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

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