Nonequilibrium relaxation analysis of Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 67, Issue 2 2, 2003, Pages 267021-267025

  Ozeki, Yukiyasu ^a   Ogawa, Keita ^a   Ito, Nobuyasu ^b  

^a TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DYNAMICS; FERROMAGNETISM; MAGNETIZATION; MATHEMATICAL TECHNIQUES; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RELAXATION PROCESSES;

NONEQUILIBRIUM RELAXATION ANALYSIS;

PHASE TRANSITIONS;

EID: 0038395938     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. J.M. Kosterlitz and D.J. Thouless, J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973).
2. J.M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C 7, 1046 (1974).
3. N.D. Mermin, J. Math. Phys. 8, 1061 (1967).
4. J. Tobochnik and G.V. Chester, Phys. Rev. B 20, 3761 (1979).
5. J.F. Fernández, M.F. Ferreira, and J. Stankiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 34, 292 (1986).
6. R. Gupta, J. DeLapp, and G. Batrouni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1996 (1988).
7. I. Dukovski, J. Machta, and L.V. Chayes, e-print cond-mat/0105143.
8. Y. Tomita and Y. Okabe, e-print cond-mat/0202161.
9. E. Müller-Hartmann and J. Zittartz, Z. Phys. B 27, 261 (1977).
10. H.H. Roomany and H.W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3341 (1980).
11. K. Binder, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 43, 119 (1981).
12. D. Stauffer, Physica A 186, 197 (1992).
13. G.A. Kohring and D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 3, 1165 (1992).
14. N. Ito, Physica A 192, 604 (1993); 196, 591 (1993).
15. N. Ito, Physica A 192, 604 (1993); 196, 591 (1993).
16. N. Ito, T. Matsuhisa, and H. Kitatani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1188 (1998).
17. Y. Ozeki and N. Ito, J. Phys. A 31, 5451 (1998).
18. N. Ito, Y. Ozeki, and H. Kitatani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 803 (1999).
19. Y. Ozeki, N. Ito, and K. Ogawa, Activity Report 1999 (Supercomputer Center, ISSP, Univ. of Tokyo, 2000), p. 37.
20. B. Zheng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 12, 1419 (1998).
21. B. Zheng, M. Schulz, and S. Trimper, Phys. Rev. E 59, R1351 (1999).
22. N. Ito, K. Hukushima, K. Ogawa, and Y. Ozeki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 1931 (2000).
23. K. Ogawa and Y. Ozeki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 2808 (2000).
24. Y. Ozeki and N. Ito, Phys. Rev. B 64, 024416 (2001).
25. Y. Ozeki, N. Ito, and K. Ogawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70, 3471 (2001).
26. J.V. José, L.P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D.R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B 16, 1217 (1977).
27. J. Tobochinik, Phys. Rev. B 26, 6201 (1982).
28. M.S.S. Challa and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B 33, 437 (1986).
29. A. Yamagata and I. Ono, J. Phys. A 24, 265 (1991).
30. K. Okamoto and K. Nomura, Phys. Lett. A 169, 433 (1992).
31. K. Nomura and K. Okamoto, J. Phys. A 27, 5773 (1994).
32. The total amount of calculation time consists of equilibration and averaging, and it is proportional to the equilibration time, since, usually, the averaging time is taken several times the equilibration one. The equilibration from a fixed nonequilibrium state is achieved when the spin correlation grows up to the scale of the equilibrium correlation length or the system size. In the critical regime, since the correlation length becomes larger than simulated sizes, the equilibration time becomes longer as the system size is larger. Therefore, available sizes of system are reduced in slowly relaxing systems.