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

Click For Summary
The 1D transverse field Ising model can be approached both classically and quantum mechanically, with the classical method involving parametrization of spin angles and utilizing the Boltzmann ensemble. This leads to a Markov process of spin angles that can be approximated using Maximal Entropy Random Walk, revealing thermal fluctuations in spin orientations based on the dominance of parameters J and h. In contrast, quantum approaches focus on discrete spin states, raising questions about the interpretation of intermediate angles as superpositions. While a 2006 article suggests that classical and quantum predictions are similar, classical methods are noted for their computational simplicity. Understanding the differences in interpretation and predictions between these approaches is essential for deeper insights into the model.
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
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
1K