~g., $\pm 0.01$ accuracy.
413: This is a problem which usually appears if we use a high--level
414: approximation including many fitting parameters. If the
415: analytical correction also is included, then the situation
416: becomes even worse, i.~e., the $\sigma$ vs $\gamma$ plot
417: is an almost horizontal line. Neglection of both (confluent
418: and analytical) corrections, as it has been done finally
419: in~\cite{Janke}, is not a solution of the
420: problem since the result is affected significantly by the confluent
421: correction. Namely, the obtained value of $\gamma$ is shifted from
422: $1.389$ to $1.345$. According to our estimation, the statistical error
423: for the latter result is remarkably smaller than the difference between
424: these two values, so that the second value is better. Another problem is
425: that the estimated value of
426: $\gamma$ depends on $\theta$ and $\nu$. This effect, however, is relatively
427: small. By the conventional RG values $\theta=0.55$ and
428: $\nu=0.7073$~\cite{Justin1} we obtain $\gamma \simeq 1.354$.
429:
430: Like in Ref.~\cite{my3}, we have estimated the possible statistical
431: error of our result $\gamma \simeq 1.345$ by comparing the values
432: of $\gamma$ for a large number of different data sets generated
433: from the original one (with 18 data points) by omitting some
434: (1 to 6) data points. The data points have been omitted more or
435: less randomly, but not the neighbouring points and not the first
436: and the last point simultaneously, to ensure a sufficiently
437: uniform distribution of the used $t$ values and to avoid a significant
438: narrowing of the total interval covered by these values. The largest
439: deviations from the central $\gamma$ value $1.345$ have been observed
440: omitting the data points No.~1, 6, 10, 14, and 17 (tab.~IV in~\cite{Janke}),
441: which yielded $\gamma \simeq 1.322$, and the data points No.~2, 5, 8, 11,
442: and 14, which yielded $\gamma \simeq 1.366$. Thus, all the fits gave
443: $1.322 \le \gamma \le 1.366$ at $r=0$, $\theta=3/7$ and $\nu=5/7$.
444: This interval is marked in Fig.~\ref{gamfit} by thin solid lines. At
445: $\theta=0.55$ and $\nu=0.7073$ the borders of this region are shifted
446: slightly, as indicated by thin vertical dashed lines.
447: These manipulations enable us to estimate the possible
448: statistical error in both cases, i.~e., $\gamma=1.345 \pm 0.023$
449: at $\theta=3/7$ and $\gamma=1.354 \pm 0.020$ at $\theta=0.55$. These,
450: in fact, are maximal errors, i.~e., since we never have observed larger
451: deviations, the probability that the value extracted from exact data
452: would be outside of the error bars is vanishingly small.
453:
454: It is a remarkable fact that our theoretical value
455: $\gamma=19/14 \simeq 1.35714$ (thick vertical dashed line)
456: lies inside the region of maximal statistical errors, whereas that of the
457: RG theory, i.~e. $\gamma \simeq 1.3895$ indicated by a do--dot--dashed line,
458: is clearly outside of this region. This result can be changed
459: by the analytical correction. However, if the ratio of amplitudes
460: $r$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit}) is positive, then the least--squares fit
461: with respect to the
462: parameters $a$, $b$, $p$, and $\beta_c$ always yields the central
463: value of $\gamma$ (with all 18 data points included) in the range from
464: $1.345$ to $1.369$ at $\theta=3/7$ and $\nu=5/7$. Here
465: $\gamma=1.369 \pm 0.013$ corresponds to the case of purely analytical
466: correction to scaling obtained by formally setting $\theta=1$.
467: In such a way, selfconsistent estimations at $r>0$ yield $\gamma$ values
468: which are reasonably close to our prediction $\gamma=19/14$.
469: Precise agreement is reached at $r \simeq 1.17$.
470:
471: Unfortunately, we have no proof that $r$ is positive. If we
472: allow that $r<0$, then a large uncertainty appears. In this case
473: $\gamma$ can take the values as small as, e.~g., $1.1$ (at $\theta=3/7$,
474: $\nu=5/7$, and $r \approx -1.35$) and as large as $1.4$
475: (at $\theta=0.55$, $\nu=0.7073$, and $r \approx -1.8$).
476: The actual MC data do not allow to find the true value of $r$
477: (unless we assume that our exponents are true and,
478: therefore, $r \approx 1.17$), since the standard deviation of the
479: least--squares fit is almost independent on $r$.
