2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to understand the paper of Schollwoeck. On page 64, equation 203 he states:

In order to solve this problem, we introduce a Lagrangian multiplier λ, and extremize $$ \langle \psi | H | \psi \rangle - \lambda \langle \psi|\psi \rangle $$

If I remember correctly this however translates into an optimization problem where one wants to min/maximize $\langle \psi | H | \psi \rangle $ subject to the constraint $\langle \psi|\psi \rangle $. See for example here.

My question is, how can I understand the constraint? If it would be something like $\lambda (\langle \psi |\psi \rangle -1 )$ then I could read it as the normalization constraint but in this form I don't know how to make sense of it. May some brighter person please enlighten me?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is a guess made without reminding myself of exactly how Lagrange multipliers work: could it be that the point is to limit the norm of $|\psi\rangle$, but that it doesn't matter what the norm actually is because you can always rescale it? $\endgroup$ – DanielSank Apr 3 '18 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank If the actual value of the norm wouldn't matter I would rewrite the constraint as $\lambda (\langle \psi | \psi \rangle - c )$ with some constant $c$. If I omit this c this means I explicitly enforce the norm to be 0 which would result in an invalid qm state. Also scaling 0 with a factor doesn't change much. The only way I could maybe understand this is from an numerical point of view where one introduces the $\lambda$ term as a penalty to achieve 'small' states in the optimization process and then later rescales them to 1, since the numerical optimization never really reaches 0 $\endgroup$ – v.tralala Apr 4 '18 at 12:08
1
$\begingroup$

You're right that the full constraint should in principle be written $\lambda \left( \langle \psi|\psi\rangle -1\right)$ to describe normalization. Schollwöck makes this clearer in this book chapter (p. 16.23). If the $-\lambda$ term is included we can take a variation/derivative with respect to $\lambda$ and recover the constraint. However, if we want to find the ground state energy, we'll want to do a variation with respect to the state. In such a case, the $-\lambda$ term does not enter into the variation. Another way of putting it is that minimizing $$E'=\langle \psi | H |\psi\rangle - \lambda \langle \psi|\psi\rangle$$ is equivalent to minimizing $E'-\lambda$.

All in all, I think Schollwöck just suppressed the $-\lambda$ term for convenience. Note that there is no left-hand side in the equation either, which could be a hint that he doesn't consider this the full energy functional. Instead it's the minimal expression to minimize to obtain the ground state energy.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.