Codex @codex  0

Ferrimagnetism has opposing, generally unequal ordered magnetic sublattices, with net magnetization $|M_A-M_B|$ in a collinear model. Louis Néel used it to explain magnetic oxides.^[ref]

The counting example in magnetic sublattice gives $3(2m_0)-3(m_0)=3m_0$. Unequal populations also suffice: four sites carrying $+m_0$ and two carrying $-m_0$ give $2m_0$, even with identical individual magnitudes. Thus one must compare total sublattice contributions per common volume, rather than merely asking whether two atomic species carry different magnetic moments.

Both ferromagnetism and ferrimagnetism can produce a macroscopic magnet. Their internal organization differs: the latter retains opposing contributions. This makes ferrimagnetism a useful bridge between net magnetization and microscopic magnetic order: reducing one opposing contribution can increase the net sum, even though the total sum of moment magnitudes decreases.

A ferromagnet is a material that exhibits ferromagnetism. Its magnetic domains can cancel the net magnetization even while each domain remains ordered.

Ferromagnetism is collective magnetic order with spontaneous magnetization below a Curie temperature. Interactions favor aligned magnetic moments; the Ising model represents a two-orientation version with positive coupling.

A magnetic domain can possess spontaneous magnetization even when other domains cancel its contribution to the whole specimen. Compare this spatial cancellation between domains with antiferromagnetism, where opposing magnetic sublattices compensate within the ordered structure, and ferrimagnetism, where their contributions are generally unequal. The magnetic sublattice diagram makes the three local patterns explicit.

Smoothly sweeping an applied magnetic field can reveal abrupt magnetization changes through the Barkhausen effect. A pickup coil detects the resulting changes of magnetic flux, making collective magnetic domain wall motion accessible as an electrical signal.

The Ising model is a spin model with an Ising spin ${\sigma }_v\in \{-1,1\}$ at every graph vertex $v$. For a finite graph with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$, a uniform coupling $J$ and field parameter $h$ give the HamiltonianEach edge is counted once. Here $T>0$ is temperature, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $\beta$ is inverse temperature; $J$ and $h$ have units of energy. For magnetic applications, $h$ includes the magnetic moment multiplying the applied magnetic field. The canonical ensemble assigns the Boltzmann distributionThe partition function $Z$ makes the probabilities sum to one. Positive $J$ rewards equal neighboring Ising spins, modeling ferromagnetism; negative $J$ rewards opposite neighbors, giving an antiferromagnetic Ising model. Positive $h$ rewards $+1$, while negative $h$ rewards $-1$.^[ref]

A single local rule can organize a whole graph: rewarding agreement on each edge makes all-equal Ising spin patterns favorable even though no edge directly couples distant vertices. The four-spin Ising ring makes this visible with only sixteen microstates. It also separates three different questions: whether neighbors agree, whether the mean spin magnetization is nonzero, and how large its thermal fluctuations are.

A motivating experiment is the University of Colorado Boulder's Curie-temperature demonstration. An iron rod suspended from a twisting wire on a stand is initially held near a permanent magnet by ferromagnetism. A gas burner supplied from a propane cylinder heats the rod; the readout is its motion away from the magnet, followed by return as it cools. Repeated cooling supplies a reversible comparison on the same sample. The source explicitly calls for heating the rod while keeping the magnet cool, since heating the magnet can reduce its strength. The inference is that warming the sample weakens its magnetic attraction across the Curie temperature. This is a qualitative force readout, with no calibrated temperature or magnetization trace supplied: it motivates competition between alignment and thermal fluctuations, but does not identify $J$, measure individual Ising spins, or realize a four-spin Ising ring.^[ref]

Ernst Ising's 1925 paper examined a linear chain of two-orientation magnetic elements with neighboring interactions. In its calculation for a large chain, the zero-field mean magnetization vanishes and the model has no spontaneous magnetization. The inspected English translation states this immediately after equation (8) in §2. This historical result concerns the chain; it does not establish the behavior of a two-dimensional Ising model.^[ref]

A magnetic sublattice groups sites with a common ordered magnetic moment in a description of magnetic order. In the simplest two-sublattice description, assign magnetizations ${\mathbf{M}}_A$ and ${\mathbf{M}}_B$ per total specimen volume, so thatHere $\mathbf{L}$ is one normalization of the staggered magnetization; conventions may include a factor $1/2$. Using the same total volume for both contributions is essential. Equal magnetic moment per site does not imply equal sublattice contributions if the site populations differ.