480:
481:
482: \section{Estimation of the critical coupling}
483: \label{sec:coupl}
484:
485: Based on the method developed in Sec.~\ref{sec:gam}, here we determine
486: the critical coupling $\beta_c$ for the three--dimensional
487: Heisenberg model assuming that critical exponents
488: $\gamma$, $\theta$, and $\nu$ are known from theory. The latter ensures
489: a very small statistical error. The coefficients
490: in~(\ref{eq:fit}) are found by the least--squares method. The resulting
491: value of the standard deviation $\sigma$ vs $\beta_c$,
492: used as a fitting parameter, is shown in Fig.~\ref{betac}.
493: \begin{figure}
494: \centerline{\psfig{figure=t.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
495: \vspace{-3ex}
496: \caption{\small Estimation of the critical coupling $\beta_c$ by fitting
497: the MC data to ansatz~(\ref{eq:fit}) with fixed exponents taken from
498: our (thick solid line) and RG (thin solid line) theory. The minimums
499: of $\sigma$ vs $\beta_c$, used as a fitting
500: parameter, give the least--squares estimates for the true $\beta_c$ value,
501: as indicated by vertical dotted lines and arrows. The vertical
502: dashed line indicates a value of $\beta_c$ proposed
503: in~\cite{Janke,Ballesteros}.}
504: \label{betac}
505: \end{figure}
506: The thick
507: solid line corresponds to our critical exponents $\gamma=19/14$,
508: $\nu=5/7$, and $\theta=3/7$, whereas the thin solid line -- to
509: the conventional (RG) exponents $\gamma=1.3895$, $\nu=0.7073$, and
510: $\theta=0.55$. The minimums of these curves, indicated by vertical
511: dotted lines, are located at $\beta_c \simeq 0.692795$ and
512: $\beta_c \simeq 0.692855$, respectively, corresponding to the
513: least--squares estimates for the true values of the critical coupling.
514: The estimation of maximal statistical errors, as in Sec.~\ref{sec:gam},
515: leads to the following conclusions:
516: \begin{enumerate}
517: \item If our values of the critical exponents $\gamma=19/14$,
518: $\nu=5/7$, and $\theta=3/7$ are true, then
519: \begin{equation} \label{eq:betac1}
520: \beta_c=0.692795 {\mbox{\footnotesize +0.000030}
521: \atop \mbox{ \footnotesize --0.000043}} \; .
522: \end{equation}
523: \item If the true values of the critical exponents are close to
524: those predicted by the RG theory, i.~e., $\gamma=1.3895$,
525: $\nu=0.7073$, and $\theta=0.55$, then
526: \begin{equation} \label{eq:betac2}
527: \beta_c=0.692855 {\mbox{\footnotesize +0.000029}
528: \atop \mbox{\footnotesize --0.000043}} \; .
529: \end{equation}
530: \end{enumerate}
531: The estimation in~\cite{Janke,Ballesteros} gave $\beta_c \simeq 0.6930$.
532: This value is indicated in Fig.~\ref{betac} by a vertical dashed line.
533: As we see, it clearly does not correspond to the best fit. To clear up
534: the reason for the discrepancy, let us discuss the Binder's cumulant
535: crossing technique used in~\cite{Janke} and~\cite{Ballesteros}
536: for the estimation of $\beta_c$.
537: In this approach, the magnetization cumulants for different lattice
538: sizes $L$ and $L'$ are plotted as a function of $\beta$ to find the
539: intersection point $\beta=\beta_{cross}$. According to the
540: theory~\cite{Binder},
541: \begin{equation} \label{eq:binder}
542: \beta_{cross}(L,b)-\beta_c \propto L^{-(1/\nu)-\omega}
543: \, \frac{1-b^{-\omega}}{b^{1/\nu}-1}
544: \end{equation}
545: holds at large $L$, where $L$ is the size of the smaller lattice,
546: $b=L'/L$ is the Binder parameter, and $\omega= \theta/\nu$.
547: The estimation in~\cite{Janke} has been done by approximating
548: the term $\rho =(1-b^{-\omega})/(b^{1/\nu}-1)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:binder})
549: with $const/\ln b$. We have made and have illustrated in
550: Fig.~\ref{tc} our own estimation of $\beta_c$ from
551: Eq.~(\ref{eq:binder}), using the data for $T_{cross}=1/\beta_{cross}$
552: extracted from Fig.~3 in Ref.~\cite{Janke}.
553: \begin{figure}
554: \centerline{\psfig{figure=b.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
555: \vspace{-3ex}
556: \caption{\small Estimation of the critical coupling by the Binder's cumulant
557: crossing technique. The straight line represents the
558: least--squares fit of~(\ref{eq:binder}) to
559: the MC data for crossing points $T_{cross}$. The zero intercept
560: gives $\beta_c=1/T_c \simeq 0.69286$. For comparison, the
561: approximation $T_{cross}-T_c \propto 1/\ln b$ (where $b$ is Binder parameter)
562: is shown by thin solid line.}
563: \label{tc}
564: \end{figure}
565: According to~(\ref{eq:binder}), $\beta_{cross}$ is a linear function of
566: $\rho$ at a fixed $L$. The same is true for $T_{cross}$
567: in vicinity of $T_c$. The straight line in Fig.~\ref{tc}
568: corresponds to the linear least--squares fit for $T_{cross}$ vs
569: $\rho$ at $L=16$ (with our exponents $\omega=3/5$ and $\nu=5/7$)
570: which yields (at $\rho=0$) $\beta_c \simeq 0.69286$.
571: This value agree with~(\ref{eq:betac1}) and~(\ref{eq:betac2})
572: within the error bars $\pm 0.0001$ proposed in~\cite{Janke}.
573: In fact, the data points are too much scattered to consider
574: such an estimation reliable. Due to this reason, we have not
575: tried to estimate $\beta_c$ from the data of $L=12$ which are
576: even more scattered. We have depicted in Fig.~\ref{tc}
577: by thin solid line the fit, corresponding to the approximation
578: $T_{cross}-T_c \propto 1/\ln b$, made in~\cite{Janke} at $L=16$.
579: As we see, in the scale where the original ansatz~(\ref{eq:binder})
580: yields a straight line this approximation is represented by
581: a curve providing an underestimated value of $T_{cross}$ at $\rho=0$,
582: i.~e., an overestimated $\beta_c \simeq 0.6930$ instead of
583: $\beta_c \simeq 0.69286$.
584: Obviously, this approximation is the reason for the discrepancy. Note
585: that other kind of estimations in~\cite{Janke} provided
586: a bit smaller $\beta_c$ values, closer to ours.
587: %Surprisingly, the same
588: %overestimated value of $\beta_c$, i.~e.
589: %$0.6930$, has been obtained both in~\cite{Janke} and~\cite{Ballesteros}.
590: %Unfortunately, the authors of Ref.~\cite{Ballesteros} have not
591: %provided enough information to find out the reason for such a striking
592: %agreement.
593:
594: \section{The test of consistency at $T=T_c$} \label{sec:test}
595:
596: Consequently following the conclusions~(\ref{eq:betac1})
597: and~(\ref{eq:betac2}) made in Sec.~\ref{sec:coupl}, here we
598: test the agreement between theory and MC data at criticality.
599:
600: According to the finite--size scaling theory, the susceptibility
601: at the critical point is given by
602: \begin{equation} \label{eq:crit}
603: \chi \propto L^{\gamma/\nu} \left( 1+ b L^{-\omega} + \ldots \right) \; ,
604: \end{equation}
605: where $b$ and $\omega=\theta/\nu$ are the amplitude and the exponent
606: of the leading correction to scaling. The dots stand for further
607: corrections. Eq.~(\ref{eq:crit}) can be rewritten as
608: \begin{equation}
609: \label{eq:etta}
610: \ln \left( \chi /L^2 \right) \simeq a - \eta \ln L
611: + \ln \left( 1+ b L^{-\omega} \right) \; ,
612: \end{equation}
613: where $a$ is a constant and $\eta=2- \gamma/\nu$ is the critical
614: exponent describing the asymptotic long--wave behavior of the correlation
615: function (i.~e. $G({\bf k}) \sim k^{-2+\eta}$) at $T=T_c$.
616: We have read from Fig.~6 in Ref.~\cite{Janke} the values of $\chi$
617: near $\beta_c$ and have made the linear interpolation between
618: $\beta=0.6927$ and $\beta=0.6929$ to estimate $\chi$ at the
619: values of the critical coupling given by (\ref{eq:betac1})
620: and (\ref{eq:betac2}). So obtained $\chi$ values are depicted in
621: Fig.~\ref{etta} by solid and empty circles, respectively.
622: \begin{figure}
623: %\vspace*{-2ex}
624: \centerline{\psfig{figure=e.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
625: \vspace*{-3ex}
626: \caption{\small Our fit to the susceptibility ($\chi$) data of~\cite{Janke}
627: for 3D Heisenberg model
628: at and near criticality. Only two coefficients $a$ and $b$
629: have been used as fitting parameters in~(\ref{eq:etta}) for the
630: thick solid curve and solid circles representing
631: $\ln \left( \chi/L^2 \right)$
632: vs $\ln L$ at criticality according to our critical exponents
633: ($\eta=0.1$, $\gamma=19/14$, $\omega=0.6$) and $\beta_c \simeq 0.692795$
634: estimated independently in Sec.~\ref{sec:coupl}. The same
635: fit at RG exponents
636: %($\eta \simeq 0.0355$, $\gamma \simeq 1.3895$,
637: %$\theta \simeq 0.55$)
638: with the corresponding $\beta_c$ value $0.692855$ is represented by
639: the dot--dot--dashed line and empty circles. Thin solid lines
640: show our three--parameter fit at $\beta=0.6925$ (empty squares),
641: $\beta=0.6930$ (crosses), and $\beta=0.6933$ (empty rhombs). The
642: linear fit of~\cite{Janke} is shown by tiny dashed line.}
643: \label{etta}
644: \end{figure}
645: The corresponding two parameter ($a$ and $b$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:etta}))
646: least--squares fits with fixed exponents
647: are shown by thick solid line (our case) and dot--dot--dashed line
648: (RG case). If $\eta$ is considered as a fitting parameter, then in our
649: case the least--squares fit yields $\eta \simeq 0.105$ in close
650: agreement with the theoretical value $0.1$, whereas in the RG case
651: it yields $\eta \simeq 0.076$ in a remarkable disagreement with
652: the theoretical value $0.0355$. It can be seen also from
653: Fig.~\ref{etta} that the dot--dot--dashed line
654: with $a=-0.17034$ and $b=0.1178$, obtained at fixed
655: $\eta=0.0355$, does not provide a satisfactory fit to the data,
656: i.e., this line is curved in a wrong direction.
657:
658: Our values of critical exponents provide an excellent
659: fit to the MC data not only at $\beta=\beta_c$, but also at
660: small deviations $t=1-\beta/\beta_c$ from the critical point
661: considered in Fig.~6 of Ref.~\cite{Janke}.
662: Our fit $\chi = 1.1266 \, L^{1.9} \left( 1 -0.4944 L^{-0.6}
663: -0.58 \, tL^{1.4} \right)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{etta} by solid
664: lines. This approximation is consistent with the finite--size
665: scaling theory at large $L$ and small $tL^{1/\nu}$.
666: The data points in Fig.~\ref{etta} correspond to $12 \le L \le 48$.
667: At smaller $L$ values the second--order corrections to scaling,
668: neglected in our ansatz, could be relevant.
669: The solid curve at $\beta=0.6930$ is the most linear one
670: within $12 \le L \le 48$, as it is evident from Fig.~\ref{etta}
671: where the straight--line fit of~\cite{Janke} is shown by a tiny
672: dashed line. It is evident also that the good linearity of
673: $\ln \left( \chi /L^2 \right)$ vs $\ln L$ in this region
674: does not mean that $\beta_c \simeq 0.6930$ and $\eta \simeq 0.027$.
675:
676: One of the arguments in~\cite{Janke}, supporting the idea that
677: $\eta$ has a very small value ($\eta<0.05$), is based
678: on the simulated data for $\chi$ vs the correlation length
679: $\xi$ for finite systems. However, the variation
680: of $\eta_{eff}$ with $\xi$ in Fig.~12 of Ref.~\cite{Janke}
681: can be well explained by presence of corrections of
682: the kind $\xi^{-m \eta}$, where $m=1, 2, ...$ and $\eta=1/10$,
683: consistent with the correction--to--scaling analysis
684: in Sec.~\ref{sec:crex} (see remarks regarding the actual approximation
685: for $\xi$). In this case $\eta_{eff}$ can behave nonmonotoneously,
686: as well.
687: As regards other arguments in~\cite{Janke} in support of the
688: conventional RG values of critical exponents, they are weaker
689: than our contraarguments discussed here, since all the final estimates
690: in~\cite{Janke} are obtained neglecting corrections to scaling.
691: Note also that such kind of simple estimations not always give
692: very small values of $\eta$. In particular, the values of about
693: $0.15$ follow from MC study of Heisenberg fluid~\cite{NW}.
