1: \documentstyle[aps,eqsecnum,pre,graphicx]{revtex}

2: \input epsf

3: \begin{document}

4: \draft

5: 

6: \title{Phase diagram of a model for $^3He-^4He$ mixtures in three dimensions}

7: \author{  A. Macio\l ek,$^1$  M. Krech,$^{2,3}$ and  S. Dietrich$^{2,3}$\\

8:  {\small $^1$\it   Institute of Physical Chemistry, 

9:              Polish Academy of Sciences,}\\

10:      {\small \it       Department III, Kasprzaka 44/52,

11:             PL-01-224 Warsaw, Poland,}\\

12:    {\small $^2$\it Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Metallforschung,\\

13: Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany,\\}

14: {\small \it $^3$ Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische und Angewandte Physik, Universit{\"a}t Stuttgart,\\

15: Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany\\}

16:     }

17:             

18: \date{\today}

19: \maketitle

20: \begin{abstract}

21: \baselineskip6mm

22: A lattice model of $^3$He -$^4$He mixtures which takes into account the

23: continuous rotational symmetry $O(2)$ of the superfluid

24: degrees of freedom of $^4$He is studied in the molecular-field approximation

25: and by Monte Carlo simulations in three dimensions. In contrast to its

26: two-dimensional version, for reasonable values of the interaction parameters

27: the resulting phase diagram resembles that observed

28: experimentally for $^3$He -$^4$He mixtures, for which phase

29: separation occurs as a consequence of the superfluid transition.

30: The corresponding continuum  Ginzburg-Landau model with two order parameters

31:  describing $^3$He-$^4$He

32: mixtures near tricriticality is derived from the considered lattice model.

33: All coupling constants appearing in the continuum model are explicitly

34: expressed in terms of the mean concentration of $^4$He, the temperature, 

35: and the microscopic interaction parameters characterizing the lattice system.

36: 

37: \pacs{05.50.+q, 64.60.Cn, 64.60.Kw, 67.40.Kh}

38: \end{abstract}

39: 

40: \section{Introduction}

41: \label{sec:intro}

42: Spatial confinements of systems undergoing continuous phase transitions perturb

43: the fluctuation spectrum of the corresponding ordering degrees of freedom.

44: This leads to a dependence of the free energy of the systems on the distance

45: between the confining walls which can be expressed in terms of universal scaling function.

46:  Their gradient renders the so-called critical Casimir forces which

47: are the analogues of the well known electro-magnetic Casimir or dispersion forces.

48: 

49: Recent developments in the theory of Casimir forces in critical

50:  and correlated fluids

51: ~\cite{krech:99:0} have provided a strong motivation for testing them

52: experimentally in various systems.

53: Capacity studies of  $^4$He wetting films  near the 

54: superfluid transition $T_{\lambda}$~\cite{garcia:99:0}

55: have confirmed the existence  of the critical Casimir effect  and for temperatures

56: $T>T_{\lambda}$ quantitative agreement with  corresponding theoretical predictions has 

57: been found~\cite{krech:91:0,krech:92:0,krech:92:1}.

58: Similar effects have been observed for wetting films of 

59:  binary liquid mixtures near the critical

60: end-point of their demixing transition~\cite{law:99:0}.

61: Additional evidence for the critical Casimir force and detailed data  have

62:  been reported  for wetting  films at solid substrates of  $^3$He-$^4$He

63: mixtures near  their  tricritical point~\cite{garcia:02:0,balibar:02:0}. 

64: These latter experiments have also raised  new interesting challenges

65: for the theory, which have motivated the present work.

66: Among them is the sign and the amplitude  of the Casimir force

67: or, more generally, the form of its scaling function for different  values of the concentration of $^3$He

68:  atoms.

69: Theory predicts that these features of the Casimir force  crucially depend on

70: the type of boundary conditions which the confining surfaces impose on the order parameter~\cite{krech:99:0}.

71: For example, the force should be attractive for  symmetric boundary

72: conditions and repulsive for nonsymmetric boundary conditions.

73: The distinction between the surface universality classes  is also relevant.

74: In the case of pure $^4$He films near the $\lambda$-point the boundary conditions at the two confining  interfaces of the wetting layer seem to be very well

75:  approximated by symmetric  Dirichlet boundary conditions forming the so-called

76: ordinary surface universality class, because the quantum-mechanical wave function that describes

77:  the superfluid state vanishes at  both interfaces~\cite{krech:99:0,garcia:99:0}.

78: For films of  $^3$He-$^4$He mixture  the situation is less clear.

79: In  these systems  a $^4$He-rich layer

80: forms near the substrate-fluid interface, which may become superfluid

81: already above the $\lambda$-line~\cite{laheurte:77:0,leibler:84:0,macqueeney:84:0}, whereas

82: there is an enrichment of $^3$He near the opposing fluid-vapor interface.

83: Thus the two interfaces impose a nontrivial concentration profile, which in turn couples

84: to the superfluid order parameter.

85: The experiment of Ref.\cite{garcia:02:0} reports

86:  a repulsive Casimir  force at the tricritical point but

87:  it is not immediately obvious that the concentration profile  induces effectively 

88: nonsymmetric boundary conditions for the superfluid order parameter, i.e., symmetry-breaking boundary

89:  conditions  at the  substrate-fluid interface

90:  (also known as the so-called extraordinary or normal universality class) and   Dirichlet boundary conditions

91:  at the fluid-vapor interface.

92: The superfluid order parameter possesses  a continuous $O(2)$ symmetry so that

93:  if the layer

94:  is effectively two-dimensional  it is in the

95: Kosterlitz-Thouless phase

96:  with the superfluid order-parameter equal to zero~\cite{kosterlitz:80:0}.

97:  On the other hand, upon approaching the $\lambda$-line from the high temperature side

98:  the superfluid layer  thickens due to the increase  of the correlation length

99: and a dimensional crossover to a three-dimensional 

100:  superfluid phase with non-zero order-parameter should take place~\cite{dietrich:91:0}.

101: In order to be able to interpret and to

102: understand  the features of the Casimir force and other

103: surface and finite-size effects  in $^3$He-$^4$He mixture films near the

104: tricritical point

105:  systematic studies  of  a model system are needed.

106: Due to the universal character of the critical Casimir force

107: it is sufficient to choose as a model system  one which belongs to

108: the same universality class as the actual physical system. 

109:  The prerequisite of such future  studies is a detailed analysis 

110:  of the  bulk properties of such a suitable model.

111: This is the purpose of  the present paper.

112: The model should resemble the main features of the bulk phase diagram of 

113: $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures in three dimensions ($d=3$) and take  into 

114:  account the continuous rotational O(2) symmetry of the superfluid

115: degrees of freedom of $^4$He. 

116: 

117: The general features of phase separation and superfluidity  in 

118: three-dimensional mixtures  

119: of liquid  $^3$He and $^4$He are well known from experiments~\cite{graf:67:0}.

120: In pure $^4$He  there is a transition from a normal fluid to 

121: a superfluid phase characterized by a complex order parameter. 

122: If $^4$He is diluted with $^3$He, the superfluid transition

123:  temperature  is depressed.

124: Simultaneously, the tendency toward phase separation increases and at a 

125: critical  $^3$He concentration the mixture undergoes a

126:  first-order phase transition into a $^4$He-rich and a $^3$He-rich  phase,

127:  of which only the $^4$He-rich phase is superfluid. 

128: In the temperature - $^3$He concentration plane $(T,x)$ the line 

129: of second-order superfluid transitions $T_s(x)$ meets the

130:  boundary of the two-phase coexistence region 

131: at the tricritical point $(T_t\approx 87mK,x_t\approx 0.67)$; $x =

132: N_3 / (N_3 + N_4)$, where $N_i$, $i = 3, 4$, denotes the number of atoms of

133: $^3$He or $^4$He, respectively.

134: 

135: In this paper we consider a simple lattice model known in the literature 

136:  as  the Vectoralized Blume-Emery-Griffiths model

137:  (VBEG)~\cite{cardy:79:0,berker:79:0}.

138: It  is defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:mod}. The bulk phase diagram of the VBEG model 

139:  was investigated only in spatial  dimensions $d=2$

140:   by means of Migdal-Kadanoff

141: recursion relations~\cite{cardy:79:0,berker:79:0}; no tricritical point was found for any value of the  model parameters.

142: Here we study the  three-dimensional version of this model within

143:  the molecular-field approximation

144: and by Monte Carlo simulations,  and we demonstrate that for

145:  reasonable values of interaction parameters the resulting phase

146:  diagram resembles topologically

147:  that observed experimentally for  three dimensional

148: mixtures, for which the phase separation appears as a consequence of the

149:  superfluid ordering.

150:  This is carried out in Sec.~\ref{sec:mf} and

151: Sec.~\ref{sec:MC}, respectively.

152: In Sec.~\ref{sec:LG} we  derive a two-parameter continuous

153:  Landau-Ginzburg (GL)

154:  model describing bulk $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures near

155: a tricritical point starting from the modified VBEG model.

156: The GL  approach has many advantages and it is worthwhile to have a LG model

157: with coupling constants explicitely related to the measured quantities, such like like temperature, superfluid density, concentration of $^3$He atoms, or parameters describing interactions.

158: We close our paper with a summary and conclusions.

159: 

160: \section{The model.}

161: \label{sec:mod}

162: We consider a simple lattice  model of   $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures

163: which takes into account the continuous rotational O(2)

164:  symmetry of the superfluid

165: degrees of freedom of $^4$He. It is a  vectorial generalization of the

166:  spin-1 model 

167: used by Blume, Emery, and Griffiths (BEG) ~\cite{blume:71:0}

168:   for describing the

169: $\lambda$-line and the tricritical point in $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures.

170: In this model each simple cubic lattice  site $i$ 

171: is associated with an occupation  variable  $t_i$, taking the values 0 or 1,

172: and a phase $\theta _i$ $( 0\le \theta _i< 2\pi)$ which mimics

173:  the phase of the $^4$He  wave function.

174: A $^3$He atom at site $i$ corresponds  to $t_i=0$ and a $^4$He atom 

175: to $t_i=1$. Since the model in this reduced version does not allow

176: for unoccupied sites, the model does not exhibit a vapor phase.

177: (In future studies the model can be generalized to incorporate

178: the vapor phase; here it is left out for reasons of simplicity.)

179:  $\theta _i$ reflects the superfluid degrees of freedom.

180: The model Hamiltonian consists of a lattice gas part describing

181:  a binary mixture   and

182: a term responsible for

183:   the ``superfluid'' ordering.

184:  Since only $^4$He atoms couple to the superfluid order parameter

185:  the Hamiltonian is taken as

186: \begin{equation}

187: \label{eq:ham}

188: { \cal H}=-J\sum _{<ij>}t_it_j\cos (\theta _i-\theta _j) - K\sum _{<ij>}t_it_j+\Delta\sum _it_i

189: \end{equation}

190: where    the first two sums  are over  nearest-neighbor pairs

191: $<ij>$,  and  the last sum is over all lattice sites. 

192: The lattice constant $a$ is taken to be equal to 1.

193: 

194: In the lattice gas model of the  $^3$He-$^4$He binary mixture  the 

195: coupling constant $ K$ and the field $\Delta$ are related to the effective

196: $^{\alpha}$He-$^{\beta}$He interactions 

197:   -$K_{\alpha \beta}$~\cite{bell:89:0}

198: \begin{equation}

199: \label{eq:parK}

200: K=K_{33}+K_{44}-2K_{34},

201: \end{equation}

202: and to the chemical potentials $\mu _3$ and $\mu _4$  of  $^3$He and $^4$He,

203:  repectively,

204: \begin{equation}

205: \label{eq:pardelta}

206: \Delta=\mu _3-\mu _4+2z(K_{33}-K_{34}),

207: \end{equation}

208: where  $z$ is  the coordination number

209:  of the lattice ($z=2d$, where $d$ is  the 

210: spatial dimension of the system; $z=6$ in the present case).

211:  

212: In the liquid the effective interactions 

213:  $K_{\alpha \beta}$ are different for different $\alpha$

214:  and $\beta$ due to the differences of mass and statistics  between $^3$He

215:  and $^4$He atoms.

216: The coupling constant $J$ is related~\cite{berker:79:0,book}  to a bare, 

217:  superfluid  density $\rho _0(T)$ by

218: \begin{equation}

219: \label{eq:paJ}

220: J=\hbar ^2\rho _0(T)a^{(d-2)}/m^2

221: \end{equation}

222: where $m$ is the mass of  a $^4$He atom. $a$ is the mean interparticle spacing

223: (the lattice parameter in the lattice model).

224: The superfluid density can be measured from the velocity of third

225:  sound and from 

226: the response of a torsional oscillator \cite{bishop:78:0};

227:  it has units of mass per unit volume (or area in two dimensions).

228: Here we are concerned only with the case  $J>0$ and $K>0$.

229: 

230: When all occupation numbers $t_i$ are equal to 1,  up to constants

231:  the first term in Eq.(\ref{eq:ham})

232: corresponds to  the classical $XY$ model 

233: (the planar rotator model) for pure $^4$He.

234: Therefore, in the limit of $\Delta\to -\infty$ the partition function of the model  reduces to that of $XY$  model up to a factor $e^{KzN}$ where $N$ is the

235: number of lattice sites.

236: 

237: The model as defined above is known in the literature 

238:  as  the Vectoralized Blume-Emery-Griffiths model (VBEG).

239: It was first proposed by Berker and Nelson~\cite{berker:79:0} and, independently, by

240: Cardy and Scalpino~\cite{cardy:79:0} 

241:  to describe thin

242: {\it films} of  $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures, for which  the mechanism of the 

243: superfluid transition is different from that in $d=3$;

244: there is no spontaneous  breaking of the continuous symmetry in $d=2$

245: ~\cite{mermin:66:0}, i.e., the order parameter does not become nonzero below

246:  the transition temperature.

