It is commonly claimed that the universality of critical phenomena is explained through particular applications of the renormalization group. This article has three aims: to clarify the structure of the explanation of universality, to discuss the physics of such RG explanations, and to examine the extent to which universality is thus explained. The derivation of critical exponents proceeds via a real-space or a field-theoretic approach to the RG. Building on work by Mainwood, this article argues that these approaches ought to (...) be distinguished: while the field-theoretic approach explains universality, the real-space approach fails to provide an adequate explanation. (shrink)

The “universality” of critical phenomena is much discussed in philosophy of scientific explanation, idealizations and philosophy of physics. Lange and Reutlinger recently opposed Batterman concerning the role of some deliberate distortions in unifying a large class of phenomena, regardless of microscopic constitution. They argue for an essential explanatory role for “commonalities” rather than that of idealizations. Building on Batterman's insight, this article aims to show that assessing the differences between the universality of critical phenomena and two paradigmatic cases of “commonality (...) strategy”—the ideal gas model and the harmonic oscillator model—is necessary to avoid the objections raised by Lange and Reutlinger. Taking these universal explanations as benchmarks for critical phenomena reveals the importance of the different roles played by analogies underlying the use of the models. A special combination of physical and formal analogies allows one to explain the epistemic autonomy of the universality of critical phenomena through an explicative loop. (shrink)

This is the second in a series of three papers that charts the history of the Lenz–Ising model (commonly called just the Ising model in the physics literature) in considerable detail, from its invention in the early 1920s to its recognition as an important tool in the study of phase transitions by the late 1960s. By focusing on the development in physicists’ perception of the model’s ability to yield physical insight—in contrast to the more technical perspective in previous historical accounts, (...) for example, Brush (Rev Modern Phys 39: 883–893, 1967) and Hoddeson et al. (Out of the Crystal Maze. Chapters from the History of Solid-State Physics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 489–616, 1992)—the series aims to cover and explain in depth why this model went from relative obscurity to a prominent position in modern physics, and to examine the consequences of this change. In the present paper, which is self-contained, I deal with the development from the early 1950s to the 1960s and document that this period witnessed a major change in the perception of the model: In the 1950s it was not in the cards that the model was to become a pivotal tool of theoretical physics in the following decade. In fact, I show, based upon recollections and research papers, that many of the physicists in the 1950s interested in understanding phase transitions saw the model as irrelevant for this endeavor because it oversimplifies the nature of the microscopic constituents of the physical systems exhibiting phase transitions. However, one group, Cyril Domb’s in London, held a more positive view during this decade. To bring out the basis for their view, I analyze in detail their motivation and work. In the last part of the paper I document that the model was seen as much more physically relevant in the early 1960s and examine the development that led to this change in perception. I argue that the main factor behind the change was the realization of the surprising and striking agreement between aspects of the model, notably its critical behavior, and empirical features of the physical phenomena. (shrink)

This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the anatomy of both thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, together with the relationships between their constituent parts. Based on this analysis, using the renormalization group and finite-size scaling, we give a definition of a large but finite system and argue that phase transitions are represented correctly, as incipient singularities in such systems. We describe the role of the thermodynamic limit. And we explore the implications of this picture of critical phenomena for the questions of (...) reduction and emergence. (shrink)

This is the last in a series of three papers on the history of the Lenz–Ising model from 1920 to the early 1970s. In the first paper, I studied the invention of the model in the 1920s, while in the second paper, I documented a quite sudden change in the perception of the model in the early 1960s when it was realized that the Lenz–Ising model is actually relevant for the understanding of phase transitions. In this article, which is self-contained, (...) I study how this realization affected attempts to understand critical phenomena, which can be understood as limiting cases of (first-order) phase transitions, in the epoch from circa 1965 to 1970, where these phenomena were recognized as a research field in its own right. I focus on two questions: What kinds of insight into critical phenomena was the employment of the Lenz–Ising model thought to give? And how could a crude model, which the Lenz–Ising model was thought to be, provide this understanding? I document that the model played several roles: At first, it played a role analogous to experimental data: hypotheses about real systems, in particular relations between critical exponents and what is now called the hypothesis of scaling, which was advanced by Benjamin Widom and others, were confronted with numerical results for the model, in particular the model’s so-called critical exponents. A positive result of a confrontation was seen as positive evidence for this hypothesis. The model was also used to gain insight into specific aspects of critical phenomena, for example that diverse physical systems exhibit similar behavior close to a critical point. Later, a more systematic program of understanding critical phenomena emerged that involved an explicit formulation of what it means to understand critical phenomena, namely, the elucidation of what features of the Hamiltonian of models lead to what kinds of behavior close to critical points. Attempts to accomplish this program culminated with the so-called hypothesis of universality, put forward independently by Robert B. Griffiths and Leo P. Kadanoff in 1970. They divided critical phenomena into classes with similar critical behavior. I also study the crucial role of the Lenz–Ising model in the development and justification of these ideas. (shrink)

After World War II, quite a few mathematicians, including Mark Kac, John von Neumann, and Nobert Wiener, worked on the physical problem of phase transitions, i.e. changes in the state of matter caused by gradual changes of physical parameters such as the condensation of a gas to a liquid and the loss of magnetization of a ferromagnet above a certain temperature. The significance of these mathematicians was not so much that they brought mathematical rigor to the theoretical description of the (...) phenomena,1 but that they applied their mathematical skills and tools to solve concrete mathematical problems encountered in the microscopic modeling of phase transitions. The present paper deals... (shrink)