694: In view of our theory and presented here analysis of the MC method,
695: the discrepancy between the so called "lattice" and "off--lattice"
696: critical exponents discussed in~\cite{NW} can be well understood
697: as an error of about $\pm 0.07$ (in $\eta$) of the above discussed
698: simple estimations.
699:
700: It is noteworthy that a large variety of experimental measurements
701: in Ni discussed in~\cite{St}, confirm our values of critical
702: exponents $\gamma=19/14=1.357...$,
703: $\beta=(d-2+\eta)\, \nu/2= 11/28=0.3928...$,
704: and $\delta=(d+2-\eta)/(d-2+\eta)=49/11=4.4545...$ rather than those
705: of the RG theory ($\gamma \simeq 1.3895$,
706: $\delta \simeq 4.794$, and $\beta \simeq 0.3662$~\cite{Justin1}).
707:
708: \section{Comparison to 3D Ising model} \label{sec:zeroth}
709:
710: In this section we discuss the recent MC results~\cite{ADH}
711: for the complex zeroth of the partition function of the
712: three--dimensional Ising model. Namely, if the coupling $\beta$
713: is a complex number, then the statistical sum has zeroth at
714: certain complex values of $\beta$ or $u= e^{-\beta}$.
715: The nearest to the real positive axis values $\beta_1^0$ and
716: $u_1^0$ are of special interest. Neglecting the second--order
717: corrections, $u_1^0$ behaves like
718: \begin{equation}
719: u_1^0 = u_c + A\, L^{-1/\nu} +B\, L^{-(1/\nu)-\omega}
720: \end{equation}
721: at large $L$, where $u_c=e^{-\beta_c}$ is the critical value
722: of $u$, $A$ and $B$ are complex constants, and $\omega$ is the
723: correction--to--scaling exponent. According to the known
724: %exact
725: results (see, e.~g., the solution given in~\cite{Brout}), the
726: partition function zeroth correspond to complex values of
727: $\, \sinh (2 \beta) \,$ located on a unit circle
728: in the case of 2D Ising model, so that $A$ is purely imaginar. The latter
729: means that the critical behavior of real and imaginary
730: parts of $u_1^0 - u_c$ essentially differ from each other,
731: i.~e., $Re \left( u_1^0 -u_c \right) \propto L^{-(1/\nu) -\omega}$
732: and $Im \left( u_1^0 \right) \propto L^{-1/\nu}$
733: (where, in this case of $d=2$, $\nu=\omega=1$) at $L \to \infty$.
734: The MC data of~\cite{ADH}, in fact, provide a good evidence that
735: the same is true in three dimensions.
736:
737: Unfortunately, the authors of Ref.~\cite{ADH} have not tried
738: to find the objective truth regarding the behavior of the
739: complex zeroth, but only have searched the way how to confirm the
740: already known estimates for $\nu$. Their treatment, however, is
741: rather doubtful. First, let us mention that, in contradiction to
742: the definition in the paper, $u_1^0$ values
743: listed in Tab.~I of~\cite{ADH} are not equal to $e^{-\beta_1^0}$
744: (they look like $e^{-4\beta_1^0}$).
745: %, i.~e., they contradict the definition in the paper.
746: %They look like $e^{-4\beta_1^0}$, but there is no reason
747: %to consider $e^{-4\beta_1^0}$ instead of $e^{-\beta_1^0}$,
748: %unless it helps to obtain some a priori known desired value of $\nu$.
749: Second, the fit to a theoretical ansatz for $\mid u_1^0(L) - u_c \mid$,
750: Eq.~(6) in~\cite{ADH}, is unsatisfactory. This ansatz contains a
751: misterious parameter $a_3$. If we compare Eqs.~(5) and (6)
752: in~\cite{ADH}, then we see immediately that
753: $a_3 \equiv (1/\nu)+\omega$. At the same time, the obtained estimate
754: for $a_3$, i.~e. $a_3 =4.861(84)$, is completely inconsistent with
755: the values of $(1/\nu)+\omega$, about $2.34$, which follow from
756: authors own considerations. Our prediction, consistent with
757: the correction--to--scaling analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}
758: (and with $\ell=4$ in~(\ref{sec:crex}) to coincide with the known
759: exact result at $d=2$), is $\nu=2/3$ and $\omega=1/2$, i.~e.,
760: $(1/\nu)+\omega=2$.
