For finite magnetic field B, the exact ground state of transverse Ising model still does not break the

+ 0 like - 0 dislike
38 views

In the comments of OP What is spontaneous symmetry breaking in QUANTUM systems?

There is a statement by OP Xiao-Gang Wen saying "the ground state of transverse Ising model 

edited Dec 3, 2020

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

This Hamiltonian has what is known as a "spin-flip" symmetry. It means that due to the term $$\sum S_{z_i}S_{z_j}$$, we can simultaneously change the sign of all the $$S_{z_i}$$ operators and we still have the same Hamiltonian (the operator that commutes with the Hamiltonian is $$G=\prod_i S_{x_i}$$, which produces a global spin-flip over states in the $$z$$-basis).

The eigenstates (and the ground state) of this Hamiltonian depend on the magnitude of $$B$$:

-If $$B>>1$$, the dominant term of the Hamiltonian is $$B\sum_i S_{x_i}$$, so the eigenstates are close to product states in the $$x$$ basis: $$|n\rangle\simeq|\leftarrow \rightarrow \rightarrow ...\rangle$$. This phase is called the paramagnetic phase.

-If $$B<<1$$, the dominant term of the Hamiltonian is $$-\sum S_{z_i}S_{z_j}$$ so the eigenstates are close to cat states of the form $$|n_{\pm}\rangle\simeq=\uparrow \downarrow \downarrow ...\rangle\pm |\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow ...\rangle$$, oriented in the $$z$$-axis. Due to the negative sign in $$-\sum S_{z_i}S_{z_j}$$, this phase would be called antiferromagnetic.

This change of order in the eigenstates (and the ground state) is a phase transition that goes from eigenstates with a defined parity ($$B<<1$$) to states without a well defined parity $$B>>1$$. This phase transition is said to have a spontaneous symmetry-brake and I think that in quantum mechanics, although the eigenstates of $$B<<1$$ do not explicitly break the symmetry (because the cat states are a superposition of the two possibilities of the symmetry-break), the name of "spontaneous..." is kept because of the similarities with the classical case.

Going now to the question itself, when Xiao-Gang Wen says says that small $$B$$ does not break the symmetry, I think he is meaning respect to the order of the ground state, saying that samll $$B$$ would not be enough to produce the phase transition.

And when it is said that a finite $$B$$ does not brake the symmetry neither, I think he is meaning that you cannot explicitly break/destroy the symmetry of the Hamiltonian with the term $$B\sum_i S_{x_i}$$, i.e., removing the spin-flip property, that is always present in our case. However, you could introduce a term in the $$z$$ direction like $$B_z\sum_i S_{z_i}$$ that explicitly breaks the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, and you lose the spin-flip property.

 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$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflowThen 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.