An Approach to Bounding the Spectral Gap Above the Ground State of a Quantum Spin Chain

Amanda Young Mentored by Bruno Nachtergaele University of California, Davis

June 4, 2008

Abstract

spin chains, we study the norm of a particular operator,

su2 to examine the decomposition of C , on a system of three spins with magnitudes j1 , j2 , and j3 , described by the representation ρj ⊗ ρj ⊗ ρj . The 1 2 3 operator C is de ned as a commutator: C = [P12 ⊗ I, I ⊗ P23 ], where P12 projects onto the subrepresentation with spin j1 +j2 , contained in ρj ⊗ρj , and P23 projects onto the 1 2 subrepresentation with spin j2 +j3 , contained in ρj ⊗ρj . On the basis of partial results 2 3 j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 )/(j1 + and numerical computation, we conjecture that ||C|| = j2 )(j2 +j3 ) . Estimating the magnitude of this norm is related to estimating the norm of the operator G[2,3] E2 . Determining a suf ciently small upper bound for ||G[2,3] E2 ||,
Using the representations of the Lie algebra guarantees a nonzero lower bound of the spectral gap above the ground state. conjecture that this upper bound satis speci or in We does exists, and when an additional condition is

ed we calculate the bound to be

2j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 )/(j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) . We are
nite

cally interested in this result as it guarantees a nonzero spectral gap of a nite frustrated antiferromagnetic spin-3/2 chain.

1

Introduction

Using mathematical models to represent physical systems is commonly done by researchers in the mathematics eld. From uid dynamics, to neuron transmission, mathematical

models help aid researchers in their quest to determine new properties of such systems. The physical system that we are interested in and analyze throughout this project is that
0

This research was funded by NSF VIGRE Grants No.DMS-0135345 and DMS-0636297

1

of a one dimensional quantum spin chain. Quantum spin chains model the magnetic materials found in many electronic devices. One can imagine a one dimensional quantum

spin chain as a line of particles held together by bonds between neighboring particles, see gure 1. Each particle has a number attached to it, called the spin of the particle. This

determines the range of values of the angular momentum in the third component. These spin values characterize the each particle, its magnetic values of its intrinsic angular momentum. eld, and the range of possible

These systems, classically are of particular ,

interest to us as its energy is usually quantized, which means that the possible energy values for which the system can take on is not a continuous spectrum. nontrivial difference between two consecutive energy states. chains brings new insight into properties of these systems. Thus, there is a

Analyzing quantum spin

Figure 1: A quantum spin chain of three particles with spins j1 , j2 , j3 .
A spin particle is modeled mathematically by a representation of the group

SU2 . These

representations act as operators on a Hilbert space, which is a vector space where the inner product is well de our system can take. ned. The vectors in the Hilbert space represent the various states It is not always convenient, however, to model the system using

group representations of

SU2

as there is no

nite basis. We solve this problem by using

su2 . Note that for su2 the Lie bracket [·, ·] is de ned [A, B] = AB − BA. Since there is a bijective correspondence between the group SU2 and the Lie algebra su2 via the exponential map, these two methods are equivalent ways
representations of the Lie algebra as of studying representations. The Lie algebra representation is a more convenient way of modeling these particles since it is spanned by the three different elements ing the third component of angular momentum,

S −,

the lowering

S 3 , represent+ operator, and S , the

raising operator. It is shown in [1] that for these operators the commutation relations are:

S +, S − S 3, S ±
Each particle has a spin, denoted usually by also has an intrinsic angular momentum

= 2S 3 = ±S ± j,
where

j =

m with possible values ranging from m = j, j − 1, . . . , −j . As stated in [1], given a particle with spin j , there is a basis of 2j + 1 vectors for 2j+1 our Hilbert space C , one for each of the possible components of angular momentum,
such that the irreducible representation is described by

a 2

with

a ∈ Z≥0 .

Each particle

ρj (S 3 )|m = m|m ρj (S )|m =
sponding representation is tion for all tors

−j ≤ m ≤ j m)(j ± m + 1)|m ± 1 −j ≤ m ≤ j

±

(j

Since these spins are in positive half-integer increments and the dimension of the corre-

2j + 1, there will be an n-dimensional irreducible representa-

n ∈ N.

Notice that it is simple to create these representations such that the vec-

|m

are the standard basis vectors. It is the set of representations using the standard

2

which are mathemat- ically modeled by the tensor of their three corresponding irreducible representations of su2 . and thus there is a vanishing spectral gap second lowest energy) is equivalent to diagonalizing an above the ground state. the In the case where all the spins are equal. Sx the Heisenberg Hamiltonian describing the HN = − N −1 x=1 Sx · Sx+1 . least to greatest. N − 1 × N − 1 banded matrix. Sx . the energy of a quantum spin chain is modeled by a Hamiltonian. one can By ordering the eigenvalues from nd a desired energy gap by subtracting successive pairs of en- ergy values. Since we know the ground state energy is also 0. the gap between the two energy states tends to 0 as N gets large. Sx ) consists of the spin matrices for each component. For a ferromagnetic chain of length system is N. The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian give the different energy states of the system. Furthermore. as rotations do not change how the particles interact.basis vectors as these eigenvectors that I will refer to throughout the rest of this paper.e. the notation of the eigenvector of |m will represent the standard vector that corresponds to ρj (S ) with eigenvalue m. A Hamiltonian is a sum of matrices where each speci between pairs of particles in the system. Since the Hamiltonian is invariant under SU (2) interactions. This operator commutes locally with the Hamiltonian. used to describe our system. In this paper.e. the lowest energy) is equal to − N −1 x=1 jx jx+1 jx is the spin of the particle in the xth position in the chain. each term in the Hamiltonian will be block diagonalized. we are looking at chains of three particles. This means that HN = acts on. One can show that the ground state energy (i. Hence. The rst excited energy state λ1 in this example is of the order 1/N . The Casimir operator C = (S 1 )2 + (S 2 )2 + (S 3 )2 provides a means for determining an equivalent way of writing the Heisenberg and other similar Hamiltonians as a sum of projection matrices. The actual representation for all g ∈ su2 is given by ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 (g) = ρj1 (g) ⊗ I ⊗ I + I ⊗ ρj2 (g) ⊗ I + I ⊗ I ⊗ ρj3 (g) I will refer to this representation as ρ for the rest of the paper.1) .i+1 . The classical example of a Hamiltonian is that of the Heisenberg model for the ferromagnetic chain of length N. c term in the sum describes the interactions The Hamiltonians of greatest interest describe Such is the case in the Hamiltonian interactions only between nearest neighbor pairs. nding the rst excited energy state (i. we are interested in showing that a quantum spin chain with a speci c Hamiltonian has a non-vanishing spectral gap. where where 1 2 3 = (Sx . In general. or ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 . N −1 x=1 orthogonal projector onto the subspace ρi jx +jx−1 i=|jx −jx−1 | µi Pi . This means that the Casimir operator commutes with each term inside the Hamiltonian. where Pi is an There is a special class of quantum spin chains with Hamiltonians of the form N −1 HN = i=1 3 Pi. we used representations of this kind to model a chain with a speci c set of spins. due to change in basis. When the Casimir operator is diagonal. which we will discuss later. (1. as N → ∞ we see that λ1 → 0. 3 In this speci c paper.

