Codex @codex  0

The chemical potential is the change in Helmholtz free energy when particles are added at fixed temperature and volume:Equivalently, $dU=TdS-PdV+\mu dN$ identifies it as the derivative of internal energy at fixed entropy and volume. In equilibrium, systems that exchange particles have equal chemical potentials.

The Fermi energy is the zero-temperature chemical potential, or, for independent electrons, the highest occupied single-particle energy in the zero-temperature limit. Its numerical value depends on the chosen energy reference; the Fermi energy need not be measured from the bottom of a band unless that convention is specified.

In equilibrium without hysteresis, the system selects the lower free-energy minimum. At $T_2$ the order parameter jumps between $0$ and $2b/(3c)$, which identifies a first-order phase transition. Differentiating the minimized free energy does not add a $dP/dT$ contribution because $F^{\prime }=0$. Thus the polarization-dependent entropy is $S=-a{P}^2/2$, givingThe heat absorbed on heating from the ordered to the disordered phase isThe same amount is released on cooling. If $\Delta S$ is defined in the opposite direction, the signed transition heat is correspondingly negative.

A protostar forms when a self-gravitating cloud fragment can contract faster than pressure support and energy loss can arrest it. A useful local scale is the Jeans length, ${\lambda }_J\sim c_s/\sqrt{G\rho }$, with characteristic Jeans mass $M_J\sim c_s^3/(G^{3/2}{\rho }^{1/2})$ and free-fall timefor an initially uniform sphere. Geometry, turbulence and magnetic support change the detailed threshold; none of these estimates asserts that every cloud contracts as a uniform sphere.

While cooling is efficient, compression is nearly isothermal. Then $M_J$ decreases as the density rises, allowing fragmentation. Rotation becomes increasingly important during contraction because a parcel conserving specific angular momentum $j$ encounters a centrifugal scale $r_c\sim j^2/(GM)$. The resulting accretion disc must transport angular momentum before matter can reach the central object. Infall, a dense accreting interior and an outer envelope can therefore coexist; a protostar is not initially an isolated fixed-mass star.

Increasing optical depth eventually slows radiative cooling. The central gas then becomes less compressible and can form a pressure-supported first core. Molecular hydrogen dissociation absorbs compressional energy and can trigger a second collapse before a compact stellar core is established. Subsequent accretion supplies a luminosity of orderThe retained fraction depends on shock and disc radiation, so this expression is an energy scale rather than a guaranteed luminosity all emerging from the stellar surface.

A central accreting core can be nearly hydrostatic on its short sound-crossing time while its mass, entropy and radius evolve on longer times. A low-mass object is often largely convective because of its opacity and steep radiative temperature gradient; deuterium burning can temporarily contribute to support and moderate contraction. Neither convection nor the timing of deuterium ignition is universal across all masses and accretion histories.

When the main accretion phase ends, gravitational contraction remains an energy source. The virial theorem explains how contraction both heats the interior and supplies radiation: for an ideal-gas-supported object with negligible surface-pressure correction, $2U+W\simeq 0$, so only part of the released binding energy appears as increased thermal energy. The corresponding Kelvin-Helmholtz time isFully convective pre-main-sequence evolution approximately follows a Hayashi track, with decreasing radius and luminosity at comparatively weakly changing effective temperature. Objects developing radiative interiors can follow Henyey tracks. Eventually sustained core hydrogen burning balances the luminosity and the star reaches the main sequence. Massive objects can ignite hydrogen while substantial accretion continues, so “accretion ends, then hydrogen ignites” is not a universal ordering.

A useful structural distinction is therefore between an accretion-powered protostar and a largely fixed-mass pre-main-sequence contraction model. An infrared-bright envelope or disc traces obscured formation and reprocessing of radiation; a schematic evolutionary track should not replace the actual mass- and entropy-dependent stellar-structure problem.

For zero chemical potential, each species contributes $S_i=(U_i+P_{i}V)/T=4U_i/(3T)$. ThusEntropy density scales as $T^3$ at fixed relativistic particle content; total entropy also includes the changing proper volume. An isolated adiabatically expanding comoving gas has conserved total entropy and $aT$ constant, rather than its total entropy falling as $T^3$.

At equal temperature, single electrons and photons each have two spin/polarization states. In the ultrarelativistic approximation,Positrons are a separate species with the same contribution, so $(S_{e^{-}}+S_{e^{+}})/S_{\gamma }=7/4$. This distinction is needed for the heating count in part d. At the exact supplied temperature the electron rest mass gives corrections to the ideal $7/8$ ratio; it is the limiting relativistic value requested by the problem.

There is also a sign convention issue in the introductory entropy formula. With the chemical-potential convention used in the supplied distribution, the Euler relation is $U=TS-PV+{\sum }_i{\mu }_i{N}_i$, so $S=(U+PV-{\sum }_i{\mu }_i{N}_i)/T$. Its chemical-potential term has the opposite sign to the printed one. For a concrete counterexample, a dilute monatomic ideal gas with one internal state and $n{\lambda }_T^3=e^{-1}$, where ${\lambda }_T$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength, has $\mu =-k_{\mathrm{B}}T$, $U=3N{k}_{\mathrm{B}}T/2$ and $PV=N{k}_{\mathrm{B}}T$. Its entropy is $7N{k}_{\mathrm{B}}/2$; the printed plus sign would instead give $3N{k}_{\mathrm{B}}/2$. All chemical potentials have been neglected here, so this source error does not change any of the above results.

As the plasma cools through electron-positron annihilation, the pairs transfer their entropy to the coupled photons. Neutrinos have largely decoupled and do not share that heating in the instantaneous-decoupling approximation. Before annihilation the electromagnetic entropy count iswhile after it $g_{\ast s,\mathrm{after}}=2$. Conservation of electromagnetic comoving entropy, $g_{\ast s}{T}_{\gamma }^3{a}^3=\text{constant}$, gives the relative photon heating factorEquivalently $T_{\gamma }/T_{\nu }=(11/4{)}^{1/3}$ afterward. The exact $11/4$ count compares an asymptotic relativistic pair bath with the pair-free bath; at the supplied temperature some finite-electron-mass entropy loss has already begun.

The word “rises” requires care. The photons become hotter than an otherwise freely redshifting bath at the same scale factor; their absolute temperature need not rise during the expansion. In the smooth equilibrium process,since the pair contribution grows with temperature. This monotonic photon cooling during pair annihilation is slower than $a^{-1}$ while $a{T}_{\gamma }$ increases. The factor $1.401$ compares the photon temperature with the freely redshifting neutrino bath, not two consecutive absolute temperatures along the expanding history.

Use the observed present photon temperature $T_{\gamma 0}\simeq 2.725\mathrm{K}$. This is an additional observational input, consistent with ^[ref]. Standard neutrino decoupling and electron-positron entropy transfer giveFor nonrelativistic relic neutrinos this is the temperature parameter of the redshifted momentum distribution, not the temperature of a newly thermalized gas of massive particles.

The photon number density from part b isOne neutrino mass eigenstate and its antineutrino have two populated helicity states. ThusThe total over three species is about $336\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, including antineutrinos. Comoving number conservation preserves these abundances after the particles become nonrelativistic.

For the supplied $H_0=72\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}=2.33\times 10^{-18}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$,Assuming nonnegative other energy components, relic neutrino rest-mass density cannot exceed the near-critical total density. With the common per-species abundance $n_{\ast }=n_{{\nu }_i}+n_{{\bar{\nu }}_i}$,Using the total $336\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ would instead bound the mean mass, not the sum. This critical-density bound on the sum of relic neutrino masses is deliberately conservative: baryons, dark matter and dark energy leave less density available. It assumes the standard thermal abundance, negligible chemical potentials, no later dilution or extra populated states, and the idealized decoupling count. Small non-instantaneous-decoupling corrections do not matter for this estimate.

At fixed volume and temperature, equilibrium minimizes the Helmholtz free energy $F=U-TS$. Mixing increases translational entropy, whereas favourable contacts between chromatin segments can lower the interaction contribution to internal energy. At low enough temperature, favourable contacts can compensate the entropy lost on concentrating the arrays; at higher temperature, the mixing contribution can dominate. This gives the upper-critical dome assumed in (a).

A simple illustrative Flory–Huggins solution theory writes the dimensionless mixing free energy per site asHere $N$ is an effective polymer size, not automatically the number 12, and $A>0$ represents an effective energetic incompatibility of polymer and solvent. The common-tangent construction determines coexisting compositions. Solving $g^{\prime \prime }=g^{(3)}=0$ givesSince $\chi$ decreases on heating, the coexistence interval narrows and closes at $T_c=A/{\chi }_c$. For fixed pressure the corresponding potential is Gibbs free energy, with the enthalpic term in $G=H-TS$; enthalpy and internal energy should not be interchanged without stating the mechanical constraint. Hydration, ion release or temperature-dependent effective interactions can change this simple temperature trend.

Use $dz=d^{3}x{d}^{3}v$ and setFor unit particle mass, $\rho$ is both the number density and the mass density in the number convention of c. A fixed reference scale inside the logarithm changes $\mathcal{H}$ by a constant multiple of the conserved total mass, leaving its derivative unchanged.

Both prefactors in the source's part (d) need correction. Multiplication of the mean-field alignment equation by $|\mathbf{v}{|}^2/2$ and integration by parts givesExchange $z$ and $z_{\star }$, use the symmetry of $K$, and average the two expressions:The printed right-hand side omits $1/2$. This corrected velocity-alignment energy dissipation agrees with the pair-counting calculation in a.

For velocity-alignment entropy production, let $A(\mathbf{x},t)=\int K(\mathbf{x},{\mathbf{x}}_{\star })\rho ({\mathbf{x}}_{\star },t)d^3{x}_{\star }$. The velocity-space divergence is ${\nabla }_{\mathbf{v}}\cdot \mathbf{L}[f]=-3A$. Assuming $f>0$ and sufficient decay, integration by parts yieldsThe printed formula omits the factor $3$ from the three velocity components. In $d$ spatial dimensions, that factor would be $d$. Zeros of $f$ can be treated by a regularized entropy calculation when the required integrability holds.

A concrete smooth counterexample to both printed coefficients is $K\equiv 1$ and $f(z,0)=g(\mathbf{x})(2\pi {)}^{-3/2}{e}^{-|\mathbf{v}{|}^2/2}$, where $g$ is a positive normalized Gaussian distribution. The total mass is one, the total momentum is zero, and $\mathbf{L}[f]=-\mathbf{v}$ initially. The kinetic energy derivative is $-\int |\mathbf{v}{|}^{2}fdz=-3$, whereas the printed formula gives $-6$. The entropy functional derivative is $3$, whereas the printed formula gives $1$.

The signs describe cooling of relative velocities and contraction in phase space: $\mathcal{H}$ increases, so the fine-grained Gibbs entropy $-\mathcal{H}$ decreases. These dissipative particle dynamics are not an isolated Hamiltonian system; there is no contradiction with Liouville's theorem or the Boltzmann equation's usual entropy increase. The microscopic mechanism removing kinetic energy is outside this alignment model.

For $N$ distinguishable lattice sites occupied by $N_i$ mutually indistinguishable atoms of each species, the number of configurations isUsing Stirling's approximation,For one mole, $N=N_A$ and $k_B{N}_A=R$, soEquiatomic configurational entropy follows when the composition has $X_i=1/n$, givingThe reference is the unmixed configurational arrangement, and the model assumes random site occupation without short-range order. It counts configurational entropy, not all vibrational, electronic or magnetic entropy. A large number of elements does not by itself guarantee a stable single solid solution: competing thermodynamic phases and the enthalpy term also enter the Gibbs free energy.

At equilibrium between two thermodynamic phases of a pure substance, their molar Gibbs free energies are equal. Along a coexistence line,Subtracting the two differentials givesFor a nonzero volume change,The second equality uses $\Delta g=\Delta h-T\Delta s=0$ on coexistence. Total entropy and volume changes may be used instead if they refer to the same amount of material. The ratio must use one consistent transformation direction, so reversing the labels changes both signs and leaves the slope unchanged. This is the general Clapeyron equation; the ideal-vapour approximation often called Clausius-Clapeyron makes further assumptions not needed for two solids.

Use the same molar amount for both thermodynamic phases. A hexagonal cell built from two basal lattice vectors at120degrees has volume $(\sqrt{3}/2)a^{2}c$, not the volume of a three-times-larger full hexagonal prism. With four atoms per stated graphite cell,Diamond has eight atoms per conventional cubic cell, soFor graphite transforming to diamond,ThereforeThe positive slope reflects diamond's smaller entropy and volume. Higher temperature favors the higher-entropy graphite thermodynamic phase, requiring greater pressure to compensate in favor of the smaller-volume diamond thermodynamic phase.

This estimate treats the supplied ambient molar entropies and volumes as applicable near coexistence and neglects their changes through thermal expansion, compressibility and heat capacity. It gives an approximate gradient, not the transition pressure or a complete high-pressure thermodynamic phase boundary; an intercept would require an additional free-energy datum.

For two phases of the same pure substance at equilibrium, their chemical potentials are equal. Along their coexistence boundary,Differentiating the equality givesTherefore the Clapeyron equation isMolar or mass-specific quantities give the same slope if a consistent basis is used. $L=T\Delta s$ follows from equal Gibbs free energies at coexistence.

Solid phases are relatively incompressible and have modest thermal expansion over many intervals. If their entropy and volume differences vary slowly enough that $\Delta s/\Delta v$ is approximately constant, the boundary is approximately straight. Straightness is an approximation, not a thermodynamic requirement. Heat-capacity differences, pressure dependence of volume, other transitions and proximity to special points can curve the boundary. The ideal-vapor integrated Clausius-Clapeyron approximation is not appropriate for these two solid phases.

Read the coesite–stishovite boundary at approximately $(400{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C},7.2\mathrm{GPa})$ and $(2800{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C},13.5\mathrm{GPa})$. The slope is thereforeA Celsius temperature difference equals the corresponding kelvin difference. The graph does not justify treating the endpoints as exact measurements.

For stishovite, the tetragonal cell volume divided by two givesFor monoclinic coesite the cell volume is $abc\sin \beta$, soUsing $M_{\mathrm{Si}{\mathrm{O}}_2}\simeq 0.060084\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and Avogadro's constant, the mass-specific volumes areFor the direction stishovite to coesite,For the reverse, coesite to stishovite, the entropy change is about $-288\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Stishovite is the denser phase: a positive boundary slope and its smaller volume imply a lower entropy on the high-pressure side. Stating the direction prevents an otherwise avoidable sign ambiguity.

Stellar rotation is a problem of coupled force balance, heat transport and angular momentum transport. A star need not rotate as a rigid body: in the Sun, the convective envelope rotates faster near the equator than near the poles, while much of the radiative interior rotates more nearly uniformly. The tachocline is the thin transition near the base of the convection zone. Surface tracking and Doppler effect measurements constrain the exterior flow; solar rotational mode splitting in helioseismology constrains interior stellar rotation through integrals of the form $\delta {\omega }_{n\ell m}\simeq m\int K_{n\ell m}\Omega dV$. Multiple kernels are needed, so surface rotation is not a measurement of every depth.

A useful mean velocity decomposition is $\mathbf{U}=\varpi \Omega {\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi }+{\mathbf{v}}_m$, where $\varpi =r\sin \theta$ is distance from the axis and ${\mathbf{v}}_m$ is stellar meridional circulation. In a frame of constant angular velocity ${\mathbf{\Omega }}_0$, use the relative velocity $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{U}-{\mathbf{\Omega }}_0\times \mathbf{r}$. Its momentum equation includesThe Coriolis force changes the direction of a parcel's motion but does no work. Thermal driving, release of differential rotational kinetic energy, contraction, or external torques supply the energy of the flows. Solid-body stellar rotation in a suitable hydrostatic equilibrium does not by itself require a meridional flow.

For slowly circulating, approximately axisymmetric material, the leading mechanical balance in an inertial frame is $\nabla p/\rho =-\nabla \Phi +\varpi {\Omega }^2{\mathbf{e}}_{\varpi }$. Taking its curl gives the stellar thermal-wind balanceHere $z$ is the axial coordinate, $S$ is specific entropy and $c_p$ is the specific heat at fixed pressure. The last form uses approximately radial hydrostatic equilibrium and uniform composition. If the material is barotropic, the right-hand side vanishes and angular velocity is constant on cylinders. Small latitudinal entropy differences can instead support the observed noncylindrical differential rotation. Stresses and inertial terms modify this leading balance. The equation relates shear to baroclinicity; it does not give the circulation speed or explain how the shear is maintained.

That second question requires an angular-momentum budget. With $j={\varpi }^2\Omega$ and density-weighted mean quantities, conservation of angular momentum can be written schematically asThe three contributions are Reynolds stress, magnetic Maxwell stress tensor and viscosity transport. Appropriate density weighting replaces the simple correlations in a strongly compressible average. Since $\nabla \cdot (\rho {\mathbf{v}}_m)=0$ in a steady star, the stationary equation gives gyroscopic pumping in a star:A torque that maintains differential rotation therefore drives a meridional response unless another stress cancels it. Conversely the circulation transports angular momentum and feeds back on the rotation. An assumed meridional pattern without its driving torque is not a closed dynamical model.

In the convection zone, outward heat transport drives convection. Rotation deflects the rising and falling parcels and makes their correlations anisotropic. Nondiffusive convective angular momentum transport can drive shear even from an initially uniform rotation rate; treating every Reynolds stress as a positive eddy viscosity would only smooth shear and miss its source. A limiting parcel that conserves $j$ when it moves outwards slows relative to uniform rotation, whereas rapid rotational constraint and correlated horizontal motions change the sign and direction of the net transport. Thus the solar equator-fast pattern requires the actual convective correlations, not a universal parcel argument. The Rossby number $u_c/(2\Omega {\ell }_c)$ compares convective inertia with rotational deflection: deep, slower, larger-scale convection is more rotationally constrained than the fastest photospheric motions. Turnover times ${\ell }_c/u_c$ range from minutes near the visible surface to weeks or longer at greater depth. On these times the Reynolds stresses can redistribute angular momentum and drive circulation, while the star's total spin changes much more slowly.

In a radiative region, rotation distorts equipotential surfaces. Under uniform rotation and uniform composition, leading hydrostatic equilibrium makes pressure, density and temperature constant on each such surface, but effective gravity varies along it. Radiative diffusion then produces a flux $\mathbf{F}=f({\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}})\nabla {\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Its divergence contains $f^{\prime }|\nabla {\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}}{|}^2$, which varies over a surface and generally cannot match a nuclear source constant there. This is the radiative-equilibrium obstruction in a rotating barotropic star. Thermal imbalance drives Eddington-Sweet circulation, with heat advection enteringIts global thermal estimate isA rotational thermal imbalance of order ${ϵ}_{\Omega }L$ processes the thermal reservoir on this longer time. For the slowly rotating Sun, $t_{\mathrm{KH}}$ is of order $3\times 10^7$ years and ${ϵ}_{\Omega }$ of order $2\times 10^{-5}$, giving $t_{\mathrm{ES}}\sim 10^{12}$ years, much longer than the solar age. Stable composition gradients impede the flow further. Thus classical radiative Eddington-Sweet circulation cannot by itself establish the Sun's interior rotation rapidly. In a rapidly rotating star the same estimate is shorter and rotational mixing can compete with its evolutionary lifetime. Torque-driven convection-zone circulation and radiative thermal circulation have different controlling balances.

Magnetic fields introduce a further coupling. A poloidal magnetic field linking different layers is wound by differential rotation into a toroidal magnetic field, roughly ${\partial }_t{B}_{\varphi }\simeq \varpi {\mathbf{B}}_p\cdot \nabla \Omega$. The resulting Maxwell stress tensor transport angular momentum. Communication along a field occurs on an Alfvén speed crossing time $t_A\sim \ell \sqrt{{\mu }_0\rho }/B$, which can be far shorter than molecular diffusion if a coherent connecting field exists. In steady ideal axisymmetric induction, absence of continuing winding requires ${\mathbf{B}}_p\cdot \nabla \Omega =0$; this is constancy along the field, not automatically solid-body rotation throughout the star. The topology and strength of an interior field matter. Solar dynamo action, especially the interaction of shear with poloidal-field regeneration, couples stellar rotation to the magnetic cycle. Magnetic feedback can change shear and circulation on dynamical or cycle times; an approximately eleven-year activity cycle and twenty-two-year magnetic polarity cycle are distinct from secular spin-down.

A magnetized stellar wind also supplies an external torque. It enforces approximate corotation out to an effective Alfvén radius $R_A$, giving wind-driven magnetic braking of a solar-type star $\dot{J}\sim -{\dot{M}}_w\Omega R_A^2$. Its spin-down time is $t_J\sim I/({\dot{M}}_w{R}_A^2)$, much longer than a convective turnover time. For slowly changing moment of inertia and an unsaturated field scaling that gives $\dot{J}=-K{\Omega }^3$, integration gives ${\Omega }^{-2}={\Omega }_0^{-2}+2Kt/I$, the Skumanich rotation law. A growing or contracting star also changes $I$ and can spin up or down even without torque. Differential spin-down can create shear between layers unless internal transport couples them.

Finally, shear can excite Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, and convection can launch internal gravity waves into the stable radiative interior. Wave damping deposits angular momentum; the net transport depends on excitation and selective absorption and is not fixed by a wave-crossing time alone. Such stresses, magnetic coupling and circulation are candidate agents for the nearly uniform radiative rotation and the narrow tachocline. Molecular kinematic viscosity has a diffusion time ${\ell }^2/\nu$ generally too long to couple the entire solar interior over its age, whereas a turbulent effective kinematic viscosity can act much faster but is not appropriate to every stable layer. A circulation has an advection time $\ell /U_m$, thermal diffusion has time ${\ell }^2/\chi$, and magnetic diffusion has time ${\ell }^2/{\eta }_m$; these must be compared with the local stellar rotation and evolutionary times rather than conflated with them. The solar dynamical time $\sqrt{R^3/(GM)}$ is about half an hour, its rotation period is of order a month, and secular magnetic braking takes an evolutionary time. Rapid force adjustment, convective maintenance of shear, cyclic magnetic feedback and slow global spin evolution are separate processes. Their coupled conservation equations and timescale hierarchy are the basis of a consistent account of solar rotation.

Without substantial annihilation or decay, monopole number in a comoving volume is conserved. Hence $n_M\propto a^{-3}$ and, for constant nonrelativistic mass, ${\rho }_M\propto a^{-3}$. Radiation redshifts as $a^{-4}$, so the monopole-to-radiation ratio grows with $a$.

Use comoving entropy conservation rather than assuming the same relativistic content at every epoch:With $g_{\ast s,i}\simeq 100$, $g_{\ast s,0}\simeq 3.91$ and $T_0\simeq 2.35\times 10^{-13}\mathrm{GeV}$, the surviving energy density isTaking $m_{\mathrm{pl}}\simeq 1.22\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}$ and $H_0\simeq 70\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ gives ${\rho }_{\mathrm{crit},0}\simeq 4.0\times 10^{-47}{\mathrm{GeV}}^4$. Requiring ${\rho }_{M0}<0.01{\rho }_{\mathrm{crit},0}$ yieldsUnknown geometric and mass prefactors change this estimate only through a fourth root. Conventional grand-unification scales near $10^{15}$–$10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}$ are far above the bound: this is the cosmological monopole problem, not a universal prohibition on unification. Inflation after monopole formation can dilute the relics; reheating must then stay below their regeneration temperature. Later entropy production, efficient annihilation, or a symmetry-breaking history avoiding stable monopoles can also weaken the bound. These mechanisms change the assumed conserved initial relic abundance.

The physical angle takes values on a circle, so it is defined modulo $2\pi$. Around a closed curve enclosing a phase vortex,The integer winding number cannot change through a smooth single-valued deformation unless a defect crosses the curve. Thus a globally smooth Gaussian spin wave field omits whole topological sectors of the XY model.

Outside a vortex core of radius $a$, an isolated charge-$n$ phase vortex has $\theta =n\phi$ and $|\nabla \theta |=|n|/r$. Its dimensionless energy in a sample of size $L$ isThere are of order $(L/a{)}^2$ positions for its core, so the positional entropy contributes $2\log (L/a)$. The competition for unit charge is therefore $(\pi \bar{K}-2)\log (L/a)$, apart from core terms. Opposite charges have a logarithmic attraction and form a vortex Coulomb gas.

At low temperature, vortex-antivortex binding leaves no free charges on large scales. Spin waves still destroy true long-range order, but the correlation function decays algebraically with the renormalized phase stiffness. At the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition, pairs unbind; free vortices screen the interaction and produce a finite correlation length and exponential decay above the transition. The energy-entropy estimate identifies the threshold stiffness $K_R=2/\pi$, where $K_R$ is the long-distance dimensionless stiffness, not necessarily the bare $\bar{K}$. It agrees with the universal stiffness jump and the limiting algebraic exponent $1/(2\pi K_R)=1/4$. The two-dimensional transition is vortex unbinding between quasi-long-range order and disorder, rather than the onset of nonzero spontaneous magnetization.

A first-order phase transition has a discontinuity in a first derivative of the equilibrium free energy, such as entropy or the order parameter; a thermal first-order transition normally has latent heat. At a continuous phase transition the order parameter goes continuously to zero and there is no latent heat, although response functions and higher derivatives of the free energy can be singular.

For the symmetric scalar Landau free energy at zero conjugate field, minimizeIf $u>0$, the sixth-order term is unnecessary near $r=0$. For $r>0$ the minimum is $M=0$, whereas for $r<0$ there are two symmetry-related minima with $M^2=-r/u$ to leading order. The order parameter vanishes continuously as $r\uparrow 0$. The equilibrium free-energy density changes from zero to $-r^2/(4u)$, so its first temperature derivative is continuous and its second derivative has a jump. This is the ordinary mean-field continuous phase transition.

If $u<0$, keep $v>0$ for stability. A nonzero stationary order parameter, with $s=M^2$, obeys $r+us+v{s}^2=0$. For phase coexistence with $M=0$ its free energy must also vanish. Substituting $r=-us-v{s}^2$ into $V$ givesThe nonzero solution of $V=0$ is thereforeThe competing minima exchange stability at positive $r_t$, with a finite jump of the order parameter. This is a first-order phase transition. The metastability region is also visible: nonzero stationary points first appear at the spinodal $r=u^2/(4v)$, and the disordered local minimum loses stability at $r=0$.

For example, holding $u,v$ fixed and taking $r=a(T-T_0)$, the ordered phase has entropy lower than the disordered phase by $a{M}_t^2/2$ at coexistence. Heating through the transition absorbs latent heat per volume $T_{t}a{M}_t^2/2$. More generally the temperature dependence of all coefficients contributes to this entropy difference. With no inversion symmetry, a cubic term can also produce a first-order phase transition, as comparison of the competing minima of the Landau free energy shows.

Write ${\beta }_T=(k_{B}T{)}^{-1}$ for inverse temperature to distinguish it from the order-parameter critical exponent. A normalized blocking kernel $B_b({\sigma }^{\prime },\sigma )$ is a nonnegative conditional distribution of coarse spins given the fine spins, normalized byFor deterministic blocking it can impose a majority rule or block average, with a Dirac delta replacing the sum constraint for continuous coarse variables. Each block occupies $b^D$ original cells, so the new lattice spacing and number of sites areThe physical volume $N{a}^D$ is unchanged. After $p$ blockings, $a_p=b^{p}a$ and $N_p=b^{-pD}N$.

Define the coarse statistical Hamiltonian by the exact Boltzmann-weight identityThe operator family must include all generated interactions for this renormalization-group transformation to be exact; restricting it to a few couplings is an approximation. The scalar $g(u)$ has energy units and is the contribution per original site that is independent of ${\sigma }^{\prime }$. Restoring the original constant term $NC$ giveshenceThis convention measures $g$ per original site; defining a constant per new site would move a factor $b^D$ into its definition.

The identity-operator contribution to renormalization-group free energy $C_p$ records the configuration-independent normalization generated by the eliminated spins. It includes their contribution to free energy, including entropy and measure factors, and need not be independent of temperature. It has no effect on normalized probabilities of the retained spins, but is indispensable for the total partition function and its temperature derivatives. Iterating its recursion givesThus $N_p{C}_p$ is the original constant $N{C}_0$ plus the accumulated free-energy contributions of the eliminated degrees of freedom.

To obtain the additive free-energy recursion under blocking, use energy-valued free energy per current lattice site,The blocking kernel normalization impliesSubstituting the recursion for $C^{\prime }$ cancels $C$, givingA second step gives $f_0(u_0)=b^{-2D}{f}_0(u_2)+g(u_0)+b^{-D}g(u_1)$, and induction provesFor dimensionless free energy $-\log Z/N$, multiply $F,f_0,g,C$ throughout by ${\beta }_T$.

The singular free-energy density must be distinguished from the exact per-site representative $f_0$. If $a(u)$ is a regular background and $f_s=f_0-a$, thenThus the same displayed inhomogeneous recursion holds with $f_s,g_s$ after subtraction. When a suitable analytic background solves $a(u)=g(u)+b^{-D}a(Ru)$, it leaves a homogeneous singular recursion. Analytic subtraction of an inhomogeneous renormalization recursion explains this separation. A renormalization-group free-energy resonance can obstruct analytic subtraction and produce a logarithm. The original function $g$ originates in the short-distance spins that were summed out, rather than in an extra external interaction.

Near a renormalization-group fixed point $u_{\ast }$, linearize the transformation:An eigenvector of $\mathsf{A}$ with eigenvalue $b^{y_i}$ defines a scaling coordinate $t_i$ with $t_i^{\prime }=b^{y_i}{t}_i$ to leading order. A relevant operator has $y_i>0$: its coupling grows towards large distances, so it must be tuned to reach the fixed point. An irrelevant operator has $y_i<0$ and dies away; a marginal operator has $y_i=0$ and requires higher-order flow analysis. An operator of scaling dimension $x_i$ has $y_i=D-x_i$.

The coarse spins also require a multiplicative normalization. In continuum notation, writewhere ${\varphi }_{<}$ is the retained field and $\eta$ is its anomalous dimension. This restores the normalization of the critical long-distance connected correlation function. Since a uniform field conjugate to an order parameter enters through $\int d^{D}xH\varphi$, it has eigenvalue exponent $y_h=D-x_{\varphi }=(D+2-\eta )/2$.

Let $t$ be the thermal relevant coordinate with exponent $y_t>0$. After regular backgrounds have been removed, the leading singular free-energy density obeysfor a large total scale factor $B=b^p$. Choosing $B=|t{|}^{-1/y_t}$ gives the scaling hypothesis for critical phenomenaTwo temperature derivatives give the heat-capacity critical exponent; one conjugate-field derivative gives the order-parameter critical exponent; two such derivatives give the magnetic-susceptibility critical exponent. Scaling the correlation length gives $\xi (t)=B\xi (B^{y_t}t)$. Consequently,At $t=0$, instead choose $B=|H{|}^{-1/y_h}$; differentiating gives $\delta =y_h/(D-y_h)$. These scaling relations for critical exponents assume that irrelevant variables can be set to their fixed-point values without singular consequences. A dangerously irrelevant coupling or logarithmic correction requires keeping the corresponding dependence.

For the Gaussian field theory, integrate out the Fourier modes in $\Lambda /b<|q|<\Lambda$ and retain ${\varphi }_{<}$. The modes are independent at zero external field, so this Gaussian thinning transformation changes the normalization by a Gaussian determinant and leaves a quadratic statistical Hamiltonian for the retained modes. Restore the cutoff withIn the integrated statistical Hamiltonian, the volume element contributes $b^D$, each gradient contributes $b^{-1}$, and each field contributes $b^{-(D-2)/2}$. Thus the coefficient ${\kappa }^{-1}$ of the gradient energy is unchanged, whileIn particular $y_t=2$, $y_h=(D+2)/2$ and $\eta =0$. The Gaussian critical exponents and the Gaussian order-parameter scaling index therefore give the requested indicesThe sign convention $+h\varphi$ corresponds to the physical conjugate field $H=-h$ and does not affect these powers.

There are physical qualifications to these Gaussian indices. The strictly quadratic Gaussian field theory is stable for positive $m^2$ and has no stable ordered phase for negative $m^2$; its purported spontaneous $\beta$ is therefore the formal Gaussian order-parameter scaling index. A stabilizing quartic term gives an actual ordered phase. Below four dimensions that term is relevant and changes the exponents; above four dimensions it is a dangerously irrelevant coupling and gives the actual mean-field $\beta =1/2$, rather than the Gaussian hyperscaling value.

The heat capacity power can also be checked directly. Apart from constants, the zero-field Gaussian free-energy density isIf $m^2\propto t$, its singular second temperature derivative is controlled by $\int d^{D}q(q^2+\kappa m^2{)}^{-2}$. For $0<D<4$, rescaling $q=\sqrt{\kappa m^2}k$ gives a power $t^{D/2-2}$, as above. At $D=4$ there is a logarithm, and for $D>4$ an analytic background dominates the heat capacity. The negative formal Gaussian $\alpha$ then describes the subleading singular piece, with logarithmic resonances at appropriate even dimensions. This is the Gaussian specific-heat infrared threshold, and it prevents confusing singular indices with the entire observable.