761:
762: To obtain a more complete picture, we have considered separately
763: the real part and the imaginary part of $u_1^0-u_c$. We have calculated
764: $u_1^0$ from $\beta_1^0$ data listed in Tab.~I of~\cite{ADH} and
765: have estimated the effective critical exponents $y_{eff}'(L)$
766: and $y_{eff}''(L)$, separately
767: for $Re \left( u_1^0-u_c \right)$ and $Im \left( u_1^0 \right)$,
768: by fitting these quantities to an ansatz $const \cdot L^{-y_{eff}'}$
769: and $const \cdot L^{-y_{eff}''}$, respectively,
770: at sizes $L$ and $L/2$. The value of $u_c$ consitent with
771: high-- and low-- temperature series~\cite{SA}
772: as well as MC~\cite{FL} estimations
773: of the critical coupling, $\beta_c \simeq 0.221659$, have been used.
774: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{zeroth}.
775: \begin{figure}
776: \centerline{\psfig{figure=z.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
777: \vspace{-3ex}
778: \caption{\small Effective critical exponents for the real (empty circles)
779: and the imaginary (solid circles) part of complex
780: partition--function--zeroth of 3D Ising model depending on
781: $L^{-1/2}$, where $L$ is the linear size of the system.
782: Solid lines show the linear least--squares fits.
783: The asymptotic values from our theory are indicated by horizontal
784: dashed lines, whereas those of the RG theory -- by
785: dot--dot--dashed lines. A selfconsistent extrapolation within
786: the RG theory corresponds to the tiny dashed line.}
787: \label{zeroth}
788: \end{figure}
789: As we see, $y_{eff}'$ (empty circles) claims to increase
790: above $y_{eff}''$ (solid circles) when $L$ increases.
791: This is a good numerical evidence that, like in the two--dimensional
792: case, the asymptotic values are
793: $y'=\lim_{L \to \infty} y_{eff}'(L)=(1/\nu)+\omega$ and
794: $y''=\lim_{L \to \infty} y_{eff}''(L)=1/\nu$.
795: According to our theory, the actual plots in the $L^{-1/2}$ scale
796: are linear at $L \to \infty$, as consistent with the expansion
797: in terms of $L^{-\omega}$. The linear least--squares fits are shown
798: by solid lines. The zero intercepts $1.552$ and $1.913$ are in approximate
799: agreement with our theoretical values $1.5$ and $2$ indicated by horizontal
800: dashed lines. The relative discrepancy of about $4\%$, presumably, is due
801: to the extrapolation errors and inaccuracy in the simulated data.
802:
803: The behavior of $y_{eff}'$ is rather inconsistent with
804: the RG predictions. On the one hand, $y_{eff}'$ claims to increase
805: above $y_{eff}''$ and also well above the RG value
806: of $1/\nu$ (the lower dod--dot--dashed line at $1.5863$), and, on the other
807: hand, the extrapolation yields $y'$ value ($1.913$) which is remarkably
808: smaller than
809: $(1/\nu)+\omega \simeq 2.3853$ (the upper dot--dot--dashed line)
810: predicted by the RG theory. For selfconsistency,
811: we should use the linear extrapolation in the scale of $L^{-\omega}$ with
812: $\omega=0.799$ (the RG value). However, this extrapolation
813: (tiny dashed line in Fig.~\ref{zeroth}), yielding
814: $y' \simeq 1.757$, does not solve the problem
815: in favour of the RG theory.
816:
817: The data points of $y_{eff}'$ look (and are expected to be) less accurate
818: than those of $y_{eff}''$, since $Re \left( u_1^0-u_c \right)$
819: has a very small value.
820: The $y_{eff}''$ data do not look scattered, therefore they allow a refined
821: analysis with account for nonlinear corrections. To obtain stable results,
822: we have included the data for smaller lattice sizes $L=3$ and $L=4$ given
823: in~\cite{ABV}. In principle, we can use rather arbitrary analytical function
824: $\phi (\beta)$ to evaluate the effective critical exponent
825: $$y_{eff}''(L) = \ln \left[ Im \, \phi \left(\beta_1^0(L/2) \right)
826: / Im \, \phi \left( \beta_1^0(L) \right) \right] / \ln 2$$
827: and estimate its asymptotic value $y''$. For an optimal choice, however,
828: $y_{eff}''(L)$ vs $L^{-\omega}$ plot should be as far as possible linear
829: to minimize the extrapolation error. In this aspect, our choice
830: $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$ is preferable to $\phi = \exp(-4 \beta)$ used
831: in~\cite{ABV}. We have tested also another possibility, i.~e.
832: $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$, providing almost optimal results in
833: the case of 2D Ising model. In Fig.~\ref{slope} we have shown the
834: slope of $y_{eff}''$ vs $L^{-1/2}$ curve, calculated from the MC data
835: of~\cite{ADH,ABV}, for $\phi = \exp(- \beta)$ (empty circles) and
836: \linebreak $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$ (solid circles).
837: \begin{figure}
838: \centerline{\psfig{figure=s.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
839: \vspace{-3ex}
840: \caption{\small Slope of the $y_{eff}''$ vs $L^{-1/2}$ plot in
841: Fig.~\ref{zeroth} (including also smaller sizes $L$). The empty
842: circles correspond to $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$, whereas the solid
843: circles to $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$. The corresponding least--squares
844: fits $1.1840 - 8.507 L^{-1/2} +19.09 L^{-1}$ and
845: $0.6669 - 3.645 L^{-1/2} + 9.275 L^{-1}$ are shown by long--dashed
846: line and solid line, respectively.}
847: \label{slope}
848: \end{figure}
849: It is evident that in both
850: cases the slope cannot be reasonably approximated by a linear
851: function of $L^{-1/2}$, but can be quite well described by
852: a parabola. The latter means that $y_{eff}''(L)$ can be satisfactory
853: well approximated by a third--order (but not by a second--order)
854: polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$. The
855: corresponding four parameter least--squares fits are shown in
856: Fig.~\ref{zeroref}.
857: \begin{figure}
858: \centerline{\psfig{figure=r.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
859: \vspace{-3ex}
860: \caption{\small Effective critical exponent $y_{eff}''(L)$
861: for the imaginary part of the complex partition--function--zeroth
862: %of 3D Ising model
863: as a function of $L^{-1/2}$, where $L$ is the linear size of the system.
864: The empty circles correspond to $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$, whereas the solid
865: circles to $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$. The corresponding least--squares
866: fits $y_{eff}''(L)= 1.4731 + 1.3345 L^{-1/2} - 4.7657 L^{-1}
867: + 6.8962 L^{-3/2}$ and
868: $y_{eff}''(L)= 1.5180 + 0.7301 L^{-1/2} - 2.0397 L^{-1}
869: + 3.3181 L^{-3/2}$ are shown by long--dashed line
870: and solid line, respectively.
871: Our asymptotic value $y''=1/\nu=1.5$ is indicated by horizontal
872: dashed line, whereas that of the RG theory ($1.5863$)
873: -- by dot--dot--dashed line.}
874: \label{zeroref}
875: \end{figure}
876: They yield $y'' \simeq 1.473$ in the case of
877: $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$ (long--dashed line) and
878: $y'' \simeq 1.518$ at $\phi = \sinh(2 \beta)$ (solid line).
879: It is evident from Fig.~\ref{zeroref} that
880: in the latter case we have slightly better linearity of the fit,
881: therefore $1/\nu \simeq 1.518$ is our best estimate of
882: the critical exponent $1/\nu$ from the actual MC data.
883: Thus, while the row estimation provided the value
884: $y''=1/\nu \simeq 1.552$ which is closer to the RG
885: prediction $1/\nu \simeq 1.5863$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line),
886: the refined analysis reveals remarkably better agreement with our
887: (exact) value $1/\nu=1.5$ (horizontal dashed line).
888:
889:
890: \section{Conclusions}
891:
892: In summary, we conclude the following.
893: \begin{enumerate}
894: \item Corrections to scaling for different physical quantities
895: near and at criticality have been discussed in framework of our recently
896: developed theory~\cite{my3} (Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}).
897: \item The critical exponent $\gamma$ for 3D Heisenberg model
898: has been estimated by
899: fitting the original susceptibility (MC) data of~\cite{Janke} to an
900: ansatz of finite--size--scaling theory which includes the leading
901: confluent correction--to--scaling term
902: (Sec.~\ref{sec:gam}). The obtained
903: estimates ($\gamma=1.345 \pm 0.023$ and $\gamma = 1.354 \pm 0.020$)
904: agree within error bars with
905: our theoretical value $\gamma=19/14 \simeq 1.35714$ and disagree with the
906: conventional RG value $\gamma \simeq 1.3895$. Taking into account
907: also the leading analytical correction, a selfconsistent
908: estimation always yields the central value of $\gamma$ in the range of
909: $1.345 \le \gamma \le 1.369$, i.~e., reasonably close to our (exact) value $19/14$,
910: if the ratio of amplitudes $r$ for analytical and confluent corrections
911: is varied from $0$ to $\infty$.
