2
$\begingroup$

My understanding

Consider a quantum theory with Hilbert space and Hamiltonian $(\mathcal{H}, H)$. The dynamical symmetry group of $H$ is a $d$-dimensional Lie group $G$ and a projective unitary representation $\pi: G \to U(\mathcal{H})$ such that the induced Lie algebra representation $\pi: \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{gl}(\mathcal{H})$ outputs represented generators $\{\pi(X_i)\}$ that all commute with the Hamiltonian, i.e., $[H, \pi(X_i)] = 0$ for all $i = 1, 2, ..., d$. Hereafter, a dynamical symmetry will be referred to as a symmetry.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking refers to the phenomenon in which there exists a stable state $\lvert \psi \rangle \in \mathcal{H}$ such that \begin{equation} \pi(g)\lvert \psi \rangle \not\sim \lvert \psi \rangle \end{equation} where "$\not\sim$" means not equal modulo a global phase. This state splits $G$ into a stabilizer subgroup \begin{equation} H_{\lvert \psi \rangle} := \{g \in G : \pi(g) \lvert \psi \rangle \sim \lvert \psi \rangle \} \end{equation} and the spontaneously broken symmetries $G/H_{\lvert \psi \rangle}$, which does not generally form a group. The stabilizer is dependent on the stable state under consideration. Recall that group theory tells us \begin{equation} \lvert \psi' \rangle = \pi(g) \lvert \psi \rangle \implies H_{\lvert \psi' \rangle} = \pi(g)^{-1} H_{\lvert \psi \rangle} \pi(g). \end{equation} Hence, the stabilizers of stable states in the same orbit of $\pi(G)$ are related by conjugation.

My questions

  1. What is a (mathematically precise if possible) definition of a stable state?
  2. Why does spontaneous symmetry breaking solely focus on stable states, as opposed to non-stable states which still spontaneously break symmetries?
$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You don't want to define states as kets, but as linear functionals on the quasi-local observables. Then the "stable states" are the extremal points in the convex space of functionals. The (or one) reason is that these states are stable under small perturbations, while the others aren't. And, well, in the mathematical sense, they are anyway mixtures of the former. -- It would be helpful to know what you know about how to cleanly define infinite spin chains (quasi-local algebras etc.) to give a succint answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ To my understanding, I currently have no understanding of cleanly defining infinite spin chains. @NorbertSchuch $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4 at 21:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In nature, you can never be sure that you have precisely a certain Hamiltonian. Whatever you consider physical should not change significantly under minimal perturbations. This is the case for symmetry broken states but not for "cat-like" superpositions. Same reason (conceptually) why you don't see superpositions of cats which are dead and alive at the same time. You might call this "equilibrium", but you don't have to. It is really "stability under minor changes to the interactions" (or whatever else governs the behavior of your system). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5 at 6:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sth. different: Since the tag "mathematical-physics" is not yours: Do you care about a mathematically precise or really a mathematical-physics definition of symmetry breaking? They are quite different (at least when I would give them). (A rigorous definition of "stable state" would be one where the two-point correlators decay to zero; this implies precisely said stability.) -- If you don't care for a math-phys definition, maybe consider removing the tag. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SillyGoose to add to Norbert Schuch's discussion, the mathematically precise formulation of infinite spin systems exists, but it is not something regularly used by physicists as we can mostly get away with looking at scaling of properties as a function of (large) system size. For an introduction, see arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0107009. That may help you decide what level of rigor you want. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6 at 2:29

0

Your Answer

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