Files
nam_paper_low_t_tau_converg…/notes.tex
2021-06-17 19:45:01 -05:00

53 lines
1.9 KiB
TeX

\documentclass{article}
%other packages
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{physics}
% \usepackage[
% style=phys, articletitle=false, biblabel=brackets, chaptertitle=false, pageranges=false, url=true
% ]{biblatex}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\title{Cliff Notes}
% \addbibresource{./bibliography.bib}
\graphicspath{{./figures/}}
\newcommand{\vf}{v_{\mathrm{F}}}
\newcommand{\qf}{q_{\mathrm{F}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
We wanted to see what happened for sufficiently low temperatures to the noise from varying mean free paths.
We should expect that the effect of impurities is to broaden the cliff, but for sufficiently cold or warm systems, the effect of impurities should be minimal.
However, in \cref{fig:nc}, we see that for low $T$, the gap between curves does not decrease.
It's unclear why that is.
The lower limit in the figure is the smallest $T$ such that the code works, so it's possible that that convergence could occur for even lower $T$.
However, the curves do not even begin to approach each other.
Also, this range of $T$ values covers a couple orders of magnitude in $\Delta$, so it seems that some effect on $\tau$ should be visible, at least in the values closest to $\tau T_c \approx 1$.
Varying aspects of the numerical calculation like the cutoff for interpolation don't change the relationship between the curves.
I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere a numerical error proportional to $\tau$ gets incorporated somewhere, which is not unreasonable given how $\tau$ gets added to the frequency (so there's likely a sum of two terms of different order of magnitude).
More investigation would likely be good.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{low_t_no_converge}
\caption{$\chi(T)$ for low temperatures, for different $\tau$.} \label{fig:nc}
\end{figure}
% \printbibliography
\end{document}