# What is the definition of a quantum integrable model?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
79 views

What is the definition of a quantum integrable model?

To be specific: given a quantum Hamiltonian, what makes it integrable?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 13:36 (UCT), posted by SE-user lagoa

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Quantum integrability basically means that the model is Bethe Ansatz solvable. This means that we can, using the Yang-Baxter relation, get a so-called "transfer matrix" which can be used to generate an infinite set of conserved quantities, including the Hamiltonian of the system, which, in turn, commute with the Hamiltonian. In other words, if we can find a transfer matrix which satisfies the Yang-Baxter relation and also generates the Hamiltonian of the model, then the model is integrable.

Please note that, oddly enough, a solvable system is not the same thing as an integrable system. For instance, the generalized quantum Rabi model is not integrable, but is solvable (see e.g. D. Braak, Integrability of the Rabi Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 no. 10, 100401 (2011), arXiv:1103.2461).

A nice introduction to integrability and the algebraic Bethe Ansatz is this set of lectures by Faddeev in Algebraic aspects of the Bethe Ansatz (Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 no. 13 (1995) pp. 1845-1878, arXiv:hep-th/9404013)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 13:36 (UCT), posted by SE-user Bubble
answered Sep 9, 2013 by (210 points)
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

If we deal with quantum finite-dimensional systems without spin, the definition is this: if we have a system with $n$ degrees of freedom whose (quantum) Hamiltonian is given by an operator $H$, then this system is called integrable if there exist $n$ independent operators $K_i$ such that $K_1=H$ and $[K_i,K_j]=0$ for all $i,j=1,\dots,n$. All operators, of course, are assumed to be (formally) self-adjoint.

The matter of how one should interpret the word "independent" here is a bit tricky. Linear independence is not sufficient, and we should at least require the functional independence of classical limits of $K_j$ for all $j=1,\dots,n$.

For further details see e.g. Definition 6 in this paper by Miller, Post and Winternitz and references therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 13:36 (UCT), posted by SE-user just-learning
answered Feb 21, 2014 by (95 points)

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.