247: The superfluid transition in  films  of  $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures

248:  is  of the Kosterlitz-Thouless type~\cite{kosterlitz:80:0}.

249: 

250: In $d=2$  the phase diagram of  the VBEG model was

251: obtained by means of 

252: the Migdal-Kadanoff  renormalization-group method

253: ~\cite{cardy:79:0,berker:79:0}.  

254: Its features are qualitatively similar to those  observed experimentally

255: for the corresponding three-dimensional mixtures, except that there is

256:  no true tricritical point for any value of the model parameters.

257: The line of the superfluid transitions  ($\lambda$-line) is connected to the

258: phase-separation curve  by a critical endpoint at a temperature

259:  distinctly lower than the phase-separation critical temperature.

260:  Thus upon lowering the temperature 

261: the system first phase separates  into two normal fluids with different

262:  concentrations of $^3$He. At lower temperatures, there is  phase separation

263:  into a superfluid phase with a  low $^3$He concentration and into a normal

264:  fluid with a  high $^3$He concentration. 

265: 

266: In this paper we are interested in the corresponding three-dimensional systems.

267: We determine the phase diagram of the VBEG model 

268: within  mean-field approximation and by Monte Carlo simulations.

269: 

270: \section{Molecular Field Approximation}

271: \label{sec:mf}

272: \subsection{ Free energy}

273: \label{sub:1}

274: In this section we determine the phase diagram of the VBEG model whithin the molecular-field approximation.

275: It is derived from the variational method  based upon approximating the 

276: total equilibrium  density matrix by a product  of local site density matrices

277: $\rho _i$~\cite{book}.

278: 

279: The variation theorem for the free energy reads:

280: \begin{equation}

281: \label{eq:var}

282: F\le F_{\rho}=Tr(\rho{\cal H})+(1/\beta)Tr(\rho \ln\rho)

283: \end{equation}

284: where $F$ is the exact free energy and $F_{\rho}$ is an approximate free energy

285:  associated with the density matrix $\rho$; $\beta =1/k_BT$.

286: The minimum of $F_{\rho}$  with respect to the variation of $\rho$ subject to 

287: the constraint $Tr\rho =1$ is attained  for the equilibrium density  matrix,

288: $\rho=e^{-\beta {\cal H}}/Tr(e^{-\beta {\cal H}})$.

289: 

290: Whithin mean-field theory the density matrix is approximated by

291: \begin{equation}

292: \label{eq:denmat}

293: \rho=\rho_0=\prod_{i=1}^N\rho_i

294: \end{equation}

295: where in homogeneous bulk systems the local density matrix  $\rho _i$ is independent of the site $i$.

296: For the Hamiltonian given by Eq.(\ref{eq:ham})

297: the variational mean-field free energy per site is

298: \begin{eqnarray}

299: \label{eq:varfe}

300: \frac{F_{\rho _0}}{N}\equiv \frac{\Phi}{N} &= &-\frac{{\tilde K}}{2}(Tr(t_i\rho_i))^2-\frac{{\tilde J}}{2}\left[(Tr(t_i\cos\theta _i\rho _i))^2+(Tr(t_i\sin\theta _i\rho _i))^2\right]  \nonumber \\

301: &+&\Delta Tr(t_i\rho _i)+(1/\beta)Tr(\rho _i\ln\rho_i)

302: \end{eqnarray}

303: where  ${\tilde K}=zK$ and ${\tilde J}=zJ$.

304: To determine variational minima to Eq.(\ref{eq:varfe})

305: we treat the local site  density $\rho _i$ as a variational  function,

306: and the  best functional form in terms of $t_i$ and $\theta _i$ is 

307: obtain by minimizing  $ F_{\rho _0}$ with respect to $\rho _i$.

308: In this procedure, however, the connection between  $ F_{\rho _0}$

309: and the  Hemholtz free energy functional of the order parameters

310: is not straightforward~\cite{comment}.

311: Minimizing 

312: $\Phi/N+\eta Tr(\rho _i)$  

313: with respect  to  $\rho_i$ and with  $\eta $ as a Lagrange multiplier one obtains

314: \begin{equation}

315: \label{eq:solden}

316: \rho _i=e^{-\beta h_i}/Tr(e^{-\beta h_i})

317: \end{equation}

318: where  $h_i$ is the single-site  molecular Hamiltonian  given by

319: \begin{equation}

320: \label{eq:h}

321:  h_i=-{\tilde K}(Tr(t_i\rho _i))t_i-{\tilde J}

322: \left[(Tr(t_i\cos\theta _i))t_i\cos\theta _i+(Tr(t_i\sin \theta _i))t_i\sin \theta _i\right]+\Delta t_i.

323: \end{equation}

324: 

325: We  define the following order parameters:

326: \begin{equation}

327: \label{eq:q}

328: Q\equiv 1-x=<t_i>

329: \end{equation}

330: and 

331: \begin{equation}

332: \label{eq:m}

333: M_x= <t_i\cos \theta _i>\qquad M_y= <t_i\sin \theta _i>.

334: \end{equation}

335: $Q$ corresponds to the concentration of  $^4$He, $x$ to the concentration of 

336: $^3$He, and $M_x, M_y$

337: are the components of the two-dimensional superfluid order parameter

338:  ${\bf M}=(M_1,M_2)$

339: with $M={{\sqrt{ M_x^2+M_y^2}}}$.

340: Within this approximation  $Q(\Delta,T)$ and $M(\Delta,T)$ are given by 

341: two coupled self-consistent equations:

342: \begin{equation}

343: \label{eq:eqQ}

344: Q=\frac{I_0(\beta{\tilde J}M)}{e^{\beta(-{\tilde K}Q+\Delta)}+I_0(\beta{\tilde J}M)}

345: \end{equation}

346: and

347: \begin{equation}

348: \label{eq:eqM}

349: M=\frac{I_1(\beta{\tilde J}M)}{e^{\beta (-{\tilde K}Q+\Delta)}+I_0(\beta {\tilde J}M)}

350: \end{equation}

351: where $I_0(z)$ and $I_1(z)$ are  modified Bessel functions~\cite{abramowitz}.

352: 

353: The equilibrium free energy  $\Phi (\Delta,T)$ is given by

354: \begin{equation}

355: \label{eq:freeeq}

356: \Phi (\Delta,T)/N=\frac{{\tilde K}}{2}((Q(\Delta ,T))^2+\frac{{\tilde J}}{2}(M(\Delta,T))^2+(1/\beta )\ln(1-Q(\Delta,T)).

357: \end{equation}

358: Most parts of the phase diagram  can only be determined by solving

359:  the equations for $Q$ and $M$ 

360: numerically. Some regions, however, can be studied analytically.

361: 

362: \subsection{ $\lambda$-line and tricritical point}

363: \label{subsec:2}

364: 

365: In order to find the line of critical points on which  second-order

366:  transitions from the 

367: normal ($M=0$) to the the superfluid ($M\ne 0$) state take place,

368: one needs the  thermodynamic potential in terms of  the order parameter $M$,

369: \begin{equation}

370: \label{eq:thermA}

371: A(M,\Delta, T)=\Phi-MH,

372: \end{equation}

373: where   $H$ is a  field conjugate to $M$: 

374: \begin{equation}

375: \label{eq:magf}

376: H=-\frac{\partial A}{\partial M}.

377: \end{equation}

378: The conditions for the critical points are:

379: \begin{equation}

380: \label{eq:cond}

381: \frac{\partial H}{\partial M}=\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial M^2}=0,

382: \qquad  \frac{\partial^3 H}{\partial M^3}>0,

383: \end{equation}

384: and  the tricritical point is determined by

385: \begin{equation}

386: \label{eq:condtri}

387: \frac{\partial H}{\partial M}=\frac{\partial ^2H}{\partial M^2}=\frac{\partial^3 H}{\partial M^3}=\frac{\partial^4 H}{\partial M^4}=0,

388: \qquad \frac{\partial^5 H}{\partial M^5}>0.

389: \end{equation}

390: To find $H$ as a function of $M$ we use

391: the analogue of Eq.(\ref{eq:eqM}) for $H\ne 0$:

392: \begin{equation}

393: \label{eq:eqMH}

394: M=\frac{I_1({\beta\tilde J}M+\beta H)}{e^{\beta(-{\tilde K}Q+\Delta)}+I_0(\beta{\tilde J}M+\beta H)}.

395: \end{equation}

396: Since this equation  cannot be inverted explicitly,

397:  we expand it around $H=0$  keeping only  terms linear in $H$, and find

398: \begin{equation}

399: \label{eq:eqH_M}

400: \beta H=\frac{I_1(\beta{\tilde J}M)-MI_0(\beta{\tilde J}M)+Me^{\beta(-{\tilde K}Q+\Delta)}}

401: {MI_1(\beta{\tilde J}M)-(1/2)(I_0(\beta{\tilde J}M)-I_2(\beta{\tilde J}M))}.

402: \end{equation}

403: Applying the conditions formulated in Eq.(\ref{eq:cond})-(\ref{eq:eqH_M}) yields

404:  the whole line of critical points, i.e., the $\lambda$-line $T_s(x)$:

405: \begin{equation}

406: \label{eq:critcurve}

407: T_s(x)=\frac{{\tilde J}(1-x)}{2}=\frac{{\tilde J}Q}{2}.

408: \end{equation}

409: It follows that, as the  concentration of  $^3$He increases 

410: from zero, $T_s$ decreases linearly from $T_s(0)={\tilde J}/2$.

411: The critical curve $\Delta = \Delta _s(T)$ in the $(\Delta, T)$ plane 

412: can be obtained by first solving Eq.(\ref{eq:eqQ}) for $\Delta$ (here and in the following

413: we include $k_B$ into $T$)

414: which gives

415: \begin{equation}

416: \label{eq:eqDelta}

417: \Delta (Q,T)=T\ln (1-Q)-T\ln Q+{\tilde K}Q+T\ln I_0({\tilde J}M),

418: \end{equation}

419:  and then evaluate Eq.(\ref{eq:eqDelta})

420: for $M=0$ and $Q=2T/{\tilde J}$ (see Eqs.(\ref{eq:q}) and (\ref{eq:critcurve})).

421: 

422: The line of  second-order phase transitions  ends  at the tricritical point

423: $(T_t,x_t)$ where the transition changes to a first-order one.

424: From Eqs. (\ref{eq:condtri}) and (\ref{eq:eqH_M})

425: one obtains for  the temperature $T_t$ 

426: \begin{equation}

427: \label{eq:tritemp}

428: T_t/ T_s(0)=\frac{1+2K/J}{2+2K/J}  

429: \end{equation}

430: and for the concentration $x_t$ 

431: \begin{equation}

432: \label{eq:tritempQ}

433:  T_t/ T_s(0)=1-x_t,

434: \end{equation}

435: provided $ \partial^5 H/\partial M^5>0$ holds for the chosen

436: value of $K/J$. It is possible that not all critical points on this so-called critical line

437: represent equilibrium phase transitions because the latter ones are preempted by

438: first-order demixing transitions. Thus it can be that only a portion of this  so-called critical

439: line gives the $\lambda$-line, the rest being metastable.

440: 

441: \subsection{ Demixing}

442: \label{subsec:3}

443: 

444: For the disordered  phase with $M=0$

445:  one  can easily find the

446: first-order phase separation  line from the $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid to

447: the $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid.

448: The phase separation  is associated with an instability loop including a range

449: of $Q$ values for which  $\partial \Delta /\partial Q>0$ and the critical point is given

450:  by  $\partial \Delta /\partial Q=\partial ^2 \Delta /\partial Q^2=0$.

451: These last two relations together with Eq.(\ref{eq:eqDelta}), evaluated at $M=0$,

452: are satisfied  if  $Q_c=1/2$ and $T_c={\tilde K}/4$. 

453: The critical value $\Delta _c$ of $\Delta$ is ${\tilde K}/2$.

454: Inserting  $\Delta =\Delta _c$ and  $M=0$ into

455:  Eq.(\ref{eq:eqDelta}) gives

456: \begin{equation}

457: \label{eq:coexcurve}

458: T\ln\frac{1-Q}{Q}-(1/2){\tilde K}(2Q-1)=0

459: \end{equation}

460: For $T<{\tilde K}/4$ this equation  has pairs of solution

461: $(Q,1-Q)$. For $M=0$, i.e., above the critical line  in the $(Q,T)$

462: plane, these solution  form

463: the coexistence curve which is symmetric  about $Q=1/2$ or $x=0.5$.

464:  For temperatures lower than the intersection 

465: temperature  $T_I$ of  the critical line  with the curve given by Eq.(\ref{eq:coexcurve})

466: the phase rich in $^4$He becomes superfluid and Eq.(\ref{eq:coexcurve}) no

467: longer represents the coexistence curve.

468: 

469: In order to find what types of  phase diagrams the present model provides

470:  we look for the phase-separation instability  on the critical curve as determined in Subsec.~\ref{subsec:2}

471: and how it is located with respect to the intersection point $P_I=(Q_I,T_I)$.

472: Depending on the ratio $K/J$ there are three

473:  possibilities which give three different types

474: of the phase diagram: (i) the instability point $P_t$ lies below the

475:  intersection point $P_I$, (ii) $P_t$ lies above $P_I$, and (iii) the

476:  critical point of the transition between   $^3$He- and $^4$He-rich 'normal'

477:  fluids falls into the instability  range initiated at  $P_t$.

478: 

479: A sufficient condition for an instability loop leading to phase separation 

480: is $\partial \Delta/\partial Q >0$.

