Talk:Hubbard model

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the article may have some mistakes. Please refer to this link here: Hubbard Model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.97.157 (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This link is dead. The link should be updated or this comment should be removed. Jmkinder1 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

We don't remove comments. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reference to numerical methods by scalapino was outdated. So I've provided a new reference. Also corrected some language regarding the 'exactness' of the Lanczos procedure. The justification of this is that the following statements are all centered around the details of the Lanczos approximations. So suggesting it is exact is misleading. Jpfleblanc (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The theory section (narrow energy band theory) could use some clarification. I don't have the expertise to do it myself, but in addition to just trying to improve flow and readability, I have a couple specific recommendations: (1) There are references to "The more general band theories" and "the usual band theories." Not sure what those refer to; links to the articles describing them would be helpful. (2) The material talking about what this model explains should be separated at least into another paragraph, if not a whole different section. 165.124.145.224 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

One point that should be discussed more thoroughly is the role of dimensionality in the Hubbard model. It should be emphasized that the 2D Hubbard model is the model of particular interest for comparing with high-temperature superconductors, and we have no good theory approaches to do this. Currently there is a nice discussion of the 1D model, and the point is made that dynamical mean-field theory captures the infinite-dimensional model well, but there is no discussion of other dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptbrown1729 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ptbrown1729:. Agreed. 2D and 3D cases should be detailed. Article says "the Hubbard model has not been solved analytically in arbitrary dimensions" but that could clarify if it has been solved for even 2D and 3D (let alone 10 or 11 D). - Rod57 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hm apparently has limitations in modelling some cuprate superconductors - even in 1D case : Superconductivity Mystery: Scientists Challenge a 50-Year Theory of Electron Behavior. - Rod57 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply