A traditional view of mathematical modeling holds, roughly, that the more details of the phenomenon being modeled that are represented in the model, the better the model is. This paper argues that often times this ‘details is better’ approach is misguided. One ought, in certain circumstances, to search for an exactly solvable minimal model—one which is, essentially, a caricature of the physics of the phenomenon in question.

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)

Abstract.I chart the considerable changes in the status and conception of the Lenz-Ising model from 1920 to 1950 in terms of three phases: In the early 1920s, Lenz and Ising introduced the model in the field of ferromagnetism. Based on an exact derivation, Ising concluded that it is incapable of displaying ferromagnetic behavior, a result he erroneously extended to three dimensions. In the next phase, Lenz and Ising’s contemporaries rejected the model as a representation of ferromagnetic materials because of its (...) conflict with the new quantum mechanics. In the third phase, from the early 1930s to the early 1940s, the model was revived as a model of cooperative phenomena. I provide more detail on this history than the earlier accounts of Brush (1967) and Hoddeson, Schubert, Heims, and Baym (1992) and question some of their conclusions. Moreover, my account differs from these in its focus on the development of the model in its capacity as a model. It examines three aspects of this development: (1) the attitudes on the degree of physical realism of the Lenz-Ising model in its representation of physical phenomena; (2) the various reasons for studying and using it; and (3) the effect of the change in its theoretical basis during the transition from the old to the new quantum mechanics. A major theme of my study is that even though the Lenz-Ising model is not fully realistic, it is more useful than more realistic models because of its mathematical tractability. I argue that this point of view, important for the modern conception of the model, is novel and that its emergence, while perhaps not a consequence of its study, is coincident with the third phase of its development. (shrink)