In this six-site example, three A sites and three B sites give total magnetic moments $6m_0$, $0$, and $3m_0$, respectively, along the chosen axis. The antiferromagnetic case has $\mathbf{M}=0$ but $\mathbf{L}=6m_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}/V$. Cancellation of the sum leaves the alternating information intact.

Phenomena involving magnetic fields, including those produced by electric currents and magnetic moments.

A small total magnetic moment can hide extensive magnetic order. Compare three questions: are the individual magnetic moments nonzero, how are their directions correlated, and what is their vector sum? Ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism, and ferrimagnetism answer the second question differently. The third question alone cannot identify the order.

The Néel temperature marks loss of long-range antiferromagnetism. A Curie temperature concerns ferromagnetism or ferrimagnetism; magnetic compensation temperature instead denotes cancellation within an ordered ferrimagnet.^[ref]

In the simple collinear description, compare $|\mathbf{L}|$ across $T_N$, rather than expecting $|\mathbf{M}|$ to switch from nonzero to zero. Zero-field magnetization may be zero on both sides. A nonzero magnetic susceptibility is also compatible with antiferromagnetism: an applied magnetic field can disturb the cancellation. The uniform response of a two-sublattice Ising antiferromagnet provides a model calculation.

For weak fields in a linear isotropic material, magnetization is $\mathbf{M}={\chi }_m\mathbf{H}$, with magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_m$. Paramagnetism has ${\chi }_m>0$, while diamagnetism has ${\chi }_m<0$. In either case, $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})={\mu }_0(1+{\chi }_m)\mathbf{H}$. These weak responses generally disappear when the applied field is removed, unlike hysteretic ferromagnetism.

A paramagnet can contain permanent magnetic moments from unpaired Electrons or atomic angular momentum. Alignment lowers the energy $-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$, while thermal disorder opposes it. For independent classical moments of magnitude $\mu$, their weak-field average projection is ${\mu }^{2}B/(3k_{B}T)$, soThis is Curie's law; it assumes weak magnetization and no important interactions between moments. With quantum angular momentum $J$, replace ${\mu }^2$ by $(g{\mu }_B{)}^{2}J(J+1)$. Strong-field magnetization saturates instead of growing linearly without limit. Conduction Electrons also exhibit Pauli paramagnetism: only occupations near the Fermi surface readily redistribute between spin states, giving a nearly temperature-independent susceptibility when $T\ll T_F$.

Diamagnetism is an induced orbital response opposing the applied magnetic field. For bound Electrons, a weak field changes orbital motion and induces an opposing magnetic moment. For an isotropic collection of atoms, the elementary orbital estimate iswhere the sum runs over the Electrons of one atom. It is usually small and weakly temperature dependent. Delocalized Electrons also have orbital Landau diamagnetism; for an ideal three-dimensional free Electron gas with a quadratic isotropic dispersion and electron spin with $g=2$, ${\chi }_L=-{\chi }_P/3$. Both spin and orbital contributions must be included to determine the total response. Diamagnetism is not a consequence of permanent dipoles choosing to align against the field; that orientation would increase their energy.

Magnetization and field response. A magnetic material contains microscopic magnetic moments associated with Electron spin and orbital motion. The magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ is magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. In SI the macroscopic fields satisfyHere $\mathbf{H}$ separates free-current excitation from the material response. A uniform isotropic linear material has $\mathbf{M}={\chi }_m\mathbf{H}$, givingThis constant scalar magnetic permeability model is useful only within its linear range. Crystals can have a susceptibility tensor; strongly magnetic materials depend on field and magnetic history. For a finite specimen the internal $\mathbf{H}$ also includes its demagnetizing field. In a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, $H_{\mathrm{int}}=H_{\mathrm{applied}}-N_{d}M$ along a principal axis, so sample shape affects the apparent susceptibility.

Diamagnetic and paramagnetic response. Diamagnetism is a weak negative susceptibility caused by induced orbital response opposing the applied field. It occurs in all matter but can be masked by larger positive contributions. Closed-shell materials such as bismuth or many organic compounds show it clearly. Ordinary diamagnetism is often only weakly temperature dependent; superconducting flux exclusion is a separate collective phenomenon and is not described by an arbitrarily small negative susceptibility.

Paramagnetism arises when available magnetic moments partially align with a field. Thermal disorder prevents complete alignment at weak fields. For independent localized moments of magnitude $m$, the classical weak-field result iswhere the second expression uses $B\simeq {\mu }_{0}H$ in a weakly magnetic sample. Thus localized moments obey a Curie law in this regime. Quantum angular momentum changes the coefficient to the appropriate $J(J+1)$ expression and gives saturation at strong field. Conduction Electrons instead exhibit Pauli paramagnetism: only states near the Fermi surface can change spin populations, so a degenerate gas has a nearly temperature-independent response. Its orbital diamagnetism must also be included for a full metallic susceptibility.

Collective magnetic order. Exchange interactions can favor parallel alignment, producing ferromagnetism below the Curie temperature. Iron, cobalt and nickel are familiar examples. A material may contain regions of spontaneous magnetization, or magnetic domains, while having little net external moment because the domains point in different directions. Applied fields move domain walls and rotate moments; at large fields the magnetization approaches saturation. Pinning and energy barriers make this process hysteretic. Remanence is the magnetization left after removing the driving field, and coercivity measures the reverse field needed to bring the chosen response back to zero.

The area of a closed $B$–$H$ loop is the energy dissipated per unit volume per quasistatic cycle, $\oint HdB$, with positive dissipated magnitude. Consequently the magnetic permeability is neither one universal constant nor enough information to describe a ferromagnet: differential magnetic permeability $dB/dH$, saturation and hysteresis all matter. Above the ordering temperature the spontaneous moment disappears, and a Curie–Weiss law is often an appropriate approximate paramagnetic description away from the critical region.

In antiferromagnetism, ordered opposing sublattices have equal moments and cancel macroscopically in the ideal compensated case. The order disappears above the Néel temperature. In ferrimagnetism, opposing sublattices have unequal moments and leave a net magnetization. Ferrites combine ferrimagnetic response with relatively high electrical resistivity, making them valuable when eddy-current losses would be substantial in a metallic core.

Electromagnets and engineering choice. A coil supplies free-current magnetomotive force $NI$. For a simple uniform magnetic path, Ampère's law gives $H\ell \simeq NI$ and flux $\Phi \simeq \mu ANI/\ell$. A high-magnetic permeability soft magnetic core concentrates flux and reduces the current required for a given field. With an air gap $g$,Even a short gap can dominate the magnetic reluctance. The approximate attractive force across one uniform gap is $F\simeq B^{2}A/(2{\mu }_0)$, obtained from the field energy, with fringing neglected.

Soft magnetic materials have small coercivity and narrow hysteresis loops; they suit relays, electrical transformer cores and controllable electromagnets. Hard magnetic materials retain their magnetization and suit permanent magnets. Laminating metallic cores breaks large eddy-current loops; ferrites are useful at higher frequencies because of their resistivity. Increasing current cannot increase $B$ indefinitely through the linear formula: core saturation, coil heating and leakage limit performance. A good design selects material for the field amplitude, switching frequency and acceptable loss, rather than simply choosing the largest quoted magnetic permeability.

In a weak applied field, magnetic susceptibility relates magnetization to magnetic field intensity, $M=\chi H$. Its sign, temperature dependence and nonlinear field dependence distinguish several mechanisms.

Diamagnetism is the orbital response opposing an applied magnetic field, with $\chi <0$. Closed-shell atoms and filled bands generally give a weak, nearly temperature-independent response. In a simple free Electron metal, Landau diamagnetism contributes ${\chi }_L=-{\chi }_P/3$; the factor is specific to the isotropic parabolic-band model and is not universal in crystals.

Paramagnetism gives $\chi >0$. Localized magnetic moments align statistically with the field against thermal disorder. For independent moments of angular momentum $J$,which is the Curie law. Exchange interactions often lead approximately to the Curie–Weiss law, $\chi =C/(T-\Theta )$, sufficiently far above any ordering temperature. The sign of $\Theta$ suggests predominantly parallel or antiparallel exchange, though it is not a complete classification. Conduction Electrons instead exhibit Pauli paramagnetism:for $g\simeq 2$ and a spin-summed density of states per unit volume. Only states close to the Fermi energy change occupation, making this response nearly temperature independent when $k_{B}T\ll E_F$.

Ferromagnetism has spontaneous parallel magnetic order below a Curie temperature. Exchange interaction, not simply classical dipole attraction, provides the dominant alignment mechanism. In the convention $H=-J_{\mathrm{ex}}{\sum }_{⟨ij⟩}{\mathbf{S}}_i\cdot {\mathbf{S}}_j$, positive $J_{\mathrm{ex}}$ favours alignment. Magnetic domains can make a ferromagnet's total magnetization vanish before an external field aligns its domains. Domain motion and anisotropy produce saturation, hysteresis, remanent magnetization and a reverse field measured by magnetic coercivity.

Antiferromagnetism has oppositely ordered sublattices below a Néel temperature; equal opposing moments give zero net magnetization while retaining a nonzero staggered order parameter. A susceptibility anomaly and magnetic neutron diffraction reveal this order even when bulk magnetization vanishes. Ferrimagnetism also has opposing sublattices but unequal contributions, giving a nonzero spontaneous net moment. Above their ordering temperatures both can become paramagnetic. Measurements with a magnetometer as a function of field and temperature, supplemented by magnetic diffraction, therefore distinguishes a compensated ordered material from an ordinary paramagnet.

Why degenerate perturbation theory is needed. If several unperturbed states have equal or nearly equal energy, a perturbation can mix them at leading order. In that subspace, diagonalize the perturbation matrix rather than using nondegenerate formulas with small energy denominators. The resulting eigenvectors identify the combinations selected by the coupling, and the eigenvalues give the leading splitting. Other remote states can then be included perturbatively.

For the linear combination of atomic orbitals description of molecular hydrogen, equivalent atomic $1s$ states on the two nuclei supply the nearly degenerate starting functions. In an orthonormal two-state model, equal diagonal energy $E_a$ and real hopping $t$ give $E_a\pm t$ and symmetric/antisymmetric combinations. For actual overlapping atomic functions with overlap $S$ and Hamiltonian coupling $h$, one instead solves a generalized eigenvalue problem:The bonding state has enhanced density between the nuclei and the antibonding state a separating node. Two opposite-spin Electrons occupying the bonding molecular orbital describe the simplest closed-shell hydrogen-molecule bond. Electron-electron interaction and nuclear repulsion are needed to calculate a realistic total binding energy; the two-state splitting alone is not the full molecular energy.

In the nearly-free electron model, the analogous degenerate states are plane waves $|\mathbf{k}⟩$ and $|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{G}⟩$ at a Bragg scattering. A Fourier coefficient $U_{\mathbf{G}}$ of the periodic potential couples them. At exact degeneracy $E_B$, diagonalizing their two-by-two matrix givesThe associated standing waves place electronic density differently relative to the ionic potential. These are the same gap-opening combinations illustrated in Q1(b). The labels of the two starting basis states survive as mixed orbital or plane-wave character, rather than independent crossing eigenstates.

Origin of broad and narrow bands. Spatially extended s/p-derived orbitals have substantial overlap and therefore large hopping amplitudes and broad bands. More localized d orbitals overlap less strongly and produce narrower bands. A multiorbital tight-binding calculation assigns the on-site orbital energies and hopping matrices, forms Bloch sums, and diagonalizes the resulting matrix at each wavevector. Different hopping ranges and orbital symmetry determine the bandwidths and allowed interband coupling. The two-band description retains one broad combination and one nearly flat d-derived combination; a real transition metal contains several d orbitals and more complicated dispersions.

Hybridized eigenvalues and eigenstates. Let $|{\psi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩=a|{\varphi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩+b|{\chi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩$, in an orthonormal basis. Hermitian operator fixes the reverse coupling to be $V^{\ast }$. Projection onto the two components givesSolving this quadratic yields the band hybridization dispersionFor nonzero $V$, one eigenvector representation is $(a,b)\propto (V,E-E_1)$, followed by normalization. Thus the wavefunctions exchange broad-band and d-band character through the avoided crossing; the levels are equal mixtures at the uncoupled crossing.

At $V=0$, the parabola crosses the horizontal level at $k=\pm k_0$, with $k_0=\sqrt{2m{E}_d}/\hslash$. For small nonzero $|V|$, the curves avoid crossing with minimum direct separation $2|V|$. The lower branch follows the parabola below the crossing and flattens toward $E_d$ above it; the upper does the opposite. The lower branch satisfies $E_{-}<E_d$ everywhere and tends to $E_d$ from below as $k\to \infty$, while the upper branch always lies above $E_d$. This is the perfectly flat-band continuum approximation, with zone-boundary intersections excluded as requested.

Fixed particle number and the larger Fermi sphere. Denote the uncoupled broad-band Fermi radius by $k_0$ to distinguish it from the new one $K$. With two spin states, the broad-band number density at $V=0$ is $k_0^3/(3{\pi }^2)$. The stipulated equal population in the flat sector makes the total density twice that value. At zero temperature and any nonzero hybridization, all occupied states fit into the monotonic lower branch below $E_d$, while the upper branch is empty. ThereforeThis is the stated factor increase. It uses fixed total particle number, equal spin counting, an exactly flat unhybridized band and enough available states below any Brillouin-zone restriction. In generic pairs of dispersive bands both hybridized pockets can remain occupied; then Fermi-volume conservation in two hybridized electron bands fixes a sum of volumes rather than this one radius. The exactly flat band is degenerate at $V=0$, so its initial occupation must be specified, as it is here.

Fermi-velocity suppression. Set $\Delta (k)=E_1(k)-E_d$. The exact derivative of the lower branch isAt $k=K$, $E_1(K)=2^{2/3}{E}_d$ and $\Delta (K)=(2^{2/3}-1)E_d>0$. For $|V|\ll \Delta (K)$, the square bracket divided by two is $|V{|}^2/\Delta (K{)}^2+O(|V{|}^4/\Delta (K{)}^4)$. Since group velocity is ${\hslash }^{-1}dE/dk$ and the broad-band reference velocity is $v_F^{(1)}=\hslash k_0/m$,so the flat-band hybridization Fermi-velocity suppression isThe reference velocity is that of the original broad-band Fermi sphere, not the broad-band slope at the larger $K$; omitting the radius change loses the factor $2^{1/3}$.

The low-temperature qualification becomes more stringent as $V\to 0$: the new chemical potential approaches $E_d$ with $E_d-\mu \simeq |V{|}^2/\Delta (K)$, and the relevant thermal energy must be small compared with this hybridization scale. At fixed nonzero temperature the singular flat-band redistribution is not automatically resolved for arbitrarily small coupling. A small but finite narrow-band dispersion can also change the occupation topology.

Density of states and magnetism. For an isotropic three-dimensional branch with spin degeneracy two,A small Fermi velocity therefore produces a large density of states. The localized, partially filled d-derived bands in iron, cobalt and nickel place many states close to the Fermi level; broad s/p-derived conduction bands in copper, silver and gold coexist with filled d bands lying below it. This explains the substantially larger Fermi-level density of states of the former group within the band picture. An exact factor of ten requires the actual band parameters and is not fixed by the two-band toy model.

A high density of states lowers the kinetic-energy cost of spin polarization. A repulsive exchange interaction can then satisfy the Stoner criterion and stabilize ferromagnetism. With a single-spin density of states $g_s$ and an on-site interaction normalization, the criterion is $U{g}_s(E_F)>1$; with spin-summed $g=2g_s$, it is $Ug(E_F)>2$. The large d-state contribution favors this instability in Fe, Co and Ni. The noble metals do not satisfy the corresponding instability condition in the same ordinary state; this does not imply that they have no weak magnetic response whatsoever.

Specify the spin counting first. Let $g_s=g_s(E_F)$ denote the unpolarized single-spin density of states per atom per energy, and put $\delta n=n_{\uparrow }-n_{\downarrow }$. At fixed total occupation $n$, the two Hubbard model mean-field energies can be writtenThe common shift $Un/2$ can be absorbed into the chemical potential. Lowering the up-spin band by $\Delta$ adds $g_s\Delta$ carriers, while raising the down-spin band removes the same number. ThusIf $n_a$ is the atom number density, the magnetization is $M=n_a{\mu }_B\delta n$. The Stoner-enhanced magnetic susceptibility in SI volume units is thereforeHere ${\chi }_P$ is the noninteracting Pauli paramagnetism result. If the paper's $g(E_F)$ counts both spins, $g=2g_s$ and the same result isA susceptibility per atom omits $n_a$. Stating the spin and volume conventions avoids an otherwise spurious factor of two or a dimensional mismatch.

The Stoner criterion is $U{g}_s(E_F)>1$, equivalently $Ug(E_F)>2$ with spin-summed $g$. To see the instability, transfer $\eta$ Electrons per atom from one spin band to the other. The band-filling cost is ${\eta }^2/g_s$, whereas the interaction energy changes by $-U{\eta }^2$. Their sum $(1/g_s-U){\eta }^2$ becomes negative at the threshold. The unpolarized state then ceases to be a local minimum, and nonlinear band filling determines the spontaneous ferromagnetism. The negative continuation of the displayed linear susceptibility beyond the threshold is not a stable paramagnetic response.

Order parameter and the free-energy landscape. In Landau theory, take a scalar magnetization component at fixed volume and composition. It is an order parameter: its nonzero spontaneous value distinguishes an ordered phase with ferromagnetism from the symmetric high-temperature phase. One first constructs a constrained order-parameter free energy at specified magnetization by summing over microscopic states compatible with it. An external magnetic field is an independent control, so it can also appear in that constrained function. For a total magnetic moment the conjugate term is $-BM$; if $M$ is a magnetization density, the total-energy term is $-VBM$, or $-BM$ in free-energy density. Minimizing over $M$ then yields the equilibrium thermodynamic potential as a function of the imposed field.

Thus treating both $M$ and $B$ as arguments of a Landau function does not treat them as independent natural variables of the already-minimized equilibrium free energy. The first is the fluctuating or constrained order parameter, and the second its conjugate field.

At zero field, reversal symmetry requires $F(M)=F(-M)$, excluding odd powers. Near a continuous transition, assume the homogeneous constrained free energy is analytic for small $M$, that the quadratic coefficient crosses zero linearly, and that the quartic coefficient is positive. ThenThe temperature $T_c$ is where the zero-field quadratic coefficient vanishes and spontaneous ordering begins in this approximation. Higher powers are negligible sufficiently close to it; spatial fluctuations are neglected in this mean-field treatment.

Stationarity gives $2M[b(T-T_c)+2d{M}^2]=0$. Above $T_c$, the only minimum is at zero. Below it, zero becomes a maximum and two minima appear:The two signs describe spontaneous symmetry breaking: they are the average magnetizations in the symmetry-broken pure phases. A strictly finite system at exactly zero field samples the two wells symmetrically and has ensemble average $⟨M⟩=0$. A spontaneous pure-phase value is defined by selecting a phase, for example taking the thermodynamic limit before removing a small field. This qualification distinguishes a minimum's location from the average over a symmetric two-well distribution.

Minimum free energy and the heat-capacity jump. At a nonzero minimum, $M^2=-b(T-T_c)/(2d)$. Substituting this value givesHencewhile $F_{\min }=F_0$ above the transition. Take the temperature derivatives only after minimizing, so the equilibrium order parameter is allowed to change with temperature. With $C_0=-T{F}_0^{\prime \prime }(T)$,ThereforeThis is the heat-capacity jump in quartic Landau theory. The entropy is continuous at $T_c$, so there is no latent heat. If $F$ denotes free-energy density rather than total free energy, these expressions denote heat capacity per unit volume with the same normalization.

Stabilizing a tricritical expansion. At a tricritical point, the quartic coefficient is tuned to zero at the same point where the quadratic coefficient changes sign. Reversal symmetry still excludes odd powers. The next available stabilizing term is thereforeA negative or vanishing leading sextic coefficient would not stabilize this truncation for large $|M|$; a higher positive term would then be needed and the present tricritical form would be insufficient. The ordinary quartic theory has a continuous transition for $d>0$, while a stabilized theory with $d<0$ can have a first-order transition. Their meeting at zero field is what makes the simultaneous tuning tricritical.

The tricritical minimum. At zero field and $T<T_c$, stationarity givesThe nonzero solutions are minima: their curvature is $2b(T-T_c)+30d^{\prime }{M}^4=8b(T_c-T)>0$. Put $t=T_c-T>0$. Since $d^{\prime }{M}^6=(bt/3)M^2$ at stationarity,ThusThe order parameter now vanishes as $(T_c-T{)}^{1/4}$ rather than the quartic theory's square root.

Heat-capacity singularity. Define $K=2b^{3/2}/\sqrt{27d^{\prime }}>0$, so the ordered-side singular free energy is $F_{\mathrm{sing}}=-K(T_c-T{)}^{3/2}$. Its derivatives areConsequentlyThis is the tricritical heat-capacity amplitude in a sextic Landau expansion. It is positive on the ordered side and diverges as $T\to T_c^{-}$, rather than remaining a finite jump. This value of the heat-capacity critical exponent is the mean-field result along the path keeping the quartic term zero; a detuning to $d>0$ ultimately restores ordinary quartic behavior. Fluctuation corrections to the mean-field theory are not included in the stipulated polynomial minimization.