481: Using  Eq.(\ref{eq:eqDelta}) and the relation $Q=MI_0(\beta{\tilde J}M)/I_1(\beta{\tilde J}M)$

482: one finds

483: \begin{equation}

484: \label{eq:b1'}

485: \left(\frac{\partial \Delta}{\partial Q}\right)_{Q=Q^*+}=\frac{-{\tilde J}}{2(1-Q^*)}+{\tilde K}+{\tilde J} 

486: \end{equation}

487: whereas 

488: \begin{equation}

489: \label{eq:b1}

490: \left(\frac{\partial \Delta}{\partial Q}\right)_{Q=Q^*-}=\frac{-{\tilde J}}{2(1-Q^*)}+{\tilde K},

491: \end{equation}

492: where $Q^*$ is the critical value of $Q$ for superfluid ordering given by

493: Eq. (\ref{eq:critcurve}).

494: Thus  $\left(\partial \Delta/\partial Q\right)_{Q=Q^*-}> \left(\partial \Delta /\partial Q\right)_{Q=Q^*+}$

495: and the instability will occur on the ordered side of the critical curve when

496:  $\left(\partial \Delta /\partial Q\right)_{Q=Q^*+}=0$.

497: From Eq. (\ref{eq:b1'}) the coordinates of the instability point $P_t$ are given by

498: Eq. (\ref{eq:tritemp}), i.e., they are exactly the same as as those of the tricritical point.

499: We find numerically that $P_I$ and $P_t=(Q_t,T_t)$ coincide for $K/J\approx 2.01681$.

500: 

501: For $K/J> 2.01681$  case (i) is realized, i.e., the instability point $P_t$

502:  lies  inside the coexistence curve between  the $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and

503: the $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid. 

504:  We have obtained numerically the phase diagram for $K/J=2.4$.  

505: It is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:type1}(a)

506:  and \ref{fig:type1}(b) in the

507: $(\Delta,T)$ and $(x,T)$  plane, respectively. 

508: The dashed  line   in the $(\Delta,T)$ plane represents the

509: line of equilibrium  second-order phase transitions on the critical curve and thus represents

510: the $\lambda$-line.

511: This line terminates at the phase separation curve (solid  line) at the 

512: {\it critical end point E}.

513: CE is the line of  the first-order phase transitions between the $^3$He-rich  and the 

514: $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluids

515: with the critical point C. At the point E the curve CE turns into the line of first-order 

516: phase transitions between the $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich superfluid.

517: The phase boundary $\Delta (T)$ between the $^3$He-rich  and the 

518: $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid or the $^4$He-rich superfluid (represented by a 

519: solid  line)

520:  is expected to exhibit a singular

521:  curvature  $\sim |T-T_E|^{-\alpha}$ as $T$ approaches  the end point 

522: temperature from above or below~\cite{fisher:91:0}. $\alpha$ is the critical exponent 

523: describing the specific heat singularity on the critical line below the point E.

524: Since in mean-field theory $\alpha=0$,  there is 

525: no nonanalyticity at the end point whithin the present approach.

526: In the $(x,T)$ plane (see Fig.~\ref{fig:type1}(b))

527: the coexistence curve is smooth at $T=T_E$ on the $^3$He-rich side.

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: For $K/J< 2.01681$ the instability point $P_t$ lies outside the coexistence curve

532: for the  $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid.

533:  Therefore, as $T$ 

534: decreases below $T_t$, the phase separation between  the   $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid

535: and the $^4$He-rich superfluid commences at the point $P_t$

536: on the critical curve; hence $P_t\equiv A$ is a {\it tricritical point}.

537: The phase diagram  for $K/J=1.8$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2}.

538: In the  $(\Delta,T)$ plane (Fig.~\ref{fig:type2}(a)) the first-order transition line

539: between the  $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich superfluid 

540: which starts at A terminates at a triple point $D$ where it meets the first-order

541:  transition lines between the

542:  $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid (curve CD)

543:  and between the $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich superfluid.

544: 

545: For even smaller value of the ratio $K/J$ there are no longer two

546: distinguishable disordered phases, i.e., the line DC in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2}(a)

547: has shrunk to zero.

548:  The  critical point for coexistence between the  $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid

549: and the $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid, 

550: which occurs at $x_c=1/2$ and $T_c={\tilde K}/4$, disappears.

551: In Fig.~\ref{fig:type3} we present the phase diagram for $K/J=1$.

552: In the  $(\Delta,T)$ plane it exhibits a very simple form (Fig.~\ref{fig:type3}(a)).

553:  The $\lambda$-line meets   the first-order transition line between the

554:  $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid and the $^4$He-rich superfluid 

555:   at the {\it tricritical point A}. The lines meet with a common tangent, a feature characteristic

556: of the mean-field approximation.

557: In the $(x,T)$ plane (Fig.~\ref{fig:type3}(b)) at the tricritical point 

558: the critical line $T_s(x)$

559:   has the same slope as  the 

560:  phase-separation curve on the $^3$He-rich side. 

561: The emergence  of the type of phase diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:type3}

562: from  the one shown in  Fig.~\ref{fig:type2} takes place  at that value of $K/J$ for which there is an equilibrium between the phase at the critical point 

563:  C  and an ordered phase yielding $K/J\approx 1.4298$.

564: For $K/J$ slightly less than this value  $K/J=1.4298$,

565:   the tricritical

566:  point is located at $T_t\approx 0.397$ and $x_t\approx 0.206$.

567: Whithin mean-field theory  the $^3$He-rich side of the coexistence curve has a plateau for $0.8\lesssim x \lesssim 0.3$, i.e., right below the tricritical point  small changes in temperature lead to pronounced 

568: changes in the  concentration of $^3$He. 

569: As $K/J$ is reduced further the tricritical point shifts to larger values of

570: $x$  and smaller values of $T$. Also the shape of the coexistence curve changes; the plateau disappears and the concentration of $^3$He inceases  more uniformly with the temperature.

571: 

572: 

573: A phase diagram like that of Fig.~\ref{fig:type3} resembles qualitatively the experimental one~\cite{graf:67:0}, for which one finds for the

574: tricritical point 

575: $T_A/T_s(0)=0.4$ and $x_A=0.669$. In our model $x_A$ is, however,  always

576: smaller than  0.5.

577: 

578: 

579: \section{ Monte Carlo Simulations}

580: \label{sec:MC}

581: For the Monte Carlo treatment of the model Hamiltonian

582:  given by Eq.(\ref{eq:ham})

583: a $^4$He atom is represented by the normalized spin vector

584: \begin{equation}

585: \label{spin}

586: {\bf S}_i \equiv (\cos \theta_i, \sin \theta_i)

587: \end{equation}

588: for each lattice site $i$ in the spirit of the standard XY model. A $^3$He

589: atom on lattice site $i$ is represented as ${\bf S}_i \equiv (0,0)$.

590: Consequently the occupation number $t_i$ on lattice site $i$ is given by

591: $t_i = |{\bf S}_i|$ and the interaction $\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)$ between two

592: $^4$He atoms is given by the computationally more favorable scalar product

593: $\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j) = {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j$. The lattice is 

594: simple cubic with periodic boundary conditions and $L$ lattice sites

595: in each direction. The Monte Carlo algorithm is based on various standard

596: procedures which we discuss briefly in the following.

597: 

598: In order to explore the phase space of the model, two types of updates

599: are needed: (i) spin flip updates and (ii) particle insertion and deletion

600: updates. The spin flip updates are responsible for the creation of long -

601: ranged magnetic order which in our model represents the normal - superfluid

602: transition. This can be of first or second order depending on the

603: concentration $x=1-<t_i>$ of $^3$He ($t_i = 0$) in the system (see

604: Fig. \ref{fig:type3}). The particle insertion and deletion updates are

605: responsible for the demixing transition (phase separation) in our model.

606: This transition can also be first or second order depending on the coupling

607: constants in the model (see Figs. \ref{fig:type1} and \ref{fig:type2}).

608: In our simulation we are primarily interested in that regime of coupling

609: constants, for which the phase diagram resembles that of actual $^3$He -$^4$He

610: mixtures (Fig. \ref{fig:type3}) and therefore the possibility of a second

611: order (critical) demixing

612: transition is not taken into account for the selection of the Monte Carlo

613: moves. We therefore use the following methods in our Monte Carlo simulation:

614: (i) single particle insertion and deletion and (ii) single spin flip according

615: to the Metropolis algorithm \cite{Metropolis}, (iii) single cluster spin flip

616: according to the Wolff algorithm \cite{Wolff89}, and (iv) overrelaxation

617: updates of the spin degrees of freedom at constant configurational energy

618: \cite{CFL93}. For each particle insertion or single spin flip move the new

619: spin state is randomly selected from the even distribution on the unit circle.

620: The projection vector for the embedding part of the Wolff algorithm

621: \cite{Wolff89} is also chosen randomly from the even distribution on the unit

622: circle.

623: 

624: The above update methods are performed in sweeps over the whole lattice,

625: where {\em each} spin flip sweep (ii), (iii), or (iv) is preceded by a

626: Metropolis particle insertion and deletion sweep (i). Cluster updates of

627: the particle configuration according to the embedding algorithm of

628: Ref.\cite{Wolff89} are disregarded, because the critical demixing transition

629: will not be explored here.

630: 

631: The three basic Monte Carlo updates (ii) - (iv) outlined above are combined

632: according to the hybrid Monte Carlo idea \cite{Hybrid} to ensure efficient

633: configuration space exploration also for second order (critical) transitions

634: to long-ranged magnetic order. One hybrid Monte Carlo step consists of 10

635: individual steps each of which can be one of the updates listed above.

636: The Metropolis and the Wolff algorithm work the standard way, in which  the

637: acceptance probability $p$ of a proposed spin flip in the Metropolis

638: algorithm is defined by the local heat bath rule

639: \begin{equation} \label{heatbath}

640: p(\Delta E) = 1/[\exp(\Delta E / k_B T) + 1],

641: \end{equation}

642: where $\Delta E$ is the change in configurational energy of the proposed move.

643: The overrelaxation part of the algorithm performs a microcanonical update of

644: the configuration by sequentially reflecting each spin in the lattice at

645: the direction of the local field, i.e., the sum of the nearest neighbor

646: spins, such that its contribution to the energy of the whole configuration

647: remains constant. The implementation of this update scheme is straightforward,

648: because according to Eq.(\ref{eq:ham}) the energy of a spin with respect to its

649: neighborhood has the functional form of a scalar product. The form hybrid Monte

650: Carlo step depends on the region of the phase diagram to be explored. In

651: the vicinity of the first-order phase separation line typically six

652: Metropolis (M), one single cluster Wolff (C), and three overrelaxation (O)

653: updates are performed. The individual updates are mixed automatically in the

654: program to generate the update sequence M\ M\ O\ M\ O\ M\ M\ O\ M\ C\ for

655: the magnetic degrees of freedom.

656: 

657: The random number generator is

658: the shift register generator R1279 defined by the recursion relation

659: $X_n = X_{n-p} \oplus X_{n-q}$ for $(p,q) = (1279,1063)$. Generators like

660: these are known to cause systematic errors in combination with the Wolff

661: algorithm \cite{cluerr}. However, for lags $(p,q)$ used here these errors

662: are far smaller than typical statistical errors. They are further reduced

663: by the hybrid nature of the algorithm \cite{Hybrid}.

664: 

665: The hybrid algorithm is well suited to explore second-order phase

666: transitions. However, it is unable to overcome the exponential

667: slowing down of the algorithms included in our hybrid scheme in the

668: vicinity of a first-order transition, e.g., the first-order magnetic

669: (i.e., superfluid) transition for higher concentrations of $^3$He

670: particles, i.e., for occupation  numbers $t_i=0$ in our model.

671:  In order to resolve this problem while keeping

672: the benefits of the  hybrid scheme we have embedded the hybrid Monte Carlo

673: method in a simulated tempering environment \cite{SimTemp}. According to

674: the simulated tempering idea the temperature is treated as a random

675: variable which performs a random walk inside a predefined temperature

676: interval. In our simulation this temperature interval is represented by

677: a discrete set of temperatures, which are spaced closely enough to allow

678: sufficient overlap of the corresponding energy distribution functions.

679: The required reweighting factors \cite{SimTemp} are estimated from short

680: runs, one for each pair of neighboring temperatures, and checked a posteriori

681: by monitoring the probability distribution of the temperatures - which

682: should be essentially flat -- during the production run. Deviations of up to

683: 20\% from a flat temperature distribution are tolerated.

684: 

685: The Monte  Carlo scheme described above is employed for lattice sizes

686: $L$ between $L = 12$ and $L = 60$. For each choice of parameters we 

687: have performed

688: at least 12 blocks of $10^3$ hybrid steps for equilibration followed by

689: another $10^3$ hybrid steps to estimate the reweighting factors for each

690: pair of neighboring temperatures and finally followed by $4 \times 10^4$

691: hybrid steps for measurements. The measurement block is controlled by an

692: outer loop in which a new temperature is proposed according to the

693: predetermined weight factors \cite{SimTemp} after each hybrid Monte Carlo

694: step. Apart from standard thermodynamic quantities the distribution functions

695: of the total energy, the density, and the modulus of the magnetization are

696: monitored using histogram reweighting and extrapolation techniques

697: \cite{Histogram} within the measurement block. Their statistical errors are

698: estimated following standard procedures resulting from the statistical

699: independence of different measurement blocks. Unless otherwise stated

700: all error bars quoted in the following correspond to one standard deviation.

701: They are displayed only when they exceed the symbol sizes. The simulations

702: have been performed on DEC Alpha Workstations and Pentium III PCs.

703: 

704: \section{Monte Carlo results}

705: \label{sec:MCres}

706: Our primary interest in this study is to use Eq. (\ref{eq:ham})

707: to model $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures in the tricritical region and we therefore

708: restrict the numerical investigation of the statistical model described

709: by Eq. (\ref{eq:ham}) to the case $J = K$ for which the phase diagram

710: corresponding to this model Hamiltonian has the same

711: topology as for the liquid phases of $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures. The tricritical

712: point marks the onset of demixing into a spin ($^4$He) rich fluid and a

713: vacancy ($^3$He) rich fluid, where the spin rich fluid simultanously

714: exhibits long-ranged magnetic order of the XY type (superfluidity).

