

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Holstrin-Prmakaff Boson Representation, Heisenberg Hamiltonian, Eigenstates, Kubo Formula, Kondo Resonance, Phase Transition in Correlated Electron Systems, Classical Ising Chain,
Typology: Study notes
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!


Last time we discussed a formal relationship between the long-wavelength limit of the classical Ising chain in one dimension and the quantum dynamics of a single quantum spin, with Hamiltonian
σˆx^ − h˜ˆσz^. (1)
Our goals in the first part of the lecture will be to make the nature of this “quantum-classical mapping” clearer and to understand how it can be used to understand the phase diagram of these magnetic systems.
The steps in what we did last time were to write the partition function of the classical chain in the form Z = T r(T 1 T 2 )M^ (2)
where T 1 T 2 is the transfer matrix. For large correlation length (low temperature) the transfer matrix could be rewritten as T 1 T 2 ≈ e−aHQ^ , so that the partition function is effectively that of the single quantum spin: Z = T r exp(−HQ/T ) (3)
with 1/T = Lτ = M a. Note that as M → ∞, the effective temperature in the quantum model goes to 0.
Recall that in deriving the above results we had to assume that the correlation length of the classical model was much larger than the correlation length. When this is true, the physics is largely independent of short-distance details: for instance, adding a next-nearest-neighbor interac- tion would change the problem quantitatively by changing the effective splitting ∆ in the quantum model, but not change the qualitative picture. This means that the quantum Hamiltonian HQ does not correspond to just one classical model in one higher dimension; it corresponds to the scaling limit of many different classical Hamiltonians, since HQ is only sensitive to the long-length-scale physics of the classical problem. One usually just tries to choose the simplest classical model from the set of classical models that relate to a given HQ.
An intuitive picture of the above quantum-classical (QC) mapping is that a quantum model in d dimensions at temperature T is equivalent to the scaling limit of a classical model in a strange “slab” geometry: the classical model has d infinite dimensions and a d + 1th dimension of length proportional to β = (kT )−^1. Note also that the scaling limit depended on taking certain combi- nations in the classical model to be finite and correspond to the parameters E 0 , ˜h, and ∆ of the quantum model.
We argued in class, and can see explicitly using the methods developed in 212, that it is the long- length-scale physics of the scaling limit that controls the universal properties near a continuous (a. k. a. second-order) phase transition. This means that quantum phase transitions in the quantum model can be related using the QC mapping to classical transitions in the classical analogue. The case we studied so far, the classical Ising chain in one dimension and single Ising spin, has no interesting phase transition. In one more dimension, we start to see interesting results: the quantum (transverse-field) Ising chain in one dimension at zero temperature has a transition as a function of g (the ratio of magnetic field to Ising coupling) that is equivalent to the 2D classical Ising model,
the simplest nontrivial phase transition. The QC mapping can also be used to understand how this transition develops as T → 0 in the quantum model, which corresponds to strips in the classical case of larger and larger size. Methods known as “finite-size scaling” can be used to understand the asymptotic behavior of such systems, studied numerically.
You may well wonder how, since we said earlier that quantum phase transitions exist only at zero temperature, their properties appear in real T > 0 experiments. There are two cases we need to worry about: in one, there is only a true transition at zero temperature (there is no classical phase transition in the system). This is the case for the quantum Ising chain. At T = 0 there is a transition between a quantum disordered phase and a “renormalized classical” phase, and this phase transition is in the universality class of the 2D Ising model. At nonzero temperature, there is no thermodynamic transition (no singularity in any derivative of the free energy), but there is a crossover between the two phases, and there is an additional regime above the critical point called the “quantum critical” regime: here the physics is not well described by either simple limit but by interacting dynamics of critical fluctuations.
The O(2) and O(3) rotor models are often used to model quantum phase transitions where the symmetry is different than in the quantum Ising case discussed above. The O(2) rotor model, with quantum Hamiltonian for a single rotor
∂θ
2 − ¯h cos θ, (4)
has a transition in the universality class of the classical XY in one higher dimension (cf. Sachdev). The coupling between two rotors is just proportional to cos(θi − θj ). Here the quantum model describes the physics of a particle moving freely on the circle, plus a potential tending to put the particle at one particular point. The O(3) rotor model has a transition in the universality class of the classical Heisenberg in one higher dimension. Note that, as shown before, the quantum Heisenberg model in d dimensions does not map onto the classical Heisenberg model in d + 1 dimensions: the details of the SU (2)-symmetric Heisenberg model wind up giving “Berry phases” in its classical analog.
Let me give a quick hand-waving argument that the model of coupled superconducting grains with a charging energy is essentially similar to (and in the universality class of) the O(2) quantum rotor model. We start with the charging-energy part of the model
HC = EC (ni − n 0 )^2. (5)
This is written in terms of the number density ni, which we would like to eliminate in favor of the superconducting phase θi. Recall that ni is the conjugate variable to the local phase θi (to be precise, let us define ni as a local charge density; then there is a factor 2e required to make ni dimensionless, so that ni/ 2 e is the number of Cooper pairs). In the imaginary-time partition function we should have the Lagrangian, which is obtained from the Hamiltonian in the usual fashion: Z =
∫ dθi e−^
∫ dτ i n 2 eidθdτi +EC (ni−n 0 )^2. (6)
Now this is quadratic, and integrating out the ni variable will give a term θ˙^2. This means essentially that we have found a classical version of the problem that is described by the classical XY model in one higher dimension. Since the O(2) quantum rotor also maps onto the classical XY model in one higher dimension, as shown explicitly in Sachdev’s book, the O(2) rotor and the superconducting grain model must have the same universal properties.