Graduate 1D transverse-field Ising model - classical vs quantum differences?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the 1D transverse-field Ising model, represented by the Hamiltonian $$ H(\sigma)=-J\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} \sigma^x_i \sigma^x_{i+1} -h \sum_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} \sigma^z_i$$. It highlights the differences between classical and quantum approaches, noting that classical solutions can be derived by parametrizing spin angles and utilizing the Boltzmann ensemble, leading to a Markov process of angles. The quantum approach, however, restricts spins to four discrete states, raising questions about the interpretation of intermediate angles and thermal wobbling. The discussion references a 2006 article that suggests classical and quantum predictions are similar, emphasizing the simplicity of classical calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the 1D transverse-field Ising model
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and spin states
  • Knowledge of Boltzmann ensembles and statistical mechanics
  • Experience with Markov processes and entropy concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the derivation of the Boltzmann ensemble for the 1D transverse-field Ising model
  • Investigate the implications of thermal wobbling in spin systems
  • Study the differences in predictions between classical and quantum Ising models
  • Review the 2006 article "Classical Ising chain in transverse field" for comparative analysis
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics, and students studying statistical mechanics who are interested in the differences between classical and quantum models of spin systems.

Jarek 31
Messages
157
Reaction score
31
TL;DR
How to interpret intermediate spin angles in transverse-field Ising model? Should spin directions wobble thermally?
What are the differences between interpretations and predictions of classical and quantum treatment of this model?
The 1D transverse field Ising model
$$ H(\sigma)=-J\sum_{i\in \mathbb{Z}} \sigma^x_i \sigma^x_{i+1} -h \sum_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} \sigma^z_i$$
is usually solved in quantum way, but we can also solve it classically - e.g. parametrize angles of spins ##\sigma^x_i = \cos(\alpha_i), \sigma^z_i=\sin(\alpha_i)## and use Boltzmann ensemble of sequences of spin angles:
$$\textrm{Pr}(\sigma)\propto \exp(-H(\sigma)) \qquad \textrm{for} \qquad \sigma = ((\cos(\alpha_i),\sin(\alpha_i)))_{i\in Z}$$
getting Markov process of angles, which can be easily approximated with Maximal Entropy Random Walk, for example leading to below joint distributions for ##(\alpha_i, \alpha_{i+1})\in [0,2\pi]^2## for various parameters (Section III here):

1619046341627.png


As intuition suggests, there is some thermal wobbling of spin directions: (anti)aligned for dominating ##J##, in ##x## axis for dominating ##h##.

However, in quantum approaches there are only considered spins in four directions: ##|\leftarrow \rangle,|\rightarrow \rangle,|\uparrow \rangle,|\downarrow \rangle##, so should we imagine that intermediate angles are obtained by superposition?
Should there be thermal wobbling of spin directions as in densities above?

What are the differences in interpretation and predictions between such looking natural classical treatment and the quantum one?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have found similar 2006 article "Classical Ising chain in transverse field": sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304885306016295 saying that classical and quantum predictions are quite similar.
Classical is much simpler to calculate - it would be great to get a deeper understanding of their differences.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K