715: 

716: The phase diagram is most conveniently investigated by the inspection

717: of distribution functions (histograms) for various thermodynamic

718: quantities \cite{Nigel}.

719: However, the computational expense of the method described in Ref. \cite{Nigel}

720: in $d = 2$ is prohibitive in $d = 3$ for any appreciable system sizes. We

721: therefore resort to a simpler though less accurate approach which allows us

722: to treat larger systems and is accurate enough for our purposes. In the

723: following all temperatures are measured in units of the critical temperature

724: $T_s(0)$ of the XY model on a simple cubic lattice in $d = 3$, which is given

725: by $K_c \equiv J / (k_B T_s(0)) = 0.45415(5)$ \cite{TcXY}. The chemical

726: potential $\Delta$ is measured in units of the magnetic coupling contsant

727: $J$ (see Eq. (\ref{eq:ham})).

728: 

729: \subsection{Order parameter distribution at tricriticality}

730: The key feature of the $^3$He-$^4$He phase diagram is the presence of a

731: tricritical point. The task to locate the tricritical point for the model

732: Hamiltonian given by Eq. (\ref{eq:ham}) is aided by the observation that

733: $d = 3$ is the upper critical dimension for tricriticality. It is therefore

734: reasonable to assume that the distribution function of the magnetic order

735: parameter essentially takes the mean-field (Landau) form. We will give some a

736: posteriori evidence below that this assumption is indeed correct, but an

737: accurate numerical proof of it is beyond the scope of this paper.

738: 

739: The magnetic order parameter, i.e., the magnetization is defined by

740: \begin{equation} \label{eq:magnOP}

741: {\bf M} = (M_x, M_y) \equiv L^{-3} \sum_i t_i {\bf S}_i ,

742: \end{equation}

743: where $t_i = 0, 1$ characterizes the presence of $^3$He or $^4$He at lattice

744: site $i$ and ${\bf S}_i = (\cos \theta_i, \sin \theta_i)$ is the standard spin

745: variable of the XY model. In terms of the modulus $m \equiv |{\bf M}|$ of

746: the order parameter the distribution function $P(m)$ is assumed to take the

747: form

748: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Pofm}

749: P(m) = P_0 m \exp(- A m^2 - B m^4 - C m^6)

750: \end{equation}

751: according to Landau theory in the tricritical region, where the absence

752: of symmetry breaking fields is assumed. The parameters $A$, $B$, and $C$

753: essentially play the role of the Landau-Ginzburg model parameters (see

754: Sec. \ref{sec:LG} below) and they depend on the temperature $T$ and the

755: chemical potential $\Delta$ (see Eq. (\ref{eq:ham})), where $C$ is manifestly

756: positive, but $A$ and $B$ may change sign. For system sizes $L = 12$, 18,

757: 24, 36, 48 and 60 simulations have been performed along various paths in the

758: $(T,\Delta)$ plane of the phase diagram and the data recorded for $P(m)$ have

759: been fitted according to Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) using $P_0$, $A$, $B$, and $C$

760: as fit parameters. For each system size $L$ a pseudo tricritical point

761: $(T_t(L), \Delta_t(L))$ has been identified by the requirement $A = B = 0$

762: within the corresponding statistical error. It turns out, that Eq.

763: (\ref{eq:Pofm}) indeed captures the shape of $P(m)$ rather accurately over

764: several orders of magnitude for $P$ in the pseudo tricritical regime (see

765: below). In particular, higher powers of $m$ compatible with the symmetry such

766: as $m^8$ can be safely ignored. Possible logarithmic corrections to $P(m)$

767: \cite{LawSar} could not be identified from the numerical data unambiguously.

768: We will comment on other logarithmic corrections later.

769: 

770: \subsection{The tricritical point}

771: From the procedure outlined above we obtain a sequence of pseudo tricritical

772: points $(T_t(L), \Delta_t(L))$ which can be extrapolated to the bulk limit

773: $L \to \infty$. In order to do this one has to identify the functional form

774: of the $L$ dependence of the pseudo tricritical point. Within our mean-field

775: picture of the tricritical behavior of our model the coefficients $A$ and $B$

776: in Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) are given by the linear combination

777: \begin{equation} \label{eq:BAlin}

778: \left(\begin{array}{c} B \\ A \end{array}\right) = {\cal M}

779: \left(\begin{array}{c} T - T_t \\ \Delta - \Delta_t \end{array}\right)

780: \end{equation}

781: in the vicinity of the tricritical point, where $\cal M$ is the coefficient

782: matrix. From Eq. (\ref{eq:BAlin}) and finite-size scaling arguments

783: one concludes that for sufficiently large $L$, $T_t(L) - T_t$ and

784: $\Delta_t(L) - \Delta_t$ are governed by a linear combination of $L^{-d_A}$

785: and $L^{-d_B}$, where $d_A$ and $d_B$ are the scaling dimensions of the

786: parameters $A$ and $B$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) given by $d_A = 2$ and $d_B = 1$

787: apart from logarithmic corrections \cite{LawSar}. We therefore arrive at

788: the following functional form of $T_t(L)$ and $\Delta_t(L)$:

789: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:triL}

790: T_t(L) &=& T_t + \frac{t_1}{L} + \frac{t_2}{L^2} \nonumber \\

791: \Delta_t(L) &=& \Delta_t + \frac{\delta_1}{L} + \frac{\delta_2}{L^2},

792: \end{eqnarray}

793: where the coefficients $t_1$, $t_2$, $\delta_1$, and $\delta_2$ can be

794: obtained from the inverse matrix ${\cal M}^{-1}$ and the finite-size

795: relations

796: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ABL}

797: A = a L^{-2} \ \mbox{and} \ B = b L^{-1}

798: \end{equation}

799: for $A$ and $B$ evaluated at $(T, \Delta) = (T_t(L), \Delta_t(L))$ for any

800: system size $L$. The coefficients $a$ and $b$ are nonuniversal metric factors.

801: Eq.(\ref{eq:triL}) is used to fit the numerical data for $T_t(L)$ and

802: $\Delta_t(L)$ in order to obtain an estimate for the location of the

803: tricritical point. Logarithmic corrections as given in Ref. \cite{LawSar}

804: can be included in Eq. (\ref{eq:triL}), but they are omitted here because the

805: quality of fit does not change substantially when they are included. The

806: results are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:TtL} and \ref{fig:DtL}. The finite-size

807: behavior of $T_t(L)$ and $\Delta_t(L)$ is accurately captured by Eq.

808: (\ref{eq:triL}). Both the coefficients $t_1$, $t_2$ and $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$

809: have the same sign and the second coefficient is substantially larger

810: that the first one in both cases. Therefore both coefficients must be kept

811: in order to obtain an acceptable fit. The quality of fit can be measured

812: in terms of the reduced $\chi^2$ which is 0.15 in Fig. \ref{fig:TtL} and

813: 0.42 in Fig. \ref{fig:DtL}. We thus obtain the extrapolated values

814: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tripoint}

815: T_t / T_s(0) = 0.7438(4), \quad \Delta_t / J = 3.436(2)

816: \end{equation}

817: as our estimate for the location of the tricritical point, where the

818: statistical uncertainty affects the last digit by the amount given in

819: parenthesis. In these units the coefficients in Eq. (\ref{eq:triL}) are

820: given by

821: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:TDcoeff}

822: t_1 / T_s(0) = 0.23 \pm 0.02 &\ ,\ & t_2 / T_s(0) = 1.34 \pm 0.24\ , \\

823: \delta_1 /J = -1.05 \pm 0.11 &\ ,\ & \delta_2 / J = -8.5 \pm 1.4\ . \nonumber 

824: \end{eqnarray}

825: Another aspect of Eq. (\ref{eq:triL}) is field mixing \cite{Nigel}, because

826: the finite-size corrections $L^{-1}$ and $L^{-2}$ are uniquely related to

827: the coefficients (scaling fields) $B$ and $A$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}),

828: respectively. In the vicinity of the tricritical point one therefore obtains

829: from Eqs. (\ref{eq:BAlin}), (\ref{eq:triL}), and (\ref{eq:ABL}) by a matrix

830: inversion

831: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fieldmix}

832: \left(\begin{array}{c} B/b \\ A/a \end{array}\right)

833: = \frac{1}{t_1 \delta_2 - t_2 \delta_1}

834: \left(\begin{array}{rr} \delta_2 & -t_2 \\ -\delta_1 & t_1 \end{array} \right)

835: \left(\begin{array}{c} T - T_t \\ \Delta - \Delta_t \end{array}\right).

836: \end{equation}

837: According to our mean field picture of tricriticality in $d=3$ the

838: coexistence line $\Delta = \overline{\Delta}(T)$ in the vicinity of $T=T_t$

839: should be associated with the line $B = \mbox{const.} = 0$ in the vicinity

840: of $A = 0$. If we linearize the coexistence line near the tricritical point

841: according to

842: \begin{equation} \label{eq:coex}

843: \overline{\Delta}(T) = \Delta_t + \Delta'_t \left(T - T_t\right)

844: \end{equation}

845: we obtain from Eqs. (\ref{eq:TDcoeff}) and (\ref{eq:fieldmix}) for the slope

846: $\Delta'_t$ at the tricritical point

847: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Dprime}

848: \Delta'_t = \delta_2 / t_2 = (6.4 \pm 2.2) J / T_s(0) .

849: \end{equation}

850: Despite its large statistical error this result serves as a valuable guideline

851: for the further exploration of the phase diagram.

852: 

853: The foundation of the above estimates is the quality of the fits of Eq.

854: (\ref{eq:Pofm})

855: to the measured order parameter distribution functions. We illustrate the

856: quality of these fits in Fig. \ref{fig:Pm36} for

857: $L = 36$ at the corresponding pseudo tricritical point $T = T_t(36)$ and

858: $\Delta = \Delta_t(36)$. The shape of the distribution function $P$ is

859: essentially captured by Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) over more than three orders of

860: magnitude. The parameters $A$ and $B$ vanish within their statistical

861: errors. The reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit is 0.71. If $A = B = 0$ is enforced,

862: i.e, the fit is performed only with the parameters $P_0$ and $C$, the reduced

863: $\chi^2$ increases to 0.92. For all other system sizes investigated the

864: situation is similar. We will return to the finite size behavior of $P(m)$

865: after the discussion of finite-size scaling.

866: 

867: \subsection{Finite-size scaling}

868: A naive finite-size scaling ansatz for a thermodynamic quantity $X(A,B,L)$

869: near a tricritical point in $d = 3$ is given by (compare Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}))

870: \begin{equation} \label{eq:XABL}

871: X(A,B,L) = L^{-d_X} f_X(A L^2, B L) ,

872: \end{equation}

873: where $f_X(x,y)$ is the finite-size scaling function associated with the

874: quantity $X$ and $d_X$ is its scaling dimension. Logarithmic corrections

875: have been

876: disregarded for simplicity. For the sequence of the pseudo tricritical points

877: $(T,\Delta) = (T_t(L), \Delta_t(L))$ one has $A = a L^{-2}$ and

878: $B = b L^{-1}$ (see Eq. (\ref{eq:ABL})). In this case

879: one therefore expects $X$ to display the scaling behavior

880: \begin{equation} \label{eq:XtL}

881: X(a L^{-2},b L^{-1}, L) = L^{-d_X} f_X(a,b) \equiv X_0 L^{-d_X},

882: \end{equation}

883: which can be conveniently checked numerically. However, near tricritical

884: points in $d = 3$ one has to consider logarithmic corrections to the naive

885: scaling and these have been examined in Ref. \cite{LawSar}. We therefore only

886: quote the results corresponding to Eq. (\ref{eq:XtL}) for the average

887: magnetization $\langle m \rangle$, the specific heat $\cal C$ and the magnetic

888: susceptibility $\cal X$. One obtains

889: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:mCXL}

890: \langle m \rangle &=& m_0 \left(\frac{L}{l_0}\right)^{-1/2}

891: \left(\ln \frac{L}{l_0} \right)^{1/4} , \nonumber \\

892: {\cal C} &=& {\cal C}_0 \frac{L}{l_0}

893: \left(\ln \frac{L}{l_0} \right)^{1/2} , \\

894: {\cal X} &=& {\cal X}_0 \left(\frac{L}{l_0}\right)^2

895: \left(\ln \frac{L}{l_0} \right)^{1/4} , \nonumber

896: \end{eqnarray}

897: where the nonuniversal amplitudes $m_0$, ${\cal C}_0$, ${\cal X}_0$ and the

898: length scale $l_0$ are used as fit parameters. The corresponding results

899: are summarized

900: in Figs. \ref{fig:mL} - \ref{fig:XL}. The data are compatible with the

901: finite-size scaling behavior given by Eq. (\ref{eq:mCXL}) (solid lines).

902: The logarithmic corrections turn out to be essential. Disregarding

903: these leads to pure mean field behavior which is not compatible with the

904: data (dashed lines). For the specific heat displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:CL}

905: deviations from the expected behavior occur for larger system sizes $L = 48$

906: and $L = 60$. These may be due to the proximity to the first-order demixing

907: transition, which is characterized by a finite latent heat. Including a

908: finite background contribution to the specific heat as an additional fit

909: parameter does not improve the fit. In particular, the attempt to fit pure

910: mean field behavior to the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CL} leads to a negative

911: value for the background specific heat which is inconsistent with

912: thermodynamics. The susceptibility shown in Fig. \ref{fig:XL} appears to agree

913: with the expectation for all system sizes whereas the average magnetization

914: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mL} displays a deviation for $L = 60$. The

915: values of $l_0$ obtained from the fits shown in Figs. \ref{fig:CL}

916: and \ref{fig:XL} are consistent ($l_0 = 6.3 \pm 0.5$ and $l_0 = 6.2 \pm 0.4$,

917: respectively) whereas $l_0 = 1.3 \pm 0.3$ obtained from $\langle m \rangle$

918: according to Fig. \ref{fig:mL} deviates strongly from the aforementioned

919: estimates for $l_0$. One of the reasons may be that $\langle m \rangle$

920: depends rather weakly on $L$ and $l_0$ as compared to $\cal C$ and

921: $\cal X$. Therefore the estimation of $l_0$ from $\langle m \rangle$ is more

922: susceptible to statistical or systematic errors in the magnetization data.

