arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2203.13849

The Survival of Ernst Ising and the Struggle to Solve His Model

Abstract

The life of Ernst Ising and the steps to solving the model named after him are reported in parallel. Wilhelm Lenz suggested his student Ernst Ising to explain the existence of ferromagnetism on the basis of his publication in 1920. The result, published in 1925 was disappointing, because only the one dimensional case could be solved with a negative result about the absence of ferromagnetism. Wolfgang Pauli who was an assistant of Lenz in Hamburg published in the same year his 'nonclassical ambiguity', later identified as the spin of the electron, and the exclusion principle. He was the first - at the Solvay Conference in 1930 - to present the Hamiltonian of the Ising model as we know it today. Meanwhile Ising had left university research and due to the political situation in 1938 had to leave Germany and fled to Luxemburg. This went in hand with damaging the network of researchers dealing with the problem of ferromagnetism and more generally with phase transitions and statistical physics. In 1944, the year when Luxemburg was liberated by the American troops and Ising and his family was rescued, Lars Onsager presented a solution of the two-dimensional case. In 1952 Chen-Ning Yang solved the problem of Ising's thesis in two dimensions; one year later Ising became the US citizenship. The following development showed, that the model turned out to be a highway to modern physics concepts applicable also in other fields, although the final exact solution in three dimensions has not yet been reached.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Reinhard Folk. 2022-03-25. The Survival of Ernst Ising and the Struggle to Solve His Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13849

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph