Compute 1D Ising Correlation w/ Periodic, Anti-Periodic BDs

  • Thread starter Thread starter decerto
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    1d Correlation
decerto
Messages
84
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Compute correlation functions ##<\sigma_r \sigma_{r+l}>## for the 1D Ising model of length L with the follow BD conditions

(i) Periodic
(ii) Anti-Periodic
(iii) ##\sigma_1 = \sigma_{L+1}=1##
(iv) ##\sigma_1= -\sigma_{L+1}=1##

Homework Equations



##<\sigma_r \sigma_{r+l}> = \displaystyle\frac{1}{Z}\sum_{\sigma_l=\pm 1}^{L-1}e^{K(\sum_{k=1}^{L-1}\sigma_k \sigma_{k+1} +\sigma_1 \sigma_{L+1})} \sigma_r \sigma_{r+l}##

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I know how to compute the partition function for the periodic case as its fairly common and I have a solution to computing the correlation function to http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7240/phys7240_fa14/notes/Week1.pdf although I don't understand how he goes from 1.11 to 1.12.But these solutions use the Trace of the transfer matrix which I am pretty sure is unique to the periodic BD conditions. Any help on how to compute these in general would be appreciated as I missed the lecture on it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you understood the transfer matrix technique? the first n-1 spin sum just becomes the normal trace of the transfer matrix. But then you have \sigma_m, but the possible value of \sigma_m are 1 and -1, with introduction of pauli matrix(+1 and -1 remember?), it just becomes a normal trace once again.
 
jitu16 said:
Did you understood the transfer matrix technique? the first n-1 spin sum just becomes the normal trace of the transfer matrix. But then you have \sigma_m, but the possible value of \sigma_m are 1 and -1, with introduction of pauli matrix(+1 and -1 remember?), it just becomes a normal trace once again.

Can you explain why this explicit calculation of the 1D model with 3 sites and periodic BDs is incorrect

##Z=\displaystyle\sum_{\sigma_1=\pm1}\sum_{\sigma_2=\pm1}\sum_{\sigma_3=\pm1}e^{K(\sum_{k=1}^2\sigma_k \sigma_{k+1} + \sigma_3 \sigma_1)}##

##=\displaystyle\sum_{\sigma_1=\pm1}\sum_{\sigma_2=\pm1}\sum_{\sigma_3=\pm1}e^{K(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 + \sigma_2 \sigma_3 + \sigma_3 \sigma_1)}##

##=\displaystyle\sum_{\sigma_1=\pm1}\sum_{\sigma_2=\pm1}e^{K(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 + \sigma_2 + \sigma_1)}+e^{K(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 + -\sigma_2 + -\sigma_1)}##

##=\displaystyle\sum_{\sigma_1=\pm1}e^{K(\sigma_1 + 1 + \sigma_1)}+e^{K(\sigma_1 -1 + -\sigma_1)}+e^{K(-\sigma_1 -1 + \sigma_1)}+e^{K(-\sigma_1+ 1 + -\sigma_1)}##

##=e^{K(1 + 1 + 1)}+e^{K(1 -1 + -1)}+e^{K(-1 -1 + 1)}+e^{K(-1+ 1 + -1)}+e^{K(-1 + 1 + -1)}+e^{K(-1 -1 + 1)}+e^{K(1 -1 -1)}+e^{K(1+ 1 + 1)}##

##=e^{K(3)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(-1)}+e^{K(3)}##

##=2e^{3K}+6e^{-K}##

nvm It's correct, I guess I don't understand how the transfer matrix works, I thought it was dependant on periodic BDs to get the trace
 
Last edited:
Which boundary condition are you referring to?? If it's periodic then your calculation is right but if it's anti-periodic then your calculation is wrong.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top