1
$\begingroup$

I'm new to Hubbard model and I have a few questions about it. From the sources I can find on the internet, Fermionic-Hubbard model is often written as (please correct me if I'm wrong!) \begin{align} H &= H_{hop} + H_{int}+ H_{chem} \\ &=\sum_{i.j\sigma} t_{ij}\, (c_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j,\sigma}+H.c.) \,+\, \sum_i U_i \,n_{i,\uparrow}n_{i,\downarrow} \,-\, \sum_i\mu\,(n_{i,\uparrow}+n_{i,\downarrow}). \end{align}

My first question is , why is the hermitian conjugate term in $$H_{hop}$$ sometimes omitted?

The second question is, why do we need the chemical potential term in this model but not in others let's say Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would suppose that the H.C term is the same as the other term in the first bracket upon the exchange of i and j which is allowed since t_ij is symmetric (probability of hopping from i to j is same as hopping from j to i) and so you could omit the H.C term and add a factor of 2 which can then be absorbed into the coefficient t_ij $\endgroup$ – ravjotsk Jul 14 '18 at 13:52
1
$\begingroup$

The Hermitian conjugate term is never omitted! It might be accounted within $t_{ij}$ to avoid double counting. The chemical potential is needed to set the electron filling over the lattice. For a translation invariant system at half-filling, the chemical potential($\mu$) and the Hartree correction($\phi$) cancel out. As a result, the effective chemical potential, $\phi - \mu$ goes to zero, and you can omit that term. The simplest example of this is the mean-field treatment of the square lattice Hubbard model at half-filling.

$\endgroup$

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.