I How is spin exchange interaction generalised to many electrons?

gaiussheh
Messages
30
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
In solid state physics or statistical physics, the many-body spin Hamiltonian is written as ##-E_{i,j}\sum_{i,j} \hat{S}_{i}\cdot \hat{S}_j##. How is this generalised from the two-electron case?
In solid state physics or statistical physics, the many-body spin Hamiltonian is written as ##\sum_{i,j} \hat{S}_{i}\cdot \hat{S}_j##. I referred to many textbooks, and most of them just generalised this from the two-electron case ##\hat{S}_{1}\cdot \hat{S}_2##. While this seems natural, it is completely unlogical as this is not the magnetic dipole itself but the exchange interaction that arose from the symmetry of the spatial wave function.

Take a step back. Two electrons can form either a singlet or a triplet. For a singlet, ##\hat{S}_{1}\cdot \hat{S}_2=-\frac{3}{4}## and the spin part is symmetric, hence the spatial part is antisymmetric. For a triplet, ##\hat{S}_{1}\cdot \hat{S}_2=\frac{1}{4}## and the spin part is antisymmetric, hence the spatial part is asymmetric. This arise different energies ##E_{\rm S}=\langle\psi_{\rm S}|\hat{\mathcal{H}}|\psi_{\rm S}\rangle## and ##E_{\rm T}=\langle\psi_{\rm T}|\hat{\mathcal{H}}|\psi_{\rm T}\rangle##. However, both can be written as

##E_{\rm T} = \frac{1}{4}E_{\rm S}+\frac{3}{4}E_{T}-\frac{1}{4}(E_{\rm S}-E_{\rm T})##
##E_{\rm S} = \frac{1}{4}E_{\rm S}+\frac{3}{4}E_{T}+\frac{3}{4}(E_{\rm S}-E_{\rm T})##
Hence in any case ##E=\frac{1}{4}E_{\rm S}+\frac{3}{4}E_{T}-\hat{S}_{1}\cdot \hat{S}_2(E_{\rm S}-E_{\rm T})##
The energy due to spin is ##-E_{1,2}\hat{S}_{1}\cdot \hat{S}_{2}##, where ##E_{1,2} = E_{\rm S}-E_{\rm T}##.

I find it not that easy to generalise to a many-body system. In general, you will need a Slater determinant to describe the wave function and consider the effect of exchanging any two electrons. I don't even know if it is possible to write this into the form of ##\psi_{\rm spatial}[{\vec r}_1, {\vec r}_2, \cdots, {\vec r}_n]\cdot[{\rm spin~of~i~and~j}] \cdot[{\rm spin~of~other~electrons}]## etc. (Actually, I think you can't let the slater determinant be an eigenstate of ##\hat{S}_{i}\cdot \hat{S}_j## for all pair of ##i,j##).

How is this generalised at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know second quantization? It was invented for this purpose.
 
Last edited:
pines-demon said:
Do you know second quantization? It was invented for this purpose.
I know how this is done in a serious solid-state course, but I'm teaching second-year students, so better not to introduce that. Is there a way to fix it using simple QM?
 
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
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...
Back
Top