923: The large relative error of the actual estimate $l_0 = 1.3 \pm 0.3$ seems to

924: indicate this. Corrections to the leading asymptotic behavior given by Eq.

925: (\ref{eq:mCXL}), which cannot be taken into account on our current data basis,

926: may therefore also play a role.

927: 

928: The scaling behavior of the order parameter distribution function $P(m)$

929: within the scope of Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) is determined by the finite-size

930: behavior of the parameter $C$. In order to compensate the finite-size

931: effects induced by $\langle m \rangle$ we define the effective coupling

932: parameter

933: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Ceff}

934: C_{eff} \equiv C \langle m \rangle^6,

935: \end{equation}

936: where $C$ is taken from the fit of Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) to the distribution

937: function data along the sequence of the pseudo tricritical points

938: ($A = B = 0$) and $\langle m \rangle$ is taken from the fit of Eq.

939: (\ref{eq:mCXL}) to the magnetization data. The numerical result for $C_{eff}$

940: according to Eq. (\ref{eq:Ceff}) is displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:CeffL} which

941: shows a slow but systematic decrease of $C_{eff}$ with the system size.

942: According to the renormalization group theory of tricritical behavior

943: $C_{eff}$ should play the role of the coupling constant at tricriticality,

944: which is a dangerous irrelevant variable in $d = 3$ \cite{LawSar}. We

945: therefore expect the finite-size behavior \cite{LawSar}

946: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Cflow}

947: C_{eff}(L) = \left(c_0 + c_1 \ln \frac{L}{l_0} \right)^{-1}

948: \end{equation}

949: for the effective coupling parameter, where $l_0 = 6.2$ is taken from Fig.

950: \ref{fig:XL} and $c_0$ and $c_1$ serve as fit parameters to the data. The

951: solid line in Fig. \ref{fig:CeffL} displays this fit with $c_0 = 9.9 \pm 0.2$

952: and $c_1 = 1.6 \pm 0.1$ and demonstrates, that

953: the expected behavior according to Eq. (\ref{eq:Cflow}) is consistent with

954: the data.

955: 

956: The degree of agreement between the finite-size scaling behavior observed

957: and expected may also be considered as an a posteriori confirmation that the

958: sequence of the pseudo tricritical points gives a reasonable estimate for the

959: location of the tricritical point. However, some confirmation from a

960: different source would still be desirable.

961: 

962: \subsection{Other distribution functions and the cumulant method}

963: In order to locate the first-order coexistence line one may inspect the

964: distribution function $P(n)$ of the particle density

965: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dens}

966: n \equiv L^{-3} \sum_i t_i .

967: \end{equation}

968: Near a first-order demixing transition $P(n)$ displays two peaks,

969: one at a higher density corresponding to the spin ($^4$He) rich liquid

970: and one at a lower density corresponding to the vacancy ($^3$He) rich

971: liquid. At the tricritical point the two peaks coalesce and they separate

972: increasingly as one follows the two-phase coexistence line towards lower

973: temperatures. As a criterion to locate the coexistence line one may

974: demand that the ratio of the statistical weights of the two liquids, i.e.,

975: the ratio of the areas under the respective peaks of $P(n)$, should not

976: depend on temperature. However, this criterion is only approximate, because

977: a priori it is not clear what the value of the weight ratio should be.

978: An accurate criterion can be obtained from the evaluation of the field mixing

979: \cite{Nigel} (see Eq. (\ref{eq:fieldmix})). From thermodynamic considerations

980: one may determine a linear combination of particle and energy density

981: such that the corresponding distribution function is symmetric on

982: the coexistence line \cite{Nigel}. The generally unknown value of the

983: weight ratio then has to be unity at coexistence. In principle, one may

984: determine the correct mixing ratio of the densities from Eqs.

985: (\ref{eq:TDcoeff}) and (\ref{eq:fieldmix}). However, the statistical

986: uncertainties of the coefficients given by Eq. (\ref{eq:TDcoeff}) are too

987: large for this purpose and their accurate evaluation is beyond the scope

988: of this work.

989: 

990: For the vector BEG model the task of locating the first-order

991: coexistence line is aided by the observation that the spin rich fluid

992: displays long-ranged XY type (superfluid) order when the demixing

993: transition occurs. Apart from the particle density distribution (see

994: Eq. (\ref{eq:dens})) we therefore also observe the distribution function

995: of the magnetic energy density $\varepsilon_m$ defined by

996: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Emagn}

997: \varepsilon_m \equiv -J L^{-3}\sum _{<ij>}t_i t_j\cos (\theta _i-\theta _j).

998: \end{equation}

999: For our choice $J = K$ the demixing transition will also be indicated by

1000: a double peak structure of the distribution function $P(\varepsilon_m)$.

1001: Note that this will no longer be the case for sufficiently large $K > J$,

1002: for which the demixing transition precedes the onset of long-ranged magnetic

1003: order. By monitoring both distribution functions along

1004: various paths in the $(T,\Delta)$ plane of the phase diagram and by applying

1005: the constant weight ratio criterion to both we have redetermined the

1006: slope of the coexistence line in the vicinity of $(T_t,\Delta_t)$ (see

1007: Eq. (\ref{eq:tripoint})) and found

1008: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Dprime1}

1009: \Delta'_t = (5.0 \pm 0.1) J / T_s(0) .

1010: \end{equation}

1011: Note that the new estimate given by Eq. (\ref{eq:Dprime1}) is consistent

1012: with the previous one given by Eq. (\ref{eq:Dprime}). We furthermore observe,

1013: that the two peaks indeed merge into a single but broader one very close to

1014: the estimate of $(T_t,\Delta_t)$ given by Eq. (\ref{eq:tripoint}). We

1015: illustrate this

1016: for $P(n)$ in Fig. \ref{fig:PofnT} for $L = 36$ along a straight path in

1017: the phase diagram according to Eq. (\ref{eq:coex}) for the choice $T_t/Ts(0)

1018: = 0.7439$, $\Delta_t/J = 3.438$ and $\Delta'_t = 5.0 J /T_s(0)$ (see Eq.

1019: (\ref{eq:Dprime1})) for three temperatures. In order to obtain a clear

1020: double peak structure in $P(n)$ including the transition from and to a

1021: single peak along the chosen path a substantial amount of fine tuning for

1022: both $T_t$ and $\Delta_t$ is required even for moderate system sizes. It is

1023: therefore very comforting that the values for $T_t$ and $\Delta_t$ required

1024: to obtain Fig. \ref{fig:PofnT} are already within the error bars of the

1025: extrapolation estimate of the tricritical point given by Eq.

1026: (\ref{eq:tripoint}). The structure of $P(\varepsilon_m)$ essentially looks

1027: the same so we do not reproduce it here.

1028: 

1029: The location of the tricritical point along the coexistence line can be

1030: identified by a cumulant crossing of a suitably chosen density \cite{Nigel}.

1031: As we have not evaluated the field mixing here we use the cumulants of the

1032: magnetic energy density defined by Eq. (\ref{eq:Emagn}) in order to

1033: investigate the cumulant crossing along the straight path used in Fig.

1034: \ref{fig:PofnT}. We define the Binder cumulant ratio for $\varepsilon_m$ by

1035: \begin{equation} \label{eq:cumEmagn}

1036: U_{\varepsilon_m} \equiv 1 -

1037: \frac{\langle (\varepsilon_m - \langle\varepsilon_m \rangle)^4\rangle}

1038: {3\langle (\varepsilon_m - \langle\varepsilon_m \rangle)^2\rangle^2} .

1039: \end{equation}

1040: The cumulant $U_{\varepsilon_m}$ as function of temperature for different

1041: system sizes is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:cumuE}. A unique crossing cannot be

1042: identified. However, the various crossings occur roughly where they are

1043: expected according to Eq. (\ref{eq:tripoint}). If the smallest system

1044: $L = 12$ is excluded the crossings are located in the temperature interval

1045: $0.743 < T/T_s(0) < 0.747$ which includes the estimate given by Eq.

1046: (\ref{eq:tripoint}) near the lower bound. The crossings for larger

1047: systems tend to occur at lower temperatures. One of the reasons that a

1048: unique crossing does not occur is that both $\varepsilon_m$ and $n$

1049: contain corrections to the order parameter of the demixing transition which

1050: can only be eliminated by a properly chosen linear combination of these

1051: quantities \cite{Nigel}. A second reason is insufficient fine tuning for

1052: larger systems, which becomes visible in the nonmonotonic behavior of

1053: $U_{\varepsilon_m}$ for $L = 36$ at lower temperatures which leads to

1054: a second intersection with $U_{\varepsilon_m}$ for $L = 24$. Despite

1055: the quantitative shortcomings of Fig. \ref{fig:cumuE} the investigation of

1056: the cumulant crossing in combination with the other evidence presented above

1057: provides some independent confirmation that our initial assertion about the

1058: shape of the tricritical order parameter distribution function according

1059: to Eq. (\ref{eq:Pofm}) is correct within the accuracy needed for the purpose

1060: of this work.

1061: 

1062: Considerations in the spirit of Landau mean-field theory have played a major

1063: role for the analysis of our numerical data in the tricritical region. We

1064: therefore now turn to a detailed derivation of the Ginzburg - Landau

1065: model in the tricritical region of the vector BEG model.

1066: 

1067: \section{Landau-Ginzburg model for $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures.}

1068: \label{sec:LG}

1069: 

1070: In this section  we derive a two-parameter  Landau-Ginzburg (LG) model 

1071: describing  bulk  $^3$He-$^4$He  mixtures near tricriticality.

1072: This derivation follows  the construction of the $\phi ^4$ model

1073: for the standard  critical phenomena  from the Ising model.

1074: 

1075: \subsection{Derivation of the model}

1076: \label{subsec:der}

1077: Our starting point is the modified VBEG  model for which instead of continuum

1078: orientations of the  spin  vector ${\bf S}_i=(\cos\theta_i,\sin\theta_i)$  we consider  $L$ discrete orientations $\theta_i^{(l)}=2\pi l/L,~~ l=1,\cdots,L$,

1079: uniformly distributed over the unit circle with $L\to \infty$.

1080: With each orientation

1081:  ${\bf S}^{(l)}_i=(\cos\theta_i ^{(l)},\sin\theta_i^{(l)})$   at

1082: the site $i$ we associate the  density

1083: $ t_{i,l}$

1084: with  discrete values 0 or 1.

1085: The total density of  $^4$He  at

1086: the site $i$ is 

1087: \begin{equation}

1088: \label{eq:totden}

1089: t_i=\sum _{l=1}^L t_{i,l}.

1090: \end{equation}

1091: As in the  VBEG model we consider the close-packing case 

1092: in which a  $^3$He atom at site $i$ corresponds  to $t_i=0$ and a

1093:  $^4$He  atom to $t_i=1$. Thus a lattice site $i$  is either occupied

1094: by a $^3$He atom ($t_i=0$) or a $^4$He atom associated with one of the $L$ orientatons ($t_{i,l}=1$ for $l=l_0, t_{i,l}=0$ otherwise, so that $t_i=\sum _{l=1}^Lt_{i,l}=1$).

1095: The Hamiltonian of this effectively  $(L+1)$- component mixture has the form

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: \label{eq:modham}

1098: {\cal H}=-\sum _{<ij>}\{ J\sum _{l=1}^L\sum_{l'=1}^Lt_{i,l}t_{j,l'}{\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf S}_j^{(l')} +Kt_it_j\}+\Delta\sum _it_i,

1099: \end{equation}

1100: where ${\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf S}_j^{(l')}=\cos(\theta_i ^{(l)}-\theta_j^{(l')})$.

1101: 

1102: In the Landau-Ginzburg model the effective Hamiltonian, depending on the local

1103: order-parameter fields, is obtained as a result of  coarse-graining

1104: procedures. The  procedure which gives an

1105: exact functional representation for the partition function 

1106: for  the corresponding microscopic Hamiltonian  is the Hubbard-Stratonovitch

1107:  transformation. The application of this method, however, is limited to

1108: microscopic Hamiltonians that can be expressed as a quadratic form. 

1109: Here we use another approach~\cite{ciach:96:0}.

1110: 

1111: Within the standard mean-field treatment of the lattice gas mixture defined by

1112: the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\ref{eq:modham}) the ensemble-avaraged occupancy

1113:  $\rho _{i,l}= <t_{i,l}>$

1114: of the site $i$ is obtained by minimizing the grand canonical function 

1115: \begin{equation}

1116: \label{eq:omegaMF}

1117: \Omega ^{MF}(\rho_{i,l})={\cal H}(\rho_{i,l})+\sum _i f_{id}(\rho_{i,l})

1118: \end{equation}

1119: at fixed $T$ and $\Delta$. The resulting minimum of $\Omega^{MF}$ equals the equilibrium grand potential $\Omega _0$.

1120: The ideal or noninteracting free-energy density for 

1121: a $(L+1)$ component mixture on the close-packed lattice is~\cite{bell:89:0}

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: \label{eq:fideal}

1124: f_{id}(\rho_{i,l})= k_BT\{(1-\rho_i)\ln (1-\rho_i)+\sum_{l=1}^L\rho_{i,l}\ln \rho_{i,l}\}, 

1125: \end{equation}

1126: with

1127:  $\rho _i=\sum _{l=1}^L\rho_{i,l}$.

