With or without magnetic field.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the 1D Ising model, specifically comparing scenarios with and without magnetic fields and different boundary conditions. Participants explore the application of the transfer matrix method and the challenges associated with calculating the partition function under various conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Hamiltonian for the 1D Ising model without a magnetic field and queries about solving the model with an external magnetic field without circular boundary conditions.
  • Another participant asserts that the transfer matrix method can be applied with other boundary conditions, suggesting to try it out.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in calculating the trace without circular boundary conditions and discusses the implications of missing terms in the trace calculation.
  • There is a discussion about decomposing states into eigenfunctions of the transfer matrix, with one participant noting the presence of two eigenstates.
  • Another participant provides a specific 2x2 matrix representation of the transfer matrix and discusses finding its eigenvectors.
  • A participant elaborates on the relationship between the eigenvalues and the partition function, suggesting that the difference in partition functions for periodic and non-periodic conditions is of a specific order.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to calculate the partition function without circular boundary conditions, and multiple viewpoints on the application of the transfer matrix method are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the calculations and the implications of boundary conditions on the results, indicating that assumptions about the eigenvalues and matrix representations may affect the outcomes.

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
1d Ising model without magnetic field has hamiltonian ##H=-J\sum^{N-1}_{i=1}S_iS_{i+1}## with no boundary condition has partition function ##Z_N=2^{N}\cosh^{N-1}(\beta J)##. In this model with magnetic field people often put into the game circular boundary condition because then they could solve problem using transfer matrix method. Is there any easy way to solve 1d Ising model without boundary condition in extern magnetic field. Hamiltonian of that model would be ##H=-J\sum^{N-1}_{i=1}S_iS_{i+1}-B\sum^{N}_{i=1}S_i##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no problem to apply the transfer matrix method in the case of other boundary conditions. Just try it out.
 
I tried, problem is with ##Z=\sum_{allposibilities}\langle S_1|\hat{T}|S_2 \rangle \langle S_2|\hat{T}|S_3 \rangle...\langle S_N|\hat{T}|S_1 \rangle=\sum_{S_1}\langle S_1 |\hat{T}^{N}|S_1 \rangle=Tr(\hat{T}^{N})##
I can't get trace in case without circular boundary condition.
 
LagrangeEuler said:
I can't get trace in case without circular boundary condition.
So what? The term <S_1|T|S_N> is missing. Ok.
You get \sum_{S_1} \sum_{S_N} \langle S_1| T^{N-1} |S_N\rangle.
What happens when you decompose |S_1/N> into eigenfunctions of T?
 
I'm not quite sure what you think? One eigenvector is just ##|+1\rangle##.
 
\hat{T}= \left( \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \langle +|\hat{T}|+ \rangle &amp; \langle +|\hat{T}|- \rangle \\<br /> \langle -|\hat{T}|+ \rangle &amp; \langle -|\hat{T}|- \rangle \end{array} \right)
For ##|S_1/_N\rangle## there are two possibilities ##|+\rangle## or ##|-\rangle##.
But I don't know how to write that in some normal way and calculate.
 
That's a 2x2 matrix in the basis of the two states |+> and |->. I suppose you know how to find the eigenvectors of a 2x2 matrix?
 
Yes. For matrix
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> e^{j+h} &amp; e^{-j} \\<br /> e^{-j} &amp; e^{j-h} <br /> \end{array} \right)
eigenvectors are
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \frac{1}{2}e^{-h}(-e^{2j}+e^{2h+2j}\pm \sqrt{4e^{2h}+e^{4j}-2e^{2h+4j}+e^{4h+4j}}) \\<br /> 1<br /> \end{array} \right)
 
What I meant is that you can write
U^T T U=\Lambda with \Lambda being a diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues \lambda_1 and \lambda_2. I assume \lambda_1&gt;\lambda_2 and call V_0 the matrix V with j=0.
Hence Z=Tr(V^{N-1}V_0)=Tr(U^T\Lambda^{N-1}UV_0)=Tr(\Lambda^{N-1} UV_0U^T)\approx<br /> \lambda_1^{N-1} (UV_0U^T)_{11}.
Hence Z differs from the Z for periodic boundary conditions only by the factor (UV_0U^T)_{11}/\lambda_1. As we are only interested in Log Z, this makes a term which is 1/N times smaller than Z. This is of the same order as the error resulting from the replacement of \Lambda^{N-1} by \lambda_1^{N-1}.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K