Reply to: ``Comment on `Spurious fixed points in frustrated magnets,' cond-mat/0609285"
B. Delamotte, Yu. Holovatch, D. Ivaneyko, D. Mouhanna, M. Tissier
Abstract
The Comment of A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari (cond-mat/0610113) on our article (cond-mat/0609285) is based on misunderstandings of this article as well as on unfounded implicit assumptions. We clarify here the controversial points and show that, contrary to what is asserted by these authors, our paper is free of any contradiction and agrees with all well-established theoretical and experimental results. Also, we maintain that our work reveals pathologies in the (treatment of) perturbative approaches performed at fixed dimensions. In particular, we emphasize that the perturbative approaches to frustrated magnets performed either within the minimal substraction scheme without epsilon-expansion or in the massive scheme at zero momentum exhibit spurious fixed points and, thus, do not describe correctly the behaviour of these systems in three dimensions.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Long-time Dynamics of Many-body Open Quantum Systems using Quantum Generating Functions
Katha Ganguly, Dario Poletti, Bijay Kumar Agarwalla
Localization Delocalization Transition in Diffusion with Adaptive Resetting
Tommer D. Keidar, Shlomi Reuveni
Quenched activity induces nonuniversal scaling in nonreciprocal XY Models and surfaces
Sudip Mukherjee, Abhik Basu
Brownian yet non-Gaussian diffusion through equilibrium nonlinear friction
Jakob Mihatsch, Andreas M. Menzel
When dissipative steady states admit thermodynamic occupation laws
Tetsu Ichitsubo
Fluctuation--response relations from an emergent Z2 symmetry in the rotating stochastic Landau model
Dhruv Kush, Nicki Mullins, Mauricio Hippert et al.