1128: 

1129: In the following we shall treat $\rho _i$ and $\rho_{i,l}$  as coarse-grained 

1130: order parameter fields and adopt the mean field grand canonical function

1131: $\Omega^{MF}$ form for the free energy of a particular local configuration of

1132: the order parameter.

1133: In the spatially uniform and  orientationally disordered phase the 

1134: equilibrium values  of $\rho_{i,l}$ are constant and

1135:  denoted by $<\rho_{i,l}>=Q/L$ so that  $<\rho_i>=Q$.

1136: The actual values fluctuate around these mean values:

1137: \begin{equation}

1138: \label{eq:ordpar1}

1139: \rho_i=Q+\phi _i 

1140: \end{equation}

1141: \begin{equation}

1142: \label{eq:ordpar2}

1143: \rho_{i,l}=\frac{Q}{L}+\frac{\phi_i }{L}+\Delta \rho_{i,l}=\frac{\rho_i}{L}+\Delta \rho_{i,l},

1144: \end{equation}

1145: which implies  $<\phi_i>=0 $ and  $\sum _l \Delta \rho_{i,l}=0$

1146: even without taking  the thermal average. 

1147: The fluctuation of the density $\rho_{i,l}$ at the  site $i$  consists  of an

1148: orientationally  uniform part  $\phi_i /L$ related to the fluctuation $\phi _i$

1149:  of the total  $^4$He density, which is

1150: the same for  all orientations, and a contribution  $\Delta \rho_{i,l}$

1151: as  an excess density

1152: of $^4$He in the  orientation  ${\bf S}_i^{(l)}$.

1153:  

1154: 

1155: Assuming   $\Delta \rho_{i,l}$ and $\phi _i$ to be small

1156:  we expand $\Omega ^{MF}(\rho_i,\rho_{i,l})$ in power series 

1157:  of the fluctuation fields  $\Delta\rho_{i,l}$  and   $\phi _i$

1158:  about the equilibrium value

1159:  $\Omega _0^{MF}(\rho_i=Q,\rho_{i,l}=Q/L)$.

1160: Since we aim for deriving an effective Hamiltonian 

1161: describing  bulk  $^3$He-$^4$He  mixtures near tricriticality,

1162: in the expansion  we keep

1163: terms to  the sixth order in $\Delta \rho _{i,l}$ and to

1164: quadratic order in $\phi_i$.

1165: A standard Taylor expansion  gives

1166: \begin{equation}

1167: \label{eq:omega2}

1168: \Omega^{MF}(\rho _i,\rho _{i,l})-\Omega_0^{MF}(Q,Q/L)=\sum _{j=2}^6\Omega_j^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta\rho_{i,l}).

1169: \end{equation}

1170: The contribution linear  in the fluctuation fields $\Omega _1^{MF}$  vanishes

1171:  since we expand $\Omega^{MF}$ around its minimum.

1172: The other terms are:

1173: \begin{eqnarray}

1174: \label{eq:omega3}

1175: \Omega_2^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta \rho_{i,l})&=&-\sum _{<i,j>}\{K\phi_i\phi_j+J\sum _{l=1}^L\sum _{l'=1}^L\Delta \rho_{i,l}\Delta \rho_{j,l'}{\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf S}_j^{(l')}\} \nonumber \\

1176: &+&\frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i\{\frac{1}{Q(1-Q)}\phi _i^2+\sum _{l=1}^L\frac{L}{Q}(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^2\},

1177: \end{eqnarray}  

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: \label{eq:omega4}

1180: \Omega _3^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta \rho_{i,l})= -\frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i\sum _{l=1}^L\{ \frac{L}{Q^2}\phi _i(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^2+\frac{1}{3}\frac{L^2}{Q^2}(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^3\}, 

1181: \end{equation}  

1182: \begin{equation}

1183: \label{eq:omega5}

1184: \Omega _4^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta \rho_{i,l})= \frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i \sum _{l=1}^L\{\frac{2}{3}\frac{L^2}{Q^3}\phi_i(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^3+\frac{L}{Q^3}\phi_i^2(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^2+\frac{1}{6}\frac{L^3}{Q^3}(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^4\}, 

1185: \end{equation}  

1186: \begin{equation}

1187: \label{eq:omega6}

1188: \Omega _5^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta \rho_{i,l})= -\frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i \sum _{l=1}^L\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{L^3}{Q^4}\phi_i(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^4+\frac{L^2}{Q^4}\phi_i^2(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^3+\frac{1}{10}\frac{L^4}{Q^4}(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^5\}, 

1189: \end{equation}  

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: \label{eq:omega7}

1192: \Omega _6^{MF}(\phi _i,\Delta \rho_{i,l})= \frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i \sum _{l=1}^L\{\frac{2}{5}\frac{L^4}{Q^5}\phi_i(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^5+\frac{L^3}{Q^5}\phi_i^2(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^4+\frac{1}{15}\frac{L^5}{Q^5}(\Delta\rho_{i,l})^6\}. 

1193: \end{equation}  

1194: 

1195: 

1196: The excess density in  the orientation  ${\bf S}_i^{(l)}$

1197: is a periodic function of $l$ with period $L$. Therefore, it

1198: can be expanded into a discrete  Fourier series

1199: \begin{equation}

1200: \label{eq:four}

1201: \Delta\rho_{i,l}=\frac{Q}{2L}\sum_{k=1}^{L-1}u_{i,k}e^{i(2\pi/L)kl},

1202: \end{equation}

1203: where we have chosen $(Q/2L)$ as a normalization constant.

1204: The term corresponding to $k=0$ is excluded from the expansion

1205: due to the constrain $\sum _{l=1}^L\Delta\rho_{i,l}=0$.

1206: Since $\Delta\rho_{i,l}$ is a real function, the Fourier components

1207: $u_{i,k}$ and $u_{i,L-k}$  are related by  $ u^*_{i,k}=  u_{i,L-k}$. 

1208: Now, we neglect higher modes in the Fourier expansion (\ref{eq:four})

1209: and  approximate the excess density in  the orientation  ${\bf S}_i^{(l)}$

1210: by

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: \label{eq:four1}

1213: \Delta\rho_{i,l}\approx \frac{Q}{2L}\left( u_{i,1}e^{i(2\pi/L)l}+ u_{i,L-1}e^{-i(2\pi/L)l}\right).

1214: \end{equation}

1215: Using  $ u^*_{i,k}=  u_{i,L-k}$ and expressing

1216:  $ u_{i,1}$ in terms of its amplitude $|u_i|$ and a phase $\zeta_i$ we write

1217: Eq.~(\ref{eq:four1}) as

1218: \begin{equation}

1219: \label{eq:fou2}

1220: \Delta\rho_{i,l}\approx \frac{Q}{2L}|u_i|\left( e^{i(2\pi/L)l+\xi_i}+

1221:  e^{-i((2\pi/L)l+\xi_i)}\right)=\frac{Q}{L}|u_i|\cos((2\pi/L)l+\xi_i)=\frac{Q}{L}{\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i,

1222: \end{equation}

1223: where  ${\bf u}_i\equiv |u_i|\exp(i\zeta_i)$.

1224: 

1225: The approximation  (\ref{eq:fou2})

1226: is a 'coarse-graining' procedure  which reduces degrees of freedom.

1227: The $L-1$ independent quantities describing the orientational degrees of freedom  are replaced by a   2-component  vector field ${\bf u}_i$.

1228: 

1229: We define the 

1230:  effective Hamiltonian for the order parameter fields $\phi $

1231: and  ${\bf u}$  as:

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: \label{eq:omega2p}

1234: \Omega^{eff}(\phi_i,{\bf u}_i)\equiv \Omega^{MF}(\rho _i,\rho _{i,l})-\Omega_0^{MF}(Q,Q/L).

1235: \end{equation}

1236: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:fou2}) in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:omega3}-\ref{eq:omega7})

1237: we obtain

1238: \begin{equation}

1239: \label{eq:omaga0p}

1240: \Omega^{eff} =\Omega_2^{eff}+\Omega_{int}^{eff}

1241: \end{equation}

1242: with

1243: \begin{eqnarray}

1244: \label{eq:omega3p}

1245: \Omega_2^{eff}(\phi _i,{\bf u}_i)&=&-\sum _{<i,j>}\{K\phi_i\phi_j+\frac{Q^2}{L^2}J\sum _{l=1}^L\sum _{l'=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)({\bf S}_j^{(l')}\cdot {\bf u}_j){\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf S}_j^{(l')}\} \nonumber \\

1246: &+&\frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i\{\frac{1}{Q(1-Q)}\phi _i^2+\frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^2\},

1247: \end{eqnarray}  

1248: \begin{eqnarray}

1249: \label{eq:omega4p}

1250: \Omega _{int}^{eff}&=& \frac{k_BT}{2}\sum _i\{-\phi _i \frac{1}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^2+\phi_i^2\frac{1}{QL}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^2+\frac{1}{6}\frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^4 \nonumber \\

1251: &-&\frac{1}{2}\phi_i\frac{1}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^4+\phi_i^2\frac{1}{QL}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^4+\frac{1}{15}\frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^6\}. 

1252: \end{eqnarray}  

1253: We note that in the above expression terms containing sums over all

1254: orientations of odd powers of $({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)$ vanish.

1255: 

1256:   

1257: As the next step we  take the limit $L\to \infty$. This ammounts to replacing

1258: $\frac{1}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L$ by $ \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{(2\pi)} d\theta$

1259: and leads to the following   relations $({\bf S}_i^{(l)}=(\cos\theta_i ^{(l)},\sin\theta_i^{(l)}))$:

1260: \begin{equation}

1261: \label{eq:re1}

1262: \frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^2\to \frac{Q}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} d\theta_i ^{(l)}({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^2=\frac{Q}{2}| {\bf u}_i|^2,

1263: \end{equation}

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \label{eq:re2}

1266: \frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^4\to \frac{Q}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta_i^{(l)}({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^4=\frac{3Q}{8}| {\bf u}_i|^4, 

1267: \end{equation}

1268: \begin{equation}

1269: \label{eq:re3}

1270: \frac{Q}{L}\sum _{l=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^6\to \frac{Q}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} d\theta_i^{(l)}({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)^6=\frac{5Q}{16}| {\bf u}_i|^6, 

1271: \end{equation}

1272: and 

1273: \begin{eqnarray}

1274: \label{eq:re4}

1275: \frac{Q^2}{L^2}\sum _{l=1}^L\sum _{l'=1}^L({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf u}_i)({\bf S}_j^{(l')}\cdot {\bf u}_j){\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf S}_j^{(l')}\nonumber \\

1276:  & \to& \frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2}\int _0^{2\pi} d\theta_i^{(l)}\int _0^{2\pi} d\theta_j^{(l')}({\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot{\bf u}_i)({\bf S}_j^{(l')}\cdot{\bf u}_j){\bf S}_i^{(l)}\cdot {\bf S}_j^{(l')}\nonumber \\

1277: &=&\frac{Q^2}{4}{\bf u}_i\cdot {\bf u}_j.

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: Finally, we asume that the fluctuating  fields $\phi_i$ and ${\bf u}_i$ vary 

1280: slowly on the length scale of the lattice constant $a$.

1281: The continuum limit is obtained by considering  $a\to 0$, considering $i$ as

1282:  a continuous variable ${\bf r}$,  and $\phi _i$ and ${\bf u}_i$

1283: turning into  $\phi ({\bf r})$ and ${\bf u}({\bf r})$, respectively, while

1284: keeping the total volume $V=a^3N$ fixed.

1285:  In this limit, one has

1286: \begin{equation}

1287: \label{eq:l1}

1288:  \sum _i\to a^{-3}\int d{\bf r}.

1289: \end{equation}

1290: For $f$ being the  smooth continuation to continuous  arguments of a function

1291: defined on a  lattice we use the following  approximations ($a \to 0$):

1292: \begin{equation}

1293: \label{eq:l2}

1294: \sum _{k=1}^df({\bf r}+a{\bf e}_k)\to df({\bf r})+a\sum_{k=1}^d\frac{\partial f}{{\partial r}_k}+\frac{a^2}{2}\sum_{k=1}^d\frac{\partial^2 f}{{\partial r}^2_k}+\cdots

1295: \end{equation}

1296: and

1297: \begin{equation}

1298: \label{eq:l3}

1299: \sum _{k=1}^d\{f({\bf r}+a{\bf e}_k)+f({\bf r}-a{\bf e}_k)\} \to

1300: 2df({\bf r})+a^2\sum_{k=1}^d\frac{\partial^2 f}{{\partial r}^2_k}+\cdots,

1301: \end{equation}

1302: where ${\bf e}_k, k=1,\ldots, d$ are the unit lattice vectors.

1303: Thus 

1304: \begin{eqnarray}

1305: \label{eq:l4}

1306: \sum_{<i,j>}f_if_j&\to&\frac{1}{2}a^{-3}\int d^3{\bf r}\sum_{k=1}^df({\bf r})\{f({\bf r}+a{\bf e}_k)+f({\bf r}-a{\bf e}_k)\}\nonumber \\ 

1307: &\to& \frac{1}{2}a^{-3}\int d^3r\{2df^2({\bf r})-a^2(\nabla f)^2\}.

