Expectation for many-body system

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JorisL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expectation System
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the expectation values in a quantum spin chain model, specifically examining the mathematical formulation of these expectations using measures on a d-sphere. Participants explore the implications of the measure's invariance under unitary transformations and the normalization of the trace in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Joris outlines a quantum spin chain model and discusses the state-space and the measure on the d-sphere, questioning the claim that the expectation value equals the normalized trace.
  • Another participant suggests that the integral of the measure over the sphere leads to the identity matrix, but expresses uncertainty about the normalization factor and the dimensionality of the sphere.
  • Joris expresses confusion regarding the application of the invariance of the measure under unitary transformations and notes conflicting information from different sources.
  • A later reply reiterates the importance of the measure's invariance and relates it to symmetry arguments, while acknowledging a potential misinterpretation of the physics involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the normalization of the trace or the implications of the measure's invariance. Multiple competing views and interpretations are present, particularly regarding the dimensionality of the sphere and the application of symmetry arguments.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions underlying the measure's invariance and the normalization process, as well as discrepancies in the dimensionality of the sphere as discussed by participants.

JorisL
Messages
489
Reaction score
189
Hi,

I'll start by sketching the specific model I'm looking at, a quantum spin chain.
This is defined as N spins (2 basis states) on a 1D lattice i.e. the sites are a subset of ##\mathbb{Z}##.
Then we defined the state-space as
<br /> \{ \psi\in\mathcal{H}_N \text{ with } ||\psi|| = 1\}\cong S^d \subset \mathbb{R}^{d+1}<br />
Some clarifications are needed here first ##\mathcal{H}_N = \otimes^N \mathcal{H}_s## where ##\mathcal{H}_s\cong \mathcal{C}^2## is the single-spin state space.
The isomorphism above with the d-sphere is clear (to me) with ##d\equiv 2\cdot 2^N##.

Now I can get to the crucial part, we put a measure on the d-sphere naturally we pick the surface measure ##d\sigma(\psi)\text{ on }S^d##. The defining property given too us is
<br /> \mathbb{E}(f) = \int_{S^d} d\sigma(\psi) f(\psi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d+1}} d\sigma(\psi)\, \delta( ||\psi||-1 ) \, f\left(\frac{\psi}{||\psi||}\right)<br />

Where f is a function on the d-sphere or the (d+1) dimensional real space.
This all seems okay so far.

As an example the following function was defined ##f(\psi) = \langle\psi|O|\psi\rangle = \langle O \rangle_\psi = \text{Tr}\left(O|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\right)##.
Then we can apply the definition above
<br /> \mathbb{E}(\langle O\rangle_\psi) = \text{Tr}\left(O|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\right) = \text{Tr}\left(O\int d\sigma(\psi)|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\right)<br />

Now the claim is made that this is equal to ##\text{tr}(O)## which uses the normalized trace ##\text{tr}(\cdot) \equiv d^{-1}\text{Tr}(\cdot)##.

I don't get how they arrive at this claim. It is mentioned that we need to use that the measure ##d\sigma## is invariant under all unitary ##U##.
The lecturer made the remark that ##\int d\sigma(\psi)|\psi\rangle\langle\psi| ={1\!\!1}_d##.

This seems logical but where did the normalization of the trace come from if that's true?

I've been thinking about this stuff for hours now but I can't resolve my difficulties with the idea.

Thanks,

Joris

P.S.: I'm not very familiar with measure theory

P.P.S.:
The nice thing is that if the above holds, we can interpret the expectation as that of a thermal ensemble in the limit ##\beta\downarrow 0##.
Which in turn will be used when talking about the "Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not get the same result so the following may be incorrect. Perhaps it might be helpful neverthelesss... or perhaps not:)

Taking coordinates, ##\int d\sigma(\psi)|\psi\rangle\langle\psi| =\mathbb{1}_d## amounts to ##\int x_i x_j d\sigma =\delta_{ij}##, which is true by symmetry for ##i\neq j##. For ##i=j##, symmetry says it does not depend on i, and computing ##d\cdot\int x_i^2 d\sigma =\int \sum x_i^2d\sigma =1## yields 1/d times the identity matrix.

There is a correction to make though, ## d=2\cdot 2^N## here is the total dimension, the dimension of the sphere is ##d-1##.
 
Last edited:
Logically that makes sense, however I'm wondering where we should use the invariance of the measure under unitary transformations.

About the sphere, I had 2 contradicting sources. The info given during the lecture and slides from an older talk he had given.
I assumed the slides were correct since he taught without any notes so an error can get in rather quickly. (focus was on the identity first since that has thrown me off, hard)

I'll try to look at it later today and get back to you if it worked out.

Joris
 
JorisL said:
Logically that makes sense, however I'm wondering where we should use the invariance of the measure under unitary transformations.
The symmetry argument I use is in essence invariance of the measure under rotations of the sphere, so this might be related.
Other than that the physics in your post is way over my head, so I may have misinterpreted something in the translation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K