Constructing Hamiltonian Matrix from Sz Basis States for Quantum Spin Chains

lamikins
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hallo!
My question relates to the use of basis states to form operator matrices...

In the context of quantum spin chains, where the Hamiltonian on a chain of N sites is defined periodically as:H = sumk=0N-1[ S(k) dot S(k+1) ]
(apologies for the notation)​

so there is a sum over k=0 to N-1
S(k) is the spin operator vector acting on the spin at site k
Analytically, I've shown that we can express this as:

H = sumk=0N-1[ Hz + Hf ]

with

Hz = Sz(k)Sz(k+1)
Hf = 1/2[S+(k)S-(k+1) + S-(k)S+(k+1)]
I've been trying to construct a Hamiltonian matrix H from the complete set of states formed by the Sz basis.

For N=3, say, said basis comes out as

Basis States for N = 3

-------------------
1 1 1
this represents the case where spin at each site is up
-------------------
1 1 -1
-------------------
1 -1 1
-------------------
1 -1 -1
-------------------
-1 1 1
-------------------
-1 1 -1
-------------------
-1 -1 1
-------------------
-1 -1 -1
-------------------

Conceptually, then, how are these basis states be used to calculate the Hamiltonian matrix?

How should start to go about inserting a complete set of states and so on... I'm a bit stumped as I haven't done a formal course on Hilbert Space in a while :(

I hope I have delineated the issue clearly, though I rather suspect that I have not!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Still stuck!

I know it should be an 8x8 matrix, since there are 8 basis states and I need to find how the Hamiltonian acts on each individual configuration of spins.

Still I am jammed up on how to form this 8x8 matrix...
 


They do this in the first article on this page:
http://www.phys.uri.edu/~gerhard/introbethe.html

They don't actually write the matrix out - is that the only bit you're having trouble with?

First you need to know how the S^z, S^+ and S^- act on the up and down spins.

I guess you could represent them as matrices acting on a 2-dimensional vector space,
and S^z = (1/2, 0 \\ 0, -1/2), S^+ = (0, 1\\0,0), S^- = (0,0\\1,0)
with the up-spin as (1,0)^T, the down-spin as (0,1)^T,
though there may be some convention I don't know.
Though you don't really need to if you already know the action.

Then you just go ahead and calculate it for each of the eight basis vectors individually.

The operators S^+(k), etc. act only on the k^th site. So when you calculate the action of
S^+(1)S^-(2) for example you only need to look at the 1st and 2nd positions.

S^+(1)S^-(2) |down ,up ,down> = |S^+.down, S^-.up, down> = |up down down>
etc...

(Apologies for my notation too.) Once you've finished you just write this information up as a matrix with respect to whatever ordering of the basis you like. It should be a fairly long but tedious calculation.

I hope this helps.

Alternatively, I guess you could just take the tensor (Kronecker) product of the matrices and sum this up. But I think it's easier just to calculate the action on basis vectors.
 
Last edited:


PS: They show you much better ways of doing it in the article, where you choose the basis vectors really carefully so that the number of calculations are reduced.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top