1308: \end{eqnarray}

1309: As a result Eq. (\ref{eq:omega2p}) is replaced by

1310: \begin{equation}

1311: \label{eq:omegaeff}

1312: \Omega ^{eff}=K[\Omega _G+\Omega _{int}]

1313: \end{equation}

1314: with the Gaussian contribution $\Omega_G$, in which the

1315:  fields $\phi$ and ${\bf u}$ are uncoupled,

1316: \begin{equation}

1317: \label{eq:omegaeff2}

1318: \Omega_G=\int d{\bf r}\{ \frac{1}{2}a_1\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla \phi)^2+\frac{1}{2}a_2|{\bf u}|^2+\frac{1}{2}c(\nabla {\bf u})^2\},

1319: \end{equation}

1320: and the interaction contribution, which couples $\phi $ and  ${\bf u}$, 

1321: \begin{equation}

1322: \label{eq:omegaeffin}

1323: \Omega_{int}=\int d{\bf r}\{r_1\phi |{\bf u}|^2 +a_{12}\phi^2|{\bf u}|^2+b|{\bf u}|^4+r_2\phi|{\bf u}|^4+b_{12}\phi^2|{\bf u}|^4+e|{\bf u}|^6 \},

1324: \end{equation}

1325: where we have  chosen the length unit such that $a=1$.

1326: 

1327: 

1328: The coupling constants  in the effective functional are given explicitly by:

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: \label{eq:p1}

1331: a_1=\frac{k_BT}{K}\frac{1}{Q(1-Q)}-z,

1332: \end{equation}

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: \label{eq:p2}

1335: a_2=\frac{k_BT}{K}\frac{Q}{2}-\frac{zQ^2}{4}\frac{J}{K},

1336: \end{equation}

1337: \begin{equation}

1338: \label{eq:p2a}

1339: c=\frac{Q^2}{4}\frac{J}{K},

1340: \end{equation}

1341: \begin{equation}

1342: \label{eq:p4}

1343: r_1=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{k_BT}{K},~~~~~~~~~r_2=-\frac{3}{32}\frac{k_BT}{K},

1344: \end{equation}

1345: \begin{equation}

1346: \label{eq:p3}

1347: b=\frac{Q}{32}\frac{k_BT}{K},~~~~~~~~~~~e=\frac{Q}{96}\frac{k_BT}{K},

1348: \end{equation}

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: \label{eq:p6}

1351: a_{12}=\frac{1}{4Q}\frac{k_BT}{K},~~~~~~~~~~ b_{12}=\frac{3}{16Q}\frac{k_BT}{K}.

1352: \end{equation}

1353: Equations ~(\ref{eq:omegaeff2}), (\ref{eq:omegaeffin}) and (\ref{eq:p1}-\ref{eq:p6}) define the  Landau-Ginzburg model for $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures

1354: in terms of thermodynamical quantities

1355: and two parameters, J and K, characterizing the system.

1356: 

1357: \subsection{$\lambda$-line and tricritical point}

1358: \label{subsec:p}

1359: In this subsection we determine the  $\lambda$-line and a tricritical 

1360: point within   mean-field theory for  the LG  model

1361:  derived in the preceding subsection. To this end we consider 

1362:   spatially uniform order parameter fields. 

1363: 

1364: Mean-field theory amounts to  approximating the thermodynamic 

1365: free  energy  by  the minimum of the effective Hamiltonian

1366:  which corresponds to the saddle point path contribution to the partition function:

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: \label{eq:maGL}

1369: \beta F_{MF}=\mbox{min}_{\phi,{\bf u}}\beta\Omega ^{eff}[\phi,{\bf u}].

1370: \end{equation}

1371: The mean-field solution for $\phi({\bf r})$ is determined by

1372: \begin{equation}

1373: \label{eq:GLmin}

1374: \frac{\delta \Omega^{eff}}{\delta \phi({\bf r})}=0.

1375: \end{equation}

1376: For  spatially uniform fields the above minimum condition

1377: yields the following relation between $\phi$ and $|{\bf u}|$:

1378: \begin{equation}

1379: \label{eq:phiurel}

1380: \phi(a_1+2a_{12}|{\bf u}|^2+2b_{12}|{\bf u}|^4)+r_1|{\bf u}|^2+r_2|{\bf u}|^4=0.

1381: \end{equation}

1382: Near a tricritical point both the fields

1383: $\phi$ and $|{\bf u}|$  are small. Therefore it is 

1384: sufficient to consider only  

1385:  a linear coupling between $|{\bf u}|^2$ and $\phi $, neglecting the

1386:  higher order terms: 

1387: \begin{equation}

1388: \label{eq:lincop}

1389: \phi =-\frac{r_1}{a_1}|{\bf u}|^2+2\frac{r_1a_{12}}{a_1^2}|{\bf u}|^4+O(|{\bf u}|^6).

1390: \end{equation}

1391: Inserting   Eq.~(\ref{eq:lincop}) into  Eqs.~(\ref{eq:omegaeff2}) and (\ref{eq:omegaeffin}) we obtain

1392: \begin{equation}

1393: \label{eq:efu}

1394: \frac{\Omega^{eff}}{V}=\frac{1}{2}a_2|{\bf u}|^2+(b-\frac{1}{2}\frac{r_1^2}{a_1})|{\bf u}|^4+e'|{\bf u}|^6,

1395: \end{equation}

1396: with

1397: \begin{equation}

1398: \label{eq:d'}

1399: e'=a_{12}\frac{r_1^2}{a_1^2}-\frac{r_1r_2}{a_1}+e.

1400: \end{equation}

1401: The condition $a_2=0$ yields  the equation for the critical line

1402: which is  in agreement with Eq.~(\ref{eq:critcurve}).

1403: If  $a_1$ is negative,

1404:  $e'$ is positive  and  there is a tricritical point determined by

1405: \begin{equation}

1406: \label{eq:contri}

1407: a_2=0~~~~~~~~~b-\frac{1}{2}\frac{r_1^2}{a_1} =0.

1408: \end{equation}

1409: The solution of these two equations coincides with the expressions

1410: given  by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:tritemp}) and

1411:  (\ref{eq:tritempQ}), i.e., the  tricritical point of this LG model  is located at the same

1412: temperature and  concentration of $^3$He atoms as the tricritical point

1413: in the VBEG model

1414: studied in Sec.~\ref{sec:mf} within mean field approximation.

1415: 

1416: \section{Summary}

1417: By using molecular-field approximations and Monte Carlo simulations

1418: we have investigated a three-dimensional version of the generalized spin-1

1419: {\em B}lume-{\em E}mery-{\em G}riffith model (Eq. (\ref{eq:ham})) of

1420: $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures with a two-component vector order parameter, mimicing

1421: the phase of the wavefunction of $^4$He atoms. This  work is a first step to

1422: study the Casimir force and other surface and finite-size effects in

1423: $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures films near their tricritical point. We have obtained

1424: the following main results:

1425: \begin{enumerate}

1426: \item{} The topology of the phase diagram depends on the ratio of the

1427: interaction parameters $K/J$, where $K$ is related to the

1428: $^\alpha$He-$^\beta$He interactions (Eq. (\ref{eq:parK})) and $J$ to the

1429: superfluid  density (Eq. (\ref{eq:paJ})).

1430: There are three different types of the phase diagram, which are

1431: similar to those found in the BEG model within the molecular-field

1432: approximation. For large values of $K/J$, i.e., for  $K/J>2.01681$,

1433: there exist three different phases:

1434: a $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid, a $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid,

1435: and a $^4$He-rich superfluid (see Fig.~\ref{fig:type1}).

1436: As the temperature is lowered, the mixed normal fluid phase separates

1437: into two 'normal' fluids  differing by the concentration $x$ of $^3$He.

1438: This phase separation ends at a critical point. At lower temperature, the

1439: phase separation is into a superfluid and a 'normal' fluid. The $\lambda$-line

1440: $T_s(x)$ of second-order phase transitions between a $^4$He-rich

1441: 'normal' fluid and a $^4$He-rich superfluid terminates at the $^4$He-rich

1442: branch of the phase-separation curve at the critical end point.

1443: This 'critical end-point' type of the phase diagram was the only one found

1444: in previous studies \cite{cardy:79:0,berker:79:0} of the two-dimensional

1445: version of the model. In three dimensions we find two additional topologies

1446: of the phase diagram as the ratio $K/J$ is decreased. For $1.4298 < K/J<2.01681$ the phase diagram is the richest (see Fig.~\ref{fig:type2}).

1447: As in the previous case, there are three different phases and a critical point

1448: of the phase-separation curve between two 'normal' fluids

1449: differing by the  concentration of $^3$He. In addition, there is a tricritical

1450: point at the end of the $\lambda$-line  beyond which a first-order phase

1451: transition between a $^4$He-rich superfluid and  a $^4$He-rich 

1452: 'normal' fluid takes place. There is also a triple point at which 

1453: three different  phases coexist at different concentrations.

1454: For $K/J < 1.4298$ the phase diagram  simplifies (see Fig.~\ref{fig:type3}).

1455: There is no longer a $^4$He-rich 'normal' fluid phase and a critical point.

1456: The $\lambda$-line meets the first-order phase separation line between 

1457: $^4$He-rich superfluid and a $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid at the tricritical

1458: point. The $\lambda$-line is given by $T_s(x)=zJ(1-x)/2$, where $z$ is the

1459: coordination number of the lattice. The temperature of the tricritical point

1460: is $T_A/ T_s(0)=(1+2K/J)/(2+2K/J)$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:tritemp})) and the

1461: concentration $x_A$ of $^3$He at this point is given by $T_A/ T_s(0)=1-x_A$

1462: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:tritempQ})). This type of the phase diagram is similar to that

1463: observed experimentally, although in our model $x_A$ is  always smaller than

1464: 0.5 whereas $x_A^{exp}=0.669$.

1465: 

1466: \item{} The existence of the tricritical point is confirmed by Monte Carlo

1467: simulations and in the units $(T_t/T_s(0), \Delta_t/J)$ it coincides with the

1468: mean-field prediction remarkably well (see Fig. \ref{fig:type3}). At the

1469: tricritical point the order parameter distribution function takes its

1470: mean-field form, where the presence of logarithmic corrections could not be

1471: excluded within the accuracy of the existing data. On the other hand

1472: finite-size scaling of several thermodynamic

1473: quantities reveals the presence of logarithmic corrections in

1474: accordance with theoretical expectations. The two-phase coexistence line in

1475: the $(T,\Delta)$ plane of the phase diagram has been determined form a

1476: constant weight ratio criterion for energy and density histograms. The

1477: location of the tricritical point is also indicated by a crossing of the

1478: cumulant ratio of the magnetic portion of the energy density measured

1479: along the coexistence line (see Fig. \ref{fig:cumuE}). We conclude that

1480: mean-field theory provides a reliable approach for studying the VBEG model

1481: in $d=3$.

1482: 

1483: \item{} Starting from the VBEG model and discretizing the orientations of

1484: the spin vector we have derived the continuum Landau-Ginzburg model for

1485: $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures near the tricritical point encompassing the

1486: concentration field $\phi$ and a two-component vector field ${\bf u}$

1487: corresponding to the orientational order. In the effective Hamiltonian we

1488: consider the modulus of ${\bf u}$ up to its sixth power and the field $\phi$

1489: up to quadratic terms, which is sufficient to study a tricritical point.

1490: The coupling constants appearing in this Landau-Ginzburg theory are given

1491: explicitly in terms of thermodynamical quantities, the temperature, the

1492: mean concentration of $^4$He, and the two interaction parameters J and K

1493: characterizing the VBEG model. Mean-field theory for this LG model yields

1494: the same equation for the critical $\lambda$-line as the molecular-field

1495: approximation for the lattice VBEG model. The LG model provides a linear

1496: coupling between $|{\bf u}|^2$ and $\phi$ which yields the same coordinates

1497: of the tricritical point as the lattice VBEG model.

1498: 

1499: \end{enumerate}

1500: 

1501: \acknowledgments

1502: A.M. is grateful for the hospitality accorded by the

1503: Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Metallforschung in Stuttgart, Germany. She

1504: appreciates fruitful discussions with Alina Ciach.

1505: This work was partially funded by KBN grant No.4 T09A 066 22.

1506:  

1507: 

1508: 

1509: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{krech:99:0} M. Krech, {\it The Casimir Effect in  Critical System}   

1512: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994), and references therein; J. Phys. Condens. Matter {\bf 11}, R391 (1999).

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{garcia:99:0} R. Garcia and M. H. W. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1187 (1999).

1515: 

1516: \bibitem{krech:91:0} M. Krech and S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 345 (1991); {\bf 67}, 1055 (1991).

1517: \bibitem{krech:92:0} M. Krech and S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 1886 (1992).

1518: 

1519: \bibitem{krech:92:1}  M. Krech and S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 1922 (1992).

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{law:99:0}A. Mukhopadhyay and Bruce M. Law, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 83}, 772 (1999);

1522:  a quantitative understanding of these experimental data has not yet been reached. 

1523: 

1524: \bibitem{garcia:02:0} R. Garcia and M. H. W. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 086101 (2002).

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{balibar:02:0} T. Ueno, S. Balibar, T. Mizusaki, F. Caupin, and

1527: E. Rolley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 116102 (2003); T. Ueno, S. Balibar, T.

1528: Mizusaki, F. Caupin, M. Fechner, and E. Rolley, J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 130},

1529: 543 (2003).

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{laheurte:77:0} J.-P. Laheurte, J.-P. Romagnan, and W. F. Saam, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 15}, 4214 (1977).

1532: 

1533: \bibitem{leibler:84:0} S. Leibler and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 29}, 1253 (1984); L. Peliti and S. Leibler, J. Physique Lett. {\bf 45}, L591 (1984).

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{macqueeney:84:0} D. McQueeney, G. Agnolet, J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 1325 (1984).

1536: 

1537: \bibitem{kosterlitz:80:0}  J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C {\bf 5}, L124 (1972).

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{dietrich:91:0} S. Dietrich, in {\it Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena}, 

1540: edited by C.~Domb and J.~L.~Lebowitz (Academic, London, 1988), vol.~12, p.~1.

1541: 

1542: \bibitem{graf:67:0} G. Ahlers and D. S. Greywall, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 29}, 849 (1972); H. A. Kierstead, J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 35}, 25 (1979); E. H. Graf, D. M. Lee, and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 19}, 417 (1967).