912: \item Based on MC data for susceptibility in
913: 3D Heisenberg model, a very accurate estimation of the critical coupling
914: has been made at given values of critical exponents
915: (Sec.~\ref{sec:coupl}), taking into account both confluent and analytical
916: corrections to scaling. These estimates, combined with fits
917: in vicinity of the critical point (Sec.~\ref{sec:test}),
918: allowed us to test the consistency between theoretical values of critical
919: exponents and actual MC data. As a result, we have found that
920: our values ($\eta=1/10$, $\gamma=19/14$, $\omega=3/5$)
921: are consistent, whereas those of the RG theory
922: ($\eta \simeq 0.0355$, $\gamma \simeq 1.3895$, $\omega \simeq 0.782$)
923: are rather inconsistent with the MC data.
924: \item Recent Monte Carlo data for complex zeroth of the partition function
925: in 3D Ising model have been discussed (Sec.~\ref{sec:zeroth}).
926: The actual MC data suggest that, like in 2D Ising model, the critical
927: behavior of the real part differs from that of the imaginary part.
928: It can be explained reasonably by our exponents $\nu=2/3$ and $\omega=1/2$,
929: but not by those ($\nu \simeq 0.6304$ and $\omega \simeq 0.799$) of
930: the conventional RG theory. Our best estimate of the critical
931: exponent $\nu$ from the MC data, i.~e. $1/\nu \simeq 1.518$ or
932: $\nu \simeq 0.659$, is in a good agreement with the theoretical
933: (exact) value $2/3$.
934: \end{enumerate}
935:
936: \begin{thebibliography}{}
937:
938: \bibitem{my3} J.~Kaupu\v{z}s, Ann.~Phys.~(Leipzig) {\bf 10} (2001),
939: Iss 4 (in press); see also preprint cond--mat/0004255
940: \bibitem{Baxter} Rodney J.~Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in
941: Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press, London, 1989
942: \bibitem{IS} N. Ito, M. Suzuki, Progress of Theoretical
943: Physics, {\bf 77} (1987) 1391
944: \bibitem{SM} N. Schultka, E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B
945: {\bf 52} (1995) 7258
946: \bibitem{GA} L. S. Goldner, G. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. B
947: {\bf 45} (1992) 13129
948: \bibitem{Wilson} K.G.~Wilson, M.E.~Fisher,
949: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 28} (1972) 240
950: \bibitem{Ma} Shang--Keng Ma, Modern Theory of Critical
951: Phenomena, W.A.~Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1976
952: \bibitem{Justin} J.~Zinn--Justin, Quantum Field Theory and
953: Critical Phenomena, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996
954: \bibitem{Janke} C. Holm, W. Janke, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 48} (1993) 936
955: \bibitem{Ballesteros} H. G. Ballesteros, L. A. Fernandez,
956: V. Martin--Mayor, A. M. Sudupe, Phys. Lett.~B {\bf 387} (1996) 125
957: \bibitem{Justin1} R.~Guida, J.~Zinn--Justin, J.~Phys.~A
958: {\bf 31} (1998) 8103
959: \bibitem{Binder} K. Binder, Z. Phys.~B {\bf 43} (1981) 119
960: \bibitem{NW} M. J. P. Nijmeijer, J. J. Weis, Phys. Rev. Lett.
961: {\bf 75} (1995) 2887
962: \bibitem{St} N. St\"usser, M. Th. Rekveldt, T. Spruijt,
963: Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 33} (1986) 6423
964: \bibitem{ADH} N. A. Alves, J. R. Drugowich, U. H. E. Hansmann,
965: J.~Phys.~A {\bf 33} (2000) 7489
966: \bibitem{Brout} R. Brout, Phase transitions, New York, 1965
967: \bibitem{SA} Z. Salman, J. Adler, Int. J. Modern Physics~C
968: {\bf 9} (1998) 195
969: \bibitem{FL} A. M. Ferrenberg, D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev.~B
970: {\bf 44} (1991) 5081
971: \bibitem{ABV} N. A. Alves, B. A. Berg, R. Villanova, Phys. Rev.~B
972: {\bf 41} (1990) 383
973: \end{thebibliography}
974:
975: \end{document}
976:
977: