Past exam of the advanced Quantum Condensed Matter Physics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / Paper 1 / 3 / e / Solution

An overlap estimate must use nearest magnetic-ion separations. For the face-centered cubic lattice of Mn, $d_{\mathrm{Mn}}=a_{\mathrm{Mn}}/\sqrt{2}=3.147\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$; for the body-centered cubic lattice of Fe, $d_{\mathrm{Fe}}=\sqrt{3}{a}_{\mathrm{Fe}}/2=2.477\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$. The supplied radial functions have inverse decay lengths ${\kappa }_Z=Z/(3a_B)$. Their intersite overlap therefore contains approximately $e^{-{\kappa }_{Z}d}$, up to polynomial and angular factors. The decisive exponent difference isThe exponential orbital-tail estimate of exchange thus gives a hopping suppression approximately $e^{-8.99}\simeq 1.25\times 10^{-4}$ before polynomial corrections. Keeping the supplied $Z^{7/2}{r}^2$ radial prefactor in a midpoint overlap proxy givesThis proxy is not an evaluated hopping integral, but confirms that the polynomial factors do not undo the exponential loss. If comparable Coulomb denominators and nonexponential prefactors are assumed, a kinetic-exchange scale proportional to $t^2/U$ is suppressed by roughly $10^{-8}$–$10^{-7}$. Direct intersite Coulomb exchange likewise contains products of the small tails. Coordination-number differences cannot compensate for many orders of magnitude.

By contrast, the measured ordering-temperature ratio supplied in the question is $122/1043\simeq 0.117$, not an exponentially tiny number. Within this overlap model, direct Mn–Mn exchange cannot explain MnO's substantial magnetic ordering scale by extrapolating the Fe mechanism. Another exchange path is required.

This is an order-of-magnitude argument, not an exact relation between an itinerant Curie temperature and a localized-spin Néel temperature. The hydrogenic functions use the printed bare $Z$ values; actual solid-state orbitals are screened and hybridized. Their literal absolute exchange scales should not be treated as quantitative predictions for Fe or MnO.