Superfluid Density Near the Lambda Point in Helium Under Pressure

  • Akira Ikushima
  • Giiuchi Terui


The second-sound properties and the superfluid density deduced therefrom should be most fundamental in the study of the λ transition because they are inherently related to the critical modes and the coherence of the λ transition, respectively.1 Furthermore, there seems to exist a widely held precept of critical-point theory which indicates that the character of the critical behavior is independent of the material provided the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian are the same. The precept has been supported to some extent by a number of theoretical studies,2 while Baxter3 has recently carried out a detailed calculation of the critical exponents in a rather special system, the two-dimensional Ising lattice, giving a conclusion against the above precept. No direct experimental study has been done of this problem, and, in this connection, it should be quite effective to look at critical exponents associated with the λ transition as a function of pressure because the pressure does not change the symmetry of the system as long as helium is in the liquid state. The present paper reports the change of the critical exponent of the superfluid density as a function of the pressure.


Coherent State Critical Exponent Symmetry Property Critical Behavior Helium Atom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R.A. Ferrell, N. Menyhard, H. Schmidt, F. Schwabl, and P. Szepfalusy, Ann. Phys. 47, 565 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.E. Fisher, Rep. Prog. Phys. (London) 30, 615 (1967);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 46, 1054 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    R.J. Baxter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 832 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. R.J. Baxter, Phys. Rev. Lett. Ann. Phys. 70, 193 (1972).MathSciNetADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    G. Ahlers, In Proc. 12th Intern. Conf. Low Temp. Phys.,1970.Google Scholar
  7. G. Ahlers, Academic Press of Japan, Tokyo (1971), p. 21.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    C.J.N. van den Meijdenberg, K.W. Taconis, and R. de Bruyn Ouboter, Physica 27, 197 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 6.
    L.P. Kadanoff and F.J. Wegner, Phys. Rev. B4, 3989 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 7.
    M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 507 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 8.
    D.S. Greywall and G. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1251 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 9.
    B.I. Halperin and P.C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 177, 952 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Schmidt and P. Szepfalusy, Phys. Lett. 32A, 326 (1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akira Ikushima
    • 1
  • Giiuchi Terui
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute for Solid State PhysicsThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations