Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Kramers-Wannier Duality in the Transverse Ising Model

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
668 views

This question is about the Kramers-Wannier duality transformation in the (1+1)-d transverse field Ising model. The Hamiltonian is

$$H(J,g)= -J \sum_i \sigma_i^z \sigma_{i+1}^z -g \sum_i \sigma_i^x$$

and I am concerned about the system on a ring with $N$ sites, with either periodic boundary conditions $\sigma_1^z \sigma_N^z$ or anti-periodic boundary conditions $-\sigma_1^z \sigma_N^z$.

How do I define the duality transformation for the system with PBC or APBC? For open boundary conditions with $N$ sites, the answer, as given in the answer to this question here

$$\mu_i^z = \prod_{j \leq i}^N \sigma_j^x \text{ for } i = 1,\cdots, N$$

$$ \mu_i^x = \sigma_i^z \sigma_{i+1}^z \text{ for } i = 1,\cdots,N-1$$ and

$$ \mu_N^x = \sigma_N^z $$,

which gives the same anticommutation relations as $\sigma$. 

But using this transformation on the system on a ring means that the boundary term $\sigma_1^z \sigma_N^z$ gets mapped to $\mu_1^x \mu_2^x \cdots \mu_{N-1}^x$, which is ugly and doesn't give a local term in the dual spin system. I know that the answer involves mapping different sectors of the Hilbert space separately (decomposed in boundary conditions + symmetry charge sectors). in fact the exact correspondence is that

1) (PBC, Symmetry = $\prod_i^N \sigma_i^x$ = +1) with Hamiltonian (J,g) gets mapped to (PBC, Symmetry = +1) with Hamiltonian (g, J)

2) (PBC, Symmetry = -1) with H(J,g) gets mapped to (APBC, Symmetry = +1) with H(g,J)

3) (APBC, Symmetry = +1) with H(J,g) gets mapped to (PBC, Symmetry = -1) with H(g,J)

4) (APBC, Symmetry = -1) with H(J,g) gets mapped to (APBC, Symmetry - -1) with H(g,J)

but the duality transformation as defined above for the open boundary conditions model doesn't make this mapping explicit.

The duality transformation in the PBC/APBC case is quite likely awkward (but doable) - but it is precisely this exact mapping which I am interested in. Try as I might, I have not been successful in writing the transformation down. 

Could someone help me make this transformation explicit? Or, if the duality transformation as written down for the OBC case works, how to show that the mapping I've written down between the sectors in the Hilbert space happens?

asked Jun 18, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by nervxxx (205 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Jun 18, 2015 by Dilaton

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

The ordinary KW duality has a subtlety that the dual Ising symmetry is actually a gauge $\mathbb{Z}/2$ symmetry, not a global one. This introduces some difficulties on a circle since it has topology. I think this turns your nonlocal operator into a gauge transformation.

Let me argue this point about the duality. Consider the ferromagnetic phase of the 1+1d Ising model. This has a doubly degenerate ground state. One usually says it is dual to the paramagnetic phase of another 1+1d Ising model. This statement makes no sense, because the latter has no ground state degeneracy. The proper statement is that the paramagnetic phase of the 1+1d Ising model is dual to the GAUGED ferromagnetic phase of the 1+1d Ising model.

For a discussion of these subtleties and some other fun stuff, I recommend Yoni Bentov's wonderful paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0154

answered Jun 21, 2015 by Ryan Thorngren (1,655 points) [ revision history ]

Your answer

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):
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$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then 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.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...