1543: 

1544: \bibitem{cardy:79:0} J. L. Cardy and D. J. Scalpino, Phys. Rev. B {\bf  19}, 1428 (1979).

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{berker:79:0}  A. N. Berker and  D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 19},

1547: 2488 (1979). 

1548: 

1549: \bibitem{blume:71:0}M. Blume, V. J. Emery, and R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 4}, 1071 (1971).

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{bell:89:0} see for example G. M. Bell and D. A. Lavis, {\it Statistical Mechanics

1552:  of Lattice Models}, series in "Mathematics and its Applications"  (Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chichester, 1989).

1553: 

1554: 

1555: 

1556: \bibitem{bishop:78:0} D. J. Bishop and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 40}, 1727 (1978).

1557: 

1558: 

1559: \bibitem{mermin:66:0}  N. D. Mermin and  H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 17}, 1133 (1966).

1560: 

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{book} see for example P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, {\it Principles of

1563: Condensed Matter Physics} (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{comment} In the other approach to determine variational minima to Eq. (\ref{eq:varfe}) a parametrization of $\rho _i$ in terms of  order parameters

1566: $<\phi _i>$ ( for example $Q$, $M_x$, and $M_y$) can be chosen. This parametrization must satisfy the constraints

1567: $Tr \rho _i=1$ and $Tr \rho _i\phi _i = <\phi _i>$.

1568:  The variational parameters are simply order parameters  and $F_{\rho_0}$ is the Helmholtz free energy functional $F(<\phi>)$. This procedure is less general than the one used in the present paper.

1569: 

1570: \bibitem{abramowitz} {\it Handbook of Mathematical Functions}, edited by 

1571: Abramowitz M., and Stegun I. A., (Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1972).

1572: 

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{fisher:91:0} M. E. Fisher and M. C. Barbosa, Phys Rev. B {\bf 43}, 11177 (1991).

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{Metropolis}

1577: N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller,

1578: and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 21}, 1087 (1953).

1579: 

1580: \bibitem{Wolff89}

1581: U. Wolff, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 361 (1989).

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{CFL93}

1584: K. Chen, A. M. Ferrenberg, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 3249

1585: (1993).

1586: 

1587: \bibitem{Hybrid}

1588: J. A. Plascak, A. M. Ferrenberg, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65},

1589: 066702 (2002).

1590: 

1591: \bibitem{cluerr}

1592: A. M. Ferrenberg, D. P. Landau, and Y. J. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1593: 69}, 3382 (1993); L. N. Shchur and H. W. J. Bl\"ote, Phys. Rev. E {\bf

1594: 55}, R4905 (1997).

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{SimTemp}

1597: T. Nagasima, Y. Sugita, A. Mitsutake, and Y. Okamoto, Comp. Phys. Commun.

1598: {\bf 146}, 69 (2002).

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{Histogram}

1601: A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2635 (1988);

1602: {\bf 63}, 1195 (1989).

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{Nigel}

1605: N. B. Wilding and P. Nielaba, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 926 (1996).

1606: 

1607: \bibitem{TcXY}

1608: M. Krech, unpublished, see also 

1609: W. Janke and H. Kleinert, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B270}, 135 (1986)

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{LawSar}

1612: D. Lawrie and S. Sarbach, in {\em Phase Transitions and Critical

1613: Phenomena}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, London,

1614: 1984), vol. 9, p.2.

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{ciach:96:0}  A. Ciach, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 104}, 2376 (1996).

1617: 

1618: 

1619: \end{thebibliography}

1620: \hfill\eject

1621: \begin{figure}[h]

1622: \begin{center}

1623: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r3a.eps}

1624: \\[2cm]

1625: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r3.eps}

1626: \end{center}

1627: \vskip25pt

1628: \caption{ Phase diagram in the $(\Delta,T)$, (a), and  $(x,T)$, (b), plane

1629: for the model given by  Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham}) 

1630: obtained whithin mean-field theory  for $K/J=2.4$. $x$ is the $^3$He concentration.

1631:  There are three phases which

1632: can be identified as a $^3$He-rich normal fluid ($M=0, x=1-Q$ large), a  $^4$He-rich normal fluid ($M=0, x$ small), and a  $^4$He-rich superfluid  S ($M\ne 0, x$ small).

1633: In (a) the dashed line represents second-order phase transitions and corresponds to the $\lambda$-line; full lines

1634: are the loci of first-order phase transitions.

1635: For this value of $K/J$ there is no tricritical point.

1636: The  $\lambda$-line of second-order phase transitions  terminates at the phase-separation

1637: curve at the critical end point E.

1638:  The two-phase region in (b) and the line of first-order phase transitions in (a) end 

1639: at a critical point C. 

1640: The coordinates of the critical points are:

1641: $C=(\Delta/T_s(0)=2.4, T/T_s(0)=1.2)$, $E=(\Delta/T_s(0)=2.4, T/T_s(0)\approx 0.89)$

1642:  and $C=(T/T_s(0)=1.2, x=1/2)$ and

1643: $E=(T/T_s(0)\approx 0.89, x\approx 0.107)$. In (b) the $\lambda$-line is

1644: given by $T_s(x)/T_s(0)=1-x$ (see Eq.(\ref{eq:critcurve})). The two-phase region

1645: in (b)  between C and E is symmetric about $x=1/2$.

1646:  } 

1647: 

1648: \label{fig:type1} 

1649: \end{figure}

1650: 

1651: \begin{figure}[h] 

1652: \begin{center}

1653: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r2a.eps}

1654: \\[2.5cm]

1655: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r2.eps}

1656: \end{center}

1657:  \vskip35pt 

1658: \caption{Same as in Fig.1 for $K/J=1.8$. For this value of $K/J$ the

1659: $\lambda$-line ends at a tricritical point A beyond which there is

1660: a first-order phase transition between the $^4$He-rich superfluid S

1661: and the $^4$He-rich normal fluid. At even lower temperatures there is

1662: a triple point D. The coordinates of these points are:

1663: A $=(\Delta/T_s(0)\approx 1.704$, $T/T_s(0)\approx 0.821)$,

1664: C $=(\Delta/T_s(0)=1.8$, $T/T_s(0)=0.9)$, D $=(\Delta/T_s(0)=1.8$,

1665: $T/T_s(0)\approx 0.793)$ and A $=(T/T_s(0)\approx 0.821$, $x\approx 0.179)$,

1666: C $=(T/T_s(0)=0.9, x=1/2)$ and

1667: D $=(T/T_s(0)=0.793, x_1\approx 0.154$, $x_2\approx 0.216, x_3\approx 0.784)$.

1668: In (b) there are two-phase coexistence regions below A and below C which

1669: join for three-phase coexistence at D (dotted curve).}

1670: \label{fig:type2} 

1671: \end{figure}

1672: %\hfill\eject

1673: 

1674: \begin{figure}[h]

1675: \begin{center}

1676: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r1a.eps}

1677: \\[2.5cm]

1678: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{r1.eps}

1679: \end{center}

1680: \vskip15pt

1681: \caption{ 

1682: Same as in Figs. 1 and 2 for $K/J=1$. 

1683: The $\lambda$-line $T_s(x)$ and the

1684: first-order phase separation line meet at the  tricritical point A.

1685: The $^3$He-rich 'normal' fluid phase is denoted by N.

1686: In (b)  Monte-Carlo data for the phase boundaries are indicated by pluses

1687: which are connected by thin lines representing the Monte Carlo phase

1688: boundaries. The inset shows  the results on an expanded scale near

1689: the tricritical point A. The coordinates of the tricritical point

1690: within mean-field theory are: $A=(\Delta/T_s(0)\approx 0.776,

1691: T/T_s(0)= 0.75)$ and $A=( T/T_s(0)= 0.75, x=0.25)$. In (b) the tricritical

1692: point A as obtained from Monte Carlo data is also denoted by a dot and

1693: has the coordinates $(T/T_s(0) = 0.744, x = 0.26)$.

1694: } 

1695: \label{fig:type3} 

1696: \end{figure}

1697: \hfill\eject

1698: 

1699: \begin{figure}[h] 

1700: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{Tt1L.eps}}} 

1701: \vskip15pt 

1702: \caption{

1703: Pseudo tricritical temperature $T_t(L)$ $(\times)$ vs. $1/L$ measured in units

1704: of the critical temperature $T_s(0)$ of the XY model on a s.c. lattice in

1705: $d = 3$ for $J = K$ (see Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:ham})). Error bars correspond

1706: to one standard deviation. The solid line shows the fit of Eq.

1707: (\protect\ref{eq:triL}) to the numerical data. The arrow indicates the

1708: extrapolated value $T_t$ (see main text). The reduced $\chi^2$ of the

1709: fit is 0.15.}

1710: \label{fig:TtL}

1711: \end{figure}

1712: 

1713: \begin{figure}[h] 

1714: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{mut1L.eps}}} 

1715: \vskip15pt 

1716: \caption{

1717: Pseudo tricritical chemical potential $\Delta_t(L)$ $(\times)$ vs. $1/L$

1718: measured in units of the coupling constant $J$ (see Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:ham}))

1719: for $J = K$. Error bars correspond to one standard deviation.

1720: The solid line shows the fit of Eq. (\ref{eq:triL}) to the numerical

1721: data. The arrow indicates the extrapolated value $\Delta_t$ (see main text).

1722: The reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit is 0.42.}

1723: \label{fig:DtL} 

1724: \end{figure}

1725: 

1726: \begin{figure}[h] 

1727: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{Pm36.eps}}} 

1728: \vskip15pt

1729: \caption{Least square fit of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:Pofm}) (solid line) to

1730: the simulation data for $P(m)$ for $L = 36$ at $T = T_t(36)$ and $\Delta =

1731: \Delta_t(36)$ ($\times$) corresponding to $A = B = 0$. All data points

1732: except very few are connected by the fit function within their error bars.

1733: The reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit is 0.71.}

1734: \label{fig:Pm36}

1735: \end{figure}

1736: 

1737: \begin{figure}[h] 

1738: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{mL.eps}}} 

1739: \vskip15pt

1740: \caption{Least square fit of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:mCXL}) (solid line) to

1741: the simulation data for $\langle m \rangle$ ($\times$). A fit to pure

1742: mean field behavior is shown for comparison (dashed line). Data and fit

1743: are normalized to the amplitude $m_0$ and $l_0 = 1.3 \pm 0.3$. For $L=18$

1744: and $L=60$ the data points deviate from the fit curve (solid line) by an

1745: amount larger than the statistical error.}

1746: \label{fig:mL}

1747: \end{figure}

1748: 

1749: \begin{figure}[h] 

1750: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{CL.eps}}} 

1751: \vskip15pt

1752: \caption{Least square fit of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:mCXL}) (solid line) to

1753: the simulation data for the specific heat $\cal C$ ($\times$). A fit to pure

1754: mean field behavior is shown for comparison (dashed line). Inclusion of a

1755: background contribution to $\cal C$ as an additional fit parameter does not

1756: improve the fit. Data and fit are normalized to the amplitude ${\cal C}_0$

1757: and $l_0 = 6.3 \pm 0.5$. The deviations from the expected behavior (solid

1758: line) for larger systems may be due to the vicinity of the first-order

1759: demixing transition.}

1760: \label{fig:CL}

1761: \end{figure}

1762: 

1763: \begin{figure}[h] 

1764: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{XL.eps}}} 

1765: \vskip15pt

1766: \caption{Least square fit of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:mCXL}) (solid line) to

1767: the simulation data for magnetic susceptibility $\cal X$ ($\times$). A fit

1768: to pure mean field behavior is shown for comparison (dashed line). Data and

1769: fit are normalized to the amplitude ${\cal X}_0$ and $l_0 = 6.2 \pm 0.4$.}

1770: \label{fig:XL}

1771: \end{figure}

1772: 

1773: \begin{figure}[h] 

1774: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{CeffL.eps}}} 

1775: \vskip15pt

1776: \caption{Effective coupling parameter $C_{eff}$ according to Eq.

1777: (\protect\ref{eq:Ceff}) ($\times$) and a least square fit of Eq.

1778: (\protect\ref{eq:Cflow}) to the data (solid line). The observed decrease

1779: of $C_{eff}$ is compatible with the logarithmic behavior of a dangerous

1780: irrelevant variable at the upper critical dimension. The reduced $\chi^2$

1781: of the fit is 0.16.

1782: }

1783: \label{fig:CeffL}

1784: \end{figure}

1785: 

1786: \begin{figure}[h] 

1787: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{PofnT.eps}}} 

1788: \vskip15pt

1789: \caption{Particle density distribution $P(n)$ for three temperatures along

1790: a straight path given by Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:coex}) in the tricritical

1791: region as proposed by Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:tripoint}). The temperatures

1792: chosen are $T/T_s(0) = 0.7479$ ($\times$), $T/T_s(0) = 0.7439$ (+), and

1793: $T/T_s(0) = 0.7399$ ($*$). The parameters of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:coex})

1794: are $T_t/T_s(0) = 0.7439$, $\Delta_t/J = 3.438$, and $\Delta'_t = 5.0

1795: J/T_s(0)$.}

1796: \label{fig:PofnT}

1797: \end{figure}

1798: 

1799: \begin{figure}[h] 

1800: \centerline{\mbox{\epsffile{cumuE.eps}}} 

1801: \vskip15pt

1802: \caption{Cumulant ratio $U_{\varepsilon_m}$ according to Eq.

1803: (\protect\ref{eq:cumEmagn}) as function of temperature along the

1804: straight path used in Fig. \protect\ref{fig:PofnT} for $L = 12$ ($\times$),

1805: $L = 18$ (+), $L = 24$ ($*$), and $L = 36$ ($\Box$). Pairs of symbols are

1806: connected linearly to guide the eye. A unique crossing cannot be identified

1807: (see main text).}

1808: \label{fig:cumuE}

1809: \end{figure}

1810: 

1811: 

1812: \end{document}

1813: