1
$\begingroup$

The Hamiltonian of traditional Heisenberg model is $$\hat H = J\sum_{<i,j>}\vec{S_i}\cdot\vec{S_j}=J\sum_{<i,j>}\left(S_i^zS_j^z+\frac{1}{2}\left(S_i^+S_j^-+S_i^-S_j^+\right)\right)$$ if J is positive, we can get a anti-ferromagnetic state. But why the ground-state energy is about -4.5154(I got it by using DMRG in ALPS, assuming J=1 and N=10) but not trivially $-\frac{1}{4}\times 1\times 10=-2.5$ for the state $ |\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow> $or$|{\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow}>$.

Then what is the true ground state of it?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you compute the energy of the state you propose? What did you get? Did you try to solve the model on 2 or 3 sites, to see how the ground state looks like? And why to you claim "if J is positive, we can get a anti-ferromagnetic state"? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ BTW, the ground state energy should be negative. Did you forget a minus sign? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ @NorbertSchuch Thank you for your reply. For the state I'm pointing out, I think the energy is -NJ/4, because from the first expression of the Hamiltonian, if the neighboring lattice has opposite spins, it gives a negative maximum, and that's why I think this is the ground state. By the way, you're right, the energy should be negative, which is -4.5154 $\endgroup$
    – PhyDuck
    Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 14:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So the energy of your proposed state is higher, so it is not the ground state. -- I suggest you solve the problem for 2 sites by hand, to see what you get: You will see that you don't get the classical antiferromagnet which you propose. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, the true ground state is complicated, so I'm not sure what answer you expect to "Then what is the true ground state of it?" $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 14:08

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Your candidate for the ground state, known as the Néel state, is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. It is, however, a good starting point for finding the true (quantum mechanical) ground state. One systematic approach to this is ''linear spin-wave theory".

Here, we reformulate the Hamiltonian in terms of bosonic creation and annihilation operators ($a_n^\dagger$, $a_n$) via the Holstein–Primakoff transformation. The Néel state is then the vacuum of these operators. Linearizing the resulting Hamiltonian, so that it contains only terms proportional to $a_n^\dagger a_m$, $a_na_m$ or $a_n^\dagger a_m^\dagger$ then allows to diagonalize it using a Bogoliubov transformation ($a_n^\dagger\to b_n^\dagger$, $a_n\to b_n$). For details on the calculation see ref. [1].

The resulting Hamiltonian is then given by \begin{equation} H=-\frac12JNzS^2-\frac12JzS\sum_k\big(1-\sqrt{1-\gamma_k^2}\big)+JzS\sum_k\sqrt{1-\gamma_k^2}b_k^\dagger b_k\ , \end{equation} where $z$ is the number of nearest neighbors and $\gamma_k$ depends on the precise form of the lattice (in the case of a one dimensional chain we have $\gamma_k=\cos(k)$). The ground state is then given by the vacuum of the Bogoliubov transformed operators $b_k|0\rangle=0$.

With $J=1$, $S=1/2$, $z=2$ and $N=10$, the first part of this Hamiltonian reproduces your result. There are, however, quantum corrections in the second part, further lowering the energy.


[1] A.J. Beekman, L. Rademaker, J. van Wezel, An Introduction to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, arXiv:1909.01820 [hep-th]

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't spin wave theory more suitable for gapped Hamiltonians? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure about the implications of an energy gap here. Why do you think it affects the applicability of spin-wave theory? $\endgroup$
    – eapovo
    Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 16:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because AFAIR, spin wave theory is a basically perturbation theory on top of a mean-field state, here an AFM. But the Heisenberg chain is gapless, so I'm not sure how well a perturbative approach will work (as perturbation theory typically requires a gap). -- In fact, I would not be surprised if there is some kind of divergence here: E.g., the intuitive reasoning behind the Mermin-Wagner Theorem (absence of symmetry breaking in certain models at finite temperature) is that if there were symmetry breaking, one could do spin-wave theory, which in turn would lead to a divergent correction. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ The authors of [1] actually show that the quantum correction to the order parameter diverge so you are right about that. One can, however, calculate the energy with OP's parameters and obtain around -6.5, which seems like a reasonable approximation. $\endgroup$
    – eapovo
    Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 17:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you saying that 6.5 is a better approximation to 4.5 than 2.5 is? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 11, 2022 at 17:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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