. αN ) is such so that |α is an eigenvalue of Pi. for arbitrary α. N ≥ 2}. if HN . When the ground states are known. HN One approach which has been applied successfully in a number of cases is the so-called martingale method. or more jx 's are 1/2. the spectrum of HN consist of non-negative integers. We choose the largest irreducible representation in this decomposition to describe the neighboring particle interactions because it makes it possible to calculate the ground state energy It is important . In particular. Finding the ground state of a quantum spin Hamiltonian of this type can be regarded as an eigenvalue problem. onto the largest irreducible representations in the decompositions of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 and ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 . where the eigenvectors are not assumed to be of pure tensor product form but rather linear combinations of such vectors. it is easy to obtain a reasonable upper bound for γ (N ) using the variational principle. . In the general case. For exam- HN is the Hamiltonian of a quantum algorithm in the adiabatic model of quantum computation. or may vanish at a certain rate as N → ∞.i+1 with eigenvalue either 0 or 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ N − 1. Since we assume λ0 = 0. This is true since having a non-trivial null space is equivalent to HN having an eigenvector with eigenvalue 0. The set of multi-indices α = (α1 . Typically one is interested in Hamiltoni. {HN . . Assuming that HN has a non-trivial null space: ker HN = {0} means that the ground state energy of HN is 0. αN | 1 ≤ αi ≤ di . . 4 . The classical case occurs when there is a tensor product basis {|α1 . the gap is related to estimates of the length of time (complexity) of the computation.i+1 .Pi. P12 and P23 represent the projectors. The value of HN considered as a function α. respectively. implying a continuous spectrum ans of energy states. These different behaviors of the spectral gap have implications for the general properties of the dynamics of the quantum system modeled by ple. . . our Hamiltonian is: H = P12 ⊗ I + I ⊗ P23 Inside the Hamiltonian. orthogonal to the ground state and calculate the expectation value of Non-trivial lower bounds are more dif cult to discover. and are interested in determining the the spectral gap above the ground (N ) state. Since we are analyzing a chain of three particles as a means to estimate a larger chain. . γ (N ) is simply the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of HN . Note that in the classical case referred to in the previous paragraph (N ) it is clear that γ ≥ 1. These allow for the simultaneous examination of the each particle-interaction pair. One can obtain the upper bound by nding a state in this state. to note that the calculation of the ground state is only possible when precisely when no two consecutive . the spectral gap. In the general case γ (N ) may be bounded below by a non-zero constant. is then equal to the number of terms Pi. . 1 ≤ i ≤ N } of simultaneous eigenvectors of the terms Pi.i+1 is an orthogonal projection acting non-trivially on sites i and i + 1.i+1 that have eigenvalue 1 when evaluated on a string α. the eigenvalues of HN are usually not integers and different behaviors can occur. where This is the type of Hamiltonian we consider in this paper. which we now explain. jx > 1/2.

(1.n+1] En ≤ Using (1.7) holds.4) One can then easily verify using the properties (1.n+1] . .6) G[n.n+1] .For an arbitrary subinterval projection onto [a.2) G{i} = 1 for all i = 0. with 1 ≤ a < b ≤ N.n+1] .n] − G[1. family of mutually orthogonal projections summing up to {En | 1 ≤ n ≤ N } is a 1 .3-c) En . such that for all 1 ≤ n ≤ N − 1 2 En G[n.i+1 let G[a.n+1] G[1. equivalently. G[1. .i+1 = 1 − G[i.n En . En ]. 1 ≤ n ≤ N .n] ] = [G[n.1 in [3].7) G[n. It follows from these de nitions that the orthogonal l projections G[a. b].n+1] En = G[n. I2 ⊂ [1.3-a).1 the following estimate holds for the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of HN : γ (N ) ≥ (1 − Thus.1. With the de nitions above and under Assumption 1.2.3-b) (1. i.n] − G[1. where an estimate for G[n. n=1 There is a non-trivial lower bound for the spectral gap using the martingale method if the following assumption is satis ed. the norm is [G[n. En Em = δm.e. Theorem 1. the spectral gap above the ground state √ 2 )2 (1 − √ 2 )2 . Pi.5) N ∗ En = En .n+1] is given for general Valence Bond Solid chains with a unique in (1.: l En = 1 l (1. This relates Assumption 1.1 with Lemma 6. En (1.n] − G[1.3-a)-(1.3-a) also implies that bounded above by nite volume ground state.3-a) (1.3-c).n+1]   G[1. √ 0 ≤ < 1/ 2. that .b] satisfy the following properties.n+1] En ≤ or.b] be the orthogonal b−1 ker i=a and let (1. N . Equation which. Assumption 1. N ] one has GI2 GI1 = GI1 GI2 = GI2 if I1 ⊂ I2 GI1 GI2 = GI2 GI1 if I1 ∩ I2 = ∅ Pi.N ] n=1 if 2 ≤ n ≤ N − 1 if n = N if (1. There exists a constant . 2 . .8) HN 5 is at least . if (1. For intervals I1 .i+1] l De ne operators (1. it follows that (1. .n+1] G[1.2 in [2].2] l En = G[1. The following theorem is a special case of Theorem 2. by  1 − G[1.

2 relies on the norm of G[2.i+1 do not commute and one can suspect from the discussion above that to satisfy Assumption 1. De ne E ∧ F denote ˜ ˜ E = E − E ∧ F an F = F − E ∧ F. Lemma 1. In general.i+2 ] cient ciently small. as determining the intersection of the kernels quickly be- comes complicated.3] E2 intersect as projections to ||G[2. we used that and the range When the Euclidean norm induces the operator norm.3] E2 ||. and let the orthogonal projection onto the intersection of their ranges. To rectify this situation. is dif n = 2. We will consider only a class of Valence Bond Solid models with nearest neighbor SU(2) invariant interactions. φ = ψ = 1} nition of (1. It turns out that this is a necessary but not a suf We start with a lemma that will help clarify the meaning of Assumption 1. First. using the de ˜ E and ˜ F one easily veri es the rst equality stated in the lemma: ˜˜ E F = (E − E ∧ F )(F − E ∧ F ) = EF − E(E ∧ F ) − (E ∧ F )F + E ∧ F = EF − E ∧ F . [Pi. E ∧ F projects onto a subspace of both the range of E of F and hence E(E ∧ F ) = E ∧ F = (E ∧ F )F . ψ | | φ ∈ ran E.3. The overall goal of this paper is to use ||C|| to show that there is a suf ciently small upper bound of in return. cult to work with. the commutators will have to be suf condition. one can rewrite the norm as follows: ˜˜ ˜˜ E F = sup sup |y ∗ E F x| x =1 y =1 6 .i+1 can be characterized by their action on the irreducible rep- resentations of SU(2) found from the tensor product representation of two neighboring spins. Then EF − E ∧ F ˜˜ = EF ˜ ˜ = sup{| φ.3] E2 . ψ ∈ ran F . I ⊗ P23 ] Once this norm is calculated. For these models the interaction terms Pi. Here. the different neighboring Pi.1 by estimating the chain using three particles. howG[2. we instead work with a commutator whose norm can be related to the norm of We de ne this commutator as C = [P12 ⊗ I. This will. we can look at how C and G[2. determine how the norms of the two operators correlate.1 in geometric terms. guarantee that the nonzero spectral gap above the ground state that we desire does in fact exist.3] E2 . Let E and F be two orthogonal projections on a Hilbert space. Pi+1.9) (1.Since for our case ever. As stated previously in this work we are interested in investigating the Assumption .1. This operator.10) Proof. theorem 1. 1.i+1 .

3] E2 when the additional assumption is satis 7 ed.10) expresses . Also.2] and G[2.3] E3 = G[2. Brief discussions of the form of the orthogonal projectors. the norm is small if the ranges of E and F are nearly orthogonal after subtraction of their intersection. there is no inequality that bounds ˜˜ EF Unfortunately in general .11) It would be tempting to try to replace the condition on [E.3-c). and the relation between these eigenvalues and the irreducible decomposition of the decomposition of operator norm of sented. In our research.3] E2 and C However. Also. Section 4 we will obtain such an inequality under an additional condition determined by the form of [G[1. proofs that in ρ the second largest irreducible appears exactly twice. thogonal projectors Thus. ψ | | φ ∈ ran E. and C is equivalent to [E. Hence. We will calculate this value to be ||C|| = bound of j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 )/(j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ). we will begin by look at some of the important background information needed to analyze quantum spin chains. because the latter quantity is somewhat easier to compute. ρ will be given.3] is equivalent to EF − E ∧ F . and that the C corresponds to the magnitude of its largest eigenvalue will be pre- It is with this information and some numerical results that we conjecture that the operator norm of C corresponds to the magnitude of the eigenvalue related to the second largest irreducible in the decomposition of ρ. where θ are the angles between these two orthogonal complements. by one on (1. Recall that in this work we are dealing with a chain of three particles. where these terms are related to the two terms in our Hamiltonian by (1. φ = ψ = 1} Clearly . EF − E ∧ F as the maximum value of F . C and G[2. we have that G[2. .3] E2 j1 = 3/2. F ] . j2 = 1/2.3] G[1. respeccos θ. G[2. the type of eigenvalues of the commutator. ψ ∈ ran F . F ]. we therefore immediately have the inequality ˜ ˜˜ ˜˜ Since E ˜˜ [E. F ] ≤ 2 E F = 2 EF − E ∧ F . ψ = F x ˜ ˜ = sup{| φ.2] − G[1. we have that [E.2] . . we will end the paper with the calculation of an upper G[2.3] E2 inter- act as projections onto subspaces. ˜ F = (E F )∗ = F E . F ] = [E.Since ˜ ˜ E∗ = E we get ˜˜ EF = = ˜˜ sup sup |y ∗ E F x| x =1 y =1 ˜ ˜ sup sup |(Ey)∗ F x| x =1 y =1 ˜ ˜ = sup |φ∗ ψ| where φ = Ey.3] ] under a speci c change of basis. To obtain this result. EF − E ∧ F [E.3] . G[2. j3 = 3 to create our spin chain. the or- E and F in this case correspond to the terms G[1. ranges of ˜ E and ˜ F project onto the orthogonal complement of the intersection of the E and F considered as subspaces of the range of E and the range of tively Formula (1. Finally looking at how . we when we use the by a multiple of discovered that such a counterexample occurs for spins G[2. F ] and . F ] in ˜ ˜ this vocabulary Since E ∧ F commutes with both E and F .

connections between ρ and C will be made to understand how the commutator norm depends on ρ. j2 − k)|j1 − i + k ⊗ |j2 − k k i−k k1 =1 k k2 =1 C(j1 − i + k. This representation is of dimension 2(j1 + j2 ) + 1. for the tensor of two irreducibles one only needs to notice that the highest irreducible representation is the only irreducible representation that will have j1 + j2 as an eigenvalue of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (S 3 ). where j1 and j2 are the spins.1 The Projectors nd orthonormal bases that span the To make the projectors for the commutator we must vector spaces for the largest irreducible representations of both ing Clebsch-Gordan coef ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 and ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 . i = 0. . Observe that the corresponding eigenvector is |j1 ⊗ |j2 . . we determine that the largest irreducible representation ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 . Using the lowering operator repeatedly on this 3 eigenvector will produce a series of eigenvectors of ρ(S ) each with eigenvalue one less than the previous vector. . is ρj1 +j2 . Us- cients. Proof. Now that we understand the process used to create these vectors. we wish to know more about the structure of any given vector as it will only have nonzero entries in speci c coordinates. For i = 0. j2 − k) = (2j1 − k1 + 1)k1 (2j2 − k2 + 1)k2 . The lowering operator will will produce the zero vector after the eigenvector with corresponding eigenvalue −(j1 + j2 ) of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (S 3 ) is reached. process that led to the conjecture for the operator norm of tors P12 and 2. This set of non-zero vectors are guaranteed to be orthogonal since they have distinct eigenvalues of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (S 3 ). along with some properties of ρ and C . Consider the case when 0 u0 = k=0 0 C(j1 + k. The structure of the projecP23 will be discussed.1. Then. j2 − k)|j1 + k ⊗ |j2 − k k u0 = |j1 ⊗ |j2 8 . Then. By normalizing the vectors. we create an orthonormal basis. 2(j1 + j2 ) i the orthogonal vectors that create the orthogonal projectors are of the form ui = k=0 where i C(j1 − i + k. . This is a proof by induction.2 Background This section will be used to present the information needed to understand the thought C . Proposition 2. To nd the required basis for this representation.

Lemma 2.Now. j2 − k)|j1 − i + k ⊗ |j2 − k k C(j1 − i + k. giving the zero vector as expected. Consider Then. the orthogonal projector is ui ui 2(j1 +j2 ) |vi vi | i=0 (2. . j2 − k)( 2j1 − (i − k + 1)(i − k + 1)|j1 − i + k ⊗ |j2 − k k + (2j2 − k)(k + 1)|j1 − i + k ⊗ |j2 − k ) = k=0 Reindexing k will produce i+1 ui+1 = k=0 i+1 C(j1 − (i + 1) + k. This is important as it is C is related to two copies of the second largest irre- ducible representation. j2 . where j1 . Then. j2 − k) = 0 for all terms Notice that when i = 2(j1 + j2 ) + 1 the coef cient in the sum.12) 2. . the second largest irreducible representation appears exactly twice. j2 − k)ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (S − )|j1 − i + k ⊗ |j2 − k k i C(j1 − i + k. The desired orthonormal basis is 1 B = {vi }i=0 2(j +j2 ) vi = Hence.2 The Second Largest Irreducible Representation Key to the calculation of C will be knowing how many times the second largest ir- reducible representations appears in the decomposition of conjectured later in the paper that ρ. In the irreducible decomposition of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 .2. Proof. ui+1 = ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (S − )ui i = k=0 i i C(j1 − i + k. and j3 are the respective nonzero spins. ⊕ ρ|j1 −j2 | 9 2ji + 1. ρj1 ⊗ρj2 ⊗ρj3 where ρji is an irreducible representation of su2 and dim ρji = ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 = ρj1 +j2 ⊕ ρj1 +j2 −1 ⊕ . . Knowing that there are exactly two copies in the decomposition allows use to know that these must be the two copies that relate to C . consider this true for some arbitrary i within the given bounds.

⊕ ρ|j2 −j3 −1/2| ) = ρj2 +j3 +1/2 ⊕ 2ρj2 +j3 −1/2 ⊕ . ⊕ (ρ|j1 −j2 |+j3 ⊕ ρ|j1 −j2 |+j3 −1 ⊕ . ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 = ρj2 +1/2 ⊕ ρj2 −1/2 . . then we must have j1 = . . . . if |j1 −j2 |+j3 = j1 +j2 +j3 −1 1 1 we must have that j2 = . . Then. .3 The Eigenvalues of the Commutator The operator C for the system ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 has been de ned to be C = [P12 ⊗ I. −λ is also an eigenvalue of C . It is easily calculated that: [A. let j1 ≥ j2 . . . Proof. B] 10 . Since P12 and P23 are both hermitian (real-symmetric) matrices. . . . a contradiction to one of our assumptions. 2 is if we need either ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 = (ρj2 +j3 +1/2 ⊕ ρj2 +j3 −1/2 ⊕ . . Without loss of 2 2 1 . 2. Consider any two hermitian matrices A and B . in all cases.3. I ⊗ P23 ] where P12 and P23 are the orthogonal projectors onto the vector spaces acted on by the largest irreducibles in the decompositions of ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 . Thus. B]∗ = = = = (AB)∗ − (BA)∗ B ∗ A∗ − A∗ B ∗ BA − AB −[A. Similarly if j2 ≥ j1 . Then j1 −j2 ≥ 0 and |j1 −j2 | = j1 −j2 . the second largest irreducible representation occurs exactly two times. . ⊕ ρ||j1 −j2 |−j3 | ) The only way for the second largest irreducible representation to appear more than twice |j1 − j2 | + j3 = j1 + j2 + j3 or |j1 − j2 | + j3 = j1 + j2 + j3 − 1. . . ⊕ ρ|j2 −j3 −1/2| Once again. the second largest irreducible representation occurs twice. respectively. ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 Proposition 2. the second case. ⊕ ρ|j1 −j2 | ) ⊗ ρj3 = ρj1 +j2 ⊗ ρj3 ⊕ ρj1 +j2 −1 ⊗ ρj3 ⊕ . and thus generality let j1 = .and ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 = (ρj1 +j2 ⊕ ρj1 +j2 −1 ⊕ . ⊕ ρ|j1 −j2 | ⊗ ρj3 = (ρj1 +j2 +j3 ⊕ ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 ⊕ . Now we and will look at the possible kinds of eigenvalues for such a commutator. . . Thus. The eigenvalues of C are purely imaginary. . For |j1 − j2 | + j3 = j1 + j2 + j3 j1 = 0 or j2 = 0. so are P12 ⊗ I and I ⊗ P23 . . ⊕ ρ|j1 +j2 −j3 | ) ⊕(ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 ⊕ ρj1 +j2 +j3 −2 ⊕ . For any non-zero eigenvalue λ of C . ⊕ ρ|j1 +j2 −j3 −1| ) . For. ⊕ ρ|j2 −j3 +1/2| ) ⊕(ρj2 +j3 −1/2 ⊕ .

. . µ2 . D = |µ1 |. . Furthermore. the commutator C is anti-hermitian and can be written as iA for some hermitian matrix A. Hence. if any imaginary eigenvalue λ of C exists. Then |µ1 | = max |λ|. since C is diagonalizable with all eigenvalues either imaginary or zero. choose U such that D = diag(µ1 . . For all anti-hermitian matrices eigenvalue of C . we know from the Spectral Theorem there exists a unitary matrix U composed of eigenvectors of A such that Therefore. Proof. 2. λ∗ must also be an eigenvalue of C . + (µn vn )2 ≤ µ2 (x2 + . C = U ∗ CU = D . Now. . C = max x =1 Cx = max |λ| where λ is an C. we wish to calculate the largest eigenvalue of to determine its operator norm.4.I ⊗ P23 are hermitian matrices. . . nomial C is composed of projectors with real entries. + x2 ) = |µ1 | 1 1 n Hence. Since the roots of this polynomial are the eigenvalues of C . We will conclude this section with a proof detailing that the degeneracy of 11 . Let v be any unit vector. ≥ |µn |. The conjecture for which C in order nal piece of information we use in developing our C comes from relating the eigenvalues of C to the invariant subspaces on ρ acts.5 Relating the Eigenvalues of C and the Invariant Subspaces As shown in the previous section. diagonal matrix. . since both and P12 ⊗ I U ∗ HU = Λ where Λ is a real. we have that De1 = µ1 e1 = |µ1 | we see that in fact. x =1 C = max Dx = |µ1 | = max |λ| 2. the Spectral Theorem can be applied to U ∗ CU = U ∗ iAU = iU ∗ AU = iΛ Hence. U C there exists a unitary matrix U ∗ CU = D is diagonalized. µn ) with |µ1 | ≥ |µ2 | ≥ . It has been shown that for any anti-hermitian matrix such that Dv = Since (µ1 v1 )2 + . Since the operator norm is invariant under change of bases. this implies that its characteristic polyp(λ) has real coef cients. .4 The Operator Norm of C Lemma 2. nd Since C is only a scalar multiple of A. .

will work for any block-diagonalized set of matrices with any orthogonal projector of this form. aforementioned theorem. Proof.   . . ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 of any two irreducible representations of su2 which C2j1 +1 ⊗ C2j2 +1 . ρ(g)C = Cρ(g). .a given eigenvalue of of C is at least equal to the dimension of an irreducible representation ρ. . Furthermore. In order to prove the ρ(g) commutes with C for all g .. we will show that there exists a basis for each irreducible subspace ρ acts on consisting of eigenvectors of we rst start with a proof that C . .5. P12 ⊗ I] = ρ(g)P12 ⊗ I − P12 ⊗ Iρ(g) = ρ(g)P12 ⊗ I − ρ(g)P12 ⊗ I = 0 This shows that [ρ(g). ·] it immediately follows ∀g ∈ su2 [ρ(g). C] = [ρ(g). Recall that C = [P12 ⊗ I. orthogonal projector P12 onto the highest irreducible representation of P12 = (M |N ) Ij1 +j2 0 0 0 (M |N )∗ ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 as Using the change of basis mations (M |N )∗ A(M |N ) on this space will keep all the linear transfor(M |N )∗ ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (g)(M |N ) in a block diagonal form. It is possible to nd an orthonormal basis B of 2j1 +1 the vector space C ⊗ C2j2 +1 such that B can be partitioned so each partition is a basis of one of the irreducible subspaces. . 0 ρj1 +j2 −1 (g) . I ⊗ P23 ]] = 0 12 . I ⊗ P23 ] = 0. [ρ(g). . that From the properties proven above and the linearity of [·. Using this basis we can block diagonalize ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (g) ∀g ∈ su2 such that   ρj1 +j2 (g) 0 ··· 0 . Consider the tensor acts on the vector space 0 De ne ··· 0 ρ|j1 −j2 | (g) M to be the partition of maining ordered subset of We can write the B described above correlating to ρj1 +j2 . . . ∀g ∈ su2 [ρ(g).   . . Then. De ne ρ = ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 acting on the vector space C2j1 +1 ⊗ C2j2 +1 ⊗ C2j3 +1 .   ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (g) =   .. Lemma 2. For any g ∈ su2. I ⊗ P23 ]. [P12 ⊗ I. but will produce the new P12 = Ij1 +j2 0 0 0 Note that this process orthogonal projector In this basis it is easy to see that ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (g)P12 = P12 ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 (g). Let N be the reB that produces the block diagonalized form described above. P12 ⊗ I] = 0 Similarly.. .

6. It should be noted that the degeneracy of an eigenvalue may increase if the invariant subspaces of two or more irreducibles have the same corresponding eigenvalue. that Cρ(g)ψ given of C with eigenvalue λ. Using the information about how to make the orthogonal projectors. and how each eigenvalue of resentation. Furthermore. Theorem 2. see Appendix A. the degeneracy of λ is at least equal to the dimen- sion of a speci c irreducible representation in the decomposition of eigenvectors of ρ. 13 . we can deterC for the second largest irrep will always C relates to a speci c irreducible rep- be complex-conjugate pairs (or both zero). In all cases. max |λ| corresponded to the second largest ir- reducible representation (irrep). Then. and that all eigenvalues of C are either mine that the two corresponding eigenvalues of 0 or come in purely imaginary complex-conjugate pairs. A table of our numerical results is given below. Therefore one can see that span{ρ(g)ψ : g ∈ su2 } is an invariant subspace of ρ.Knowing that C commutes with all representations ρ(g) makes it possible to prove the λ of main theorem of this subsection. Cρ(g) = ρ(g)C and ψ is an eigenvector Cρ(g)ψ = ρ(g)Cψ = λρ(g)ψ ρ(g)ψ is also an eigenvector of C with eigenvalue λ. Given any eigenvalue C. there exists orthonormal bases for each subspace acted on by an irreducible representation of ρ consisting of C. Proof. Consider any ∀g ∈ su2 . Since there is a basis for each irreducible representation of ρ that is a set of linearly independent eigenvectors of C this implies that the degeneracy of each eigenvalue of C is at least equal to the dimension of the irreducible representation of ρ to This implies that which its eigenvectors correspond. we can nd that all the invariant subspaces of ρ are of this form. For a copy of the Maple code we used to obtain these results. we used numerical methods to look at the eigenvalues of the commutator C for some small cases and with the results from 2 we could determine which irreducible representation corresponded to max |λ|. Using this process repeatedly and the fact that dim(C) = dim(ρ). 3 Calculating ||C|| Since we know that the second largest representation occurs twice.

Next we can determine how C acts on this basis to make a 2 × 2 matrix that has the same eigenvalues as these two eigenvectors of C .13) (3. The norm of the eigenvalues of √ C related to ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 and consequently. these proposed eigenvectors of = |j1 ⊗ |j2 ⊗ |j3 − 1 = |j1 ⊗ |j2 − 1 ⊗ |j3 = |j1 − 1 ⊗ |j2 ⊗ |j3 (3. and then using the Gram-Schmidt 14 . The lowering operator can be applied to 3 ear combination of the three vectors mentioned above.15) It is also important to notice that each of these vectors as tensors is a standard basis vector. The eigenvalues ±λ corresponding to the two copies of the second largest irre- ducible representation satisfy the equation | ± λ | ≥ |λ| for all eigenvalues λ of C . It is important to note that the eigenvectors 3 of ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 (S ) are some linear combination of the vectors C.1. Since we know that the two copies of |j1 . Theorem 3. ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 will have at most three non-zero entries.2. j3 |j1 − 1. j2 . (j1 +j2 )(j2 +j3 ) |j1 . the conjecture for C is j1 j2 j3 (j1 +j2 +j3 ) . The rest of this section will be dedicated to calculating the conjectured norm of C using the method described above. j3 − 1 |j1 .Table 1: For a Speci c System. Using u. v = 0 where v is an arbitrary linProof. we only need one eigenvector to determine the corresponding ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 (S 3 ) are the only other 3 two representations in the decomposition other than ρj1 +j2 +j3 (S ) to have the eigenvalue j1 +j2 +j3 −1. nding a orthonormal basis for the space spanned by these two corresponding eigenvectors will create a two-dimensional space containing two eigenvectors of C . ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 that consist of the de- Since there are bases of the invariant subspaces of sired eigenvectors of eigenvalues of C. j3 Hence.14) (3. ||C|| and The Corresponding Irreducible Representation Irrep corresponding to ρ ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ1/2 ρ1 ⊗ ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ1/2 ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ1 ⊗ ρ1/2 ρ1 ⊗ ρ1 ⊗ ρ1/2 ρ1 ⊗ ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ1 ρ1 ⊗ ρ1 ⊗ ρ1 ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ1/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ1 ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 ⊗ ρ3/2 max |λ| ρ1/2 ρ1 ρ1 ρ3/2 ρ3/2 ρ2 ρ5/2 ρ5/2 ρ3 ρ7/2 max |λ| √ 3 4 √ 2 3 √ 8 9 √ 5 6 √ 2 5 9 √ 3 4 √ 7 √8 37 16 √ 4 5 √ 3 4 Conjecture 3. j3 to nd the eigenvector u of ρj1 +j2 +j3 (S ) with eigenvalue j1 + j2 + j3 − 1. j2 . j2 − 1. j2 .

These calculations rst by will result in nding: v1 Cv1 √ j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j3 ) j1 j2 j3 = √ |j1 . j2 . j2 .15. j2 . j2 − 1. j3 By acting on (P12 ⊗ I) and then by (I ⊗ P23 ) and vice-versa. j2 . j3 j1 + j2 j1 + j2 √ j2 j3 j3 = |j1 . j3 − 1 I ⊗ P23 |j1 . j2 − 1. j2 − 1. j3 − 1 − j1 + j3 v2 = + j2 j3 |j1 . j2 . j3 j1 + j3 These vectors are v1 = j1 |j1 . j3 j1 + j3 (j2 + j3 )(j1 + j2 ) j1 + j3 (j2 + j3 )(j1 + j2 ) 15 . then subtracting the two results gives Cv1 . j3 P12 ⊗ I|j1 − 1. j2 . j3 (j1 + j3 )(j1 + j2 + j3 ) To know how acts on these vectors is equivalent to knowing how P12 ⊗ I and I ⊗ P23 act on 3. j3 j1 + j3 (j2 + j3 )(j1 + j2 ) √ −j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) j3 j1 j2 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) Cv2 = √ |j1 . j3 I ⊗ P23 |j1 − 1. j3 (j1 + j3 )(j1 + j2 + j3 ) C j1 + j3 |j1 . j2 . j2 − 1. j3 = |j1 . j3 j2 + j3 j2 + j3 = |j1 − 1. j3 − 1 − √ |j1 .process. j2 . j2 . j3 − 1 + √ |j1 − 1.13-3. j3 − 1 √ j1 j2 j2 |j1 . j2 . j2 . j3 I ⊗ P23 |j1 . j2 . j2 . we nd an orthonormal basis for the two dimensional space spanned by the eigenvectors of ρj1 +j2 +j3 −1 (S 3 ) with eigenvalue j1 + j2 + j3 − 1. This is given by: P12 ⊗ I|j1 . j2 . j2 . j2 − 1. j3 |j1 − 1. j3 + |j1 − 1. j3 j1 + j3 (j2 + j3 )(j1 + j2 ) j1 + j3 (j2 + j3 )(j1 + j2 ) √ j1 j2 j3 +√ |j1 − 1. j2 . j3 j2 + j3 j2 + j3 √ j2 j3 j2 = |j1 . j3 − 1 + |j1 . j3 − 1 − (j1 + j3 )(j1 + j2 + j3 ) j1 j2 |j1 − 1. j3 = j1 + j2 j1 + j2 √ j1 j2 j1 = |j1 . j3 + |j1 − 1. j2 − 1. The same processes can be used to also nd Cv2 . j2 − 1. j3 − 1 + |j1 . j3 − 1 P12 ⊗ I|j1 . j2 − 1. j2 . j2 .

trix: j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) v2 (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) − j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) v1 (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) √   C can be viewed as a two-dimensional linear transformation described by the ma-   √ 0 j1 j2 j3 (j1 +j2 +j3 ) (j1 +j2 )(j2 +j3 ) − j1 j2 j3 (j1 +j2 +j3 ) (j1 +j2 )(j2 +j3 ) 0 nding the eigenvalues of this matrix.3] E2 . in general. The operator in question that does have a corresponding relationship with this gap is operator from above by a suf 1.3]E2|| Via ||C|| Calculating ||C|| does not directly give us an any information related to the spectral gap G[2.3] E2 and C .3] becomes increasingly more Instead. see G[2.3] (G[1.3] = ker(G[1. We found that with our approach.16) C = j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) 4 Bounding ||G[2. It The desired eigenvalues of C are determined by is fairly apparent that these eigenvalues are: λ=± These are the two eigenvalues of j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) i (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) that correspond to the irreducible representation Calculating the C ρx+y+z−1 . we use the fact that these complex as the size of our Hilbert space increases. have a nontrivial dependence on one another 16 . c results of λ using the spins from the table agreed with the numerical results of C for these cases.1.3] ) where G[1. We know that if we are able to bound this above the ground state of our system. projections have a nonorthogonal intersection to determine a relationship between their norms. This is because the projection matrices corre- sponding to these operators will.3] E2 = G[2.3] E2 can be approximated depends on the angles between the on by G[2. whether the norm of subspaces projected G[2. it is the conjecture of this paper that C = |λ| or (3. speci which is the second largest irreducible in the decomposition.2] − G[1. the hermitian product is used to determine that Cv1 = Cv2 = Thus. Recall that ing with this ciently small number. the spectral gap will be non-zero. Hence. Workoperator is rather dif cult.2] ) ∩ ker(G[2.From here. as the term G[1. We were not able to bound the norm for all cases.3] ).

3] and G[1. append these vectors onto B . and p give the dimensions of the non-zero square blocks in the projectors G[1. however. de ne Before we can create these projectors.2] and G[2. we will be using since a simple calculation can show G[1. To simplify notation.3] =  0   In  A G[1.2] ) G[2.3] ) Let m1 and m2 be the dimensions of G[1.3] . We begin process for rst by de C which we have already con- ning some constants and describing a loose nding a desirable basis for the Hilbert space. G[1. respectively. By adding additional Hilbert space. we will get that the projectors these blocks are either G[1.3] are block diagonalized.3] ] = [I ⊗ P12 .2] orthonormal vectors until we span the whole space. m.3] .2] .3] = Ran(G[1. We begin by and intersection of G[1. G[2. De nition 4.3] .1.2] . De ne three particular subspaces of our Hilbert space by G[1.2] and G[2.2] =  0   In  0 G[1.3] and G[1.3] . the norm of the former is equal to the norm of jectured a calculation. Let n be the dimension of the space spanned by the intersection of m = m2 − n and p = m1 + m2 − n.3] ) G[1.2] . I ⊗ P23 ] Hence.3] .2] = Ran(G[1.3] . Once again. Next. rst choosing an orthonormal basis B of n vectors for the G[2. The rest of this section is dedicated to determining a suf cient condition for which C bounds G[2.as they usually have a nonorthogonal intersection. Append these vectors onto B . the majority of 0's or identity blocks. The constants n. Note that this is also a basis for G[1. G[2.2] and G[2.3] instead of I ⊗ P12 and I ⊗ P23 [G[1. extend this basis to include another m orthonormal vectors to complete a basis G[2.3] =  0 17 . and structurally each one looks like:   In  Im G[2. It is imperative that these m vectors are also orthonormal to the original n vectors. we must rst pick a basis for the G[1. Next.2] . Moreover.3] = Ran(G[2. we create an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space that will make nice projectors.3] E2 . By partitioning the vectors into the sections in which we constructed them. Finally. create another m1 -n orthonormal vectors that are also orthonormal to B to complete a basis for G[1.

2] . So G[1. 18 . the size of A4 is p − m x p − m. Proof. We further break down A into a block of four matrices: A1 . we can also determine the following relations.2. one can easily determine the following:  ||C|| =    0 0 A2 −A∗ 0 2     0  A1 A2 0 0 0     ||G[2.2] is a p x p matrix.19) (4. The matrix A= A1 A2 A3 A4 A∗ = A and A2 = A. [1. and p − m x m. and G2 = G[1. and A is one of the blocks.18) (4.2] . it immediately follows ∗ 2 that A = A.2] is an orthogonal projector. This is not an identity matrix due to the fact that the intersection of G[1. and A = A. A2 + A2 A∗ 1 2 A1 A2 + A2 A4 A∗ A1 + A4 A∗ 2 2 A∗ A2 + A2 2 4 √ Proposition 4. A is an orthogonal projection.2] is a block diagonal matrix.2] and G[2.3] E2 || =    0 From lemma 4. that A2 and A3 are of size m x p − m. Hence.3.3] E2 || ≤ 2||C||.20) A1 satis es ||G[2. and nally. Using the above described matrices.2] satis es G∗ = G[1. A2 .3] E2 || relate. A3 . and A4 such that the size of A1 is m x m. A3 = A∗ .2] . by de nition.17) (4. respectively This break down of A is of the following manner: . A is an orthogonal projection. Given that the matrix = = = = A1 A2 A∗ 2 A4 ||A1 || ≤ 1 .2] Since G[1.2. Lemma 4. and we can replace this for A3 in our block 2 ||C|| The set of the and G matrices gives us all the information needed to analyze how ||G[2. The previously lemma gives that matrix. we will have 2 (4. and thus satis es that G[1. implying that there may be some non-trivial dependence on the basis vectors corresponding to G[1.A in G[1.2] [1.3] is not necessarily orthogonal.

4.22) XC and XGE from above. we choose the rst Lemma 4. Given any eigenvalue ∗ λ(1 − λ) is an eigenvalue of XC XC . Now. Proof. We also know that the norms of XC and XGE are the square roots of their. Proof. From the singular value decomposition of matrices.3] E2 || = ||XGE ||. and they ||G[2.3. C relate.4.The proof of 4. Furthermore. are the only nonzero components of these representations of are on the main diagonal. λ of A1 .21) (4. it follows that ||C|| = ||XC || and ||G[2. Since XC and XGE C and G[2.3] E2 . largest singular values. we know A. de ne XC and XGE to be the following two matrices: XC = XGE = Lemma 4. A∗ A and AA∗ have the same set of nonzero eigenvalues. we know that ||C|| = ||XC || and We now nish with the proof of lemma 4.5. 19 . De ning 0 A2 ∗ −A2 0 A1 A2 0 0 (4. This means we can look at either block to determine how the eigenvalues of ∗ ∗ ∗ XC XC and XGE XGE ∗ block in X XC since it depends only on A1 . we can rewrite the ∗ XC XC = A1 (I − A1 ) 0 0 A3 (I − A3 ) shows that the two new blocks on the main diagonal The original structure of ∗ XC XC will have the same set of nonzero eigenvalues. Thus. respec- tive. for convenience. that for any matrix 2 Since it does not matter which way we multiply the matrices when determining the norm. and XGE as ∗ XGE XGE . We also ∗ ∗ know that ||A|| = ||A A|| = ||AA || when the Euclidean norm induces the operator norm. we choose to multiply we get: XC as ∗ XC XC .17.3] E2 || = ||XGE ||.3 is given directly after the proof of lemma 4. λ is also an eigenvalue of ∗ XGE XGE . From these multiplications. ∗ XC XC = ∗ XGE XGE = A2 A∗ 0 2 0 A∗ A2 2 A1 0 0 0 rst of these two matrices as follows: Using equations 4.

that the following relation holds. A1 has a norm less than or equal to a half. the eigenvalues of are quadratically related to the eigenvalues of ∗ XGE XGE . Trivially . 2 Therefore.3] E2 || ≤ 2||C|| 2 20 . λ is an eigenvalue of ∗ XGE XGE . A1 (I − A1 )v = = = = A1 (Iv − A1 v) A1 (1 − λ)v (1 − λ)A1 v λ(1 − λ)v ∗ Figure 2: A graphic representation of ||XC XC ||. see ∗ ∗ ∗ ||XC XC || ≤ ||XGE XGE || ≤ 2||XC XC || Recall that ||A||2 = ||A∗ A|| = ||A∗ A||.Proof. we know that: ||A1 || ≤ √ 1 ⇔ ||C|| ≤ ||G[2. and ∗ ||XGE XGE || as functions of ||A1 ||. It directly follows that if and only if the largest eigenvalue of gure 2.3] E2 || = ||XGE ||. Then. ∗ XC XC ∗ ||XGE XGE ||. Let v be an associated eigenvector of λ. From here we can nd: ∗ ∗ ∗ ||XC XC || ≤ ||XGE XGE || ≤ 2||XC XC || ⇔ ||XC ||2 ≤ ||XGE ||2 ≤ 2||XC ||2 √ ⇔ ||XC || ≤ ||XGE || ≤ 2||XC || Since ||C|| = ||XC || and ||G[2.

this implies there could be another approach to calculate the explicit value of ||G[2. What ||A1 || as the norm.1200 0. 1. This shows that the process described above does not always work as a means to bound is interesting. is the same when G[2.3] E2 .2380 0.6428 0. 3/2.Table 2: The Corresponding ||A1 || Given the Spins of a System ||A1 || 0. 2 3/2. and thus the method we used to determine which irreducible representation corresponded to ||C|| does not apply for all G[2.3] E2 || given a set of j1 = j2 = j3 = j . 2 7/2.4285 Spins 1/2. 2 3. 1 3/2. 3/2 4.3] E2 || and while in G[2. 2 2. 1/2.3] E2 G[2.2285 0.3] E2 is dif cult to calculate. though.3] E2 || = ||A1 ||.3] E2 )∗ G[2.1111 0. 2. 2.3] E2 is neither Hermitian or antiHence. 3/2. A summary of the numerical results obtained through a Matlab program.4444 0. 3/2 5/2. 1/2. 7/2 3. 1. G[2. we can use the calculation of (G[2. ”What is this matrix always less than a half?” Determining sis described above. 3. 1/2. 4. 2.5.3] E2 .2500 0. 5/2 1.3] E2 to our advantage to obtain some numerical results. is given in the table 4. general A1 and is its norm A1 depends on how one follows the choice of ba- However.2500 0. 3 3. to conjecture which irreducible representation corresponds to ||G[2. cult as calculating C. 1/2 5/2.4285 0. code given in Appendix B.1272 0.3] E2 ||.2500 0. 3.3000 0. in the ||G[2. 1/2.3535 0. Since 21 . 2. further research is required Hermitian.4155 0. Hence. we also have a correlation with the irre- can determine that the singular values of ducible representations of a given system. 1/2. Note that using a similar argument to that of section 2. However.6428 0. 3/2 1/2. 2. numerically it is only as dif .0666 0. 1/2 1. we know that ||A1 || = ||(G[2. is there does seem to be some pattern to cases above. 3/2. These results show that there are indeed cases where ||A1 || > 1/2. 2 1.4444 0. 3 4. 3 3/2.3] E2 )∗ G[2. 2 3/2. 3/2 The most natural question to now address is. 4.3333 0.2500 0. 3 2. 2 1/2. 1.

. By choosing a nice orthonormal basis. I ⊗ P23 ].3] E2 ||. that the spectral gap. we calculated the conjectured value by looking at how C acted on a pair of vectors where each vector was known to belong the span The operator of one of the two copies of the second largest irreducible representation. is dif cult to work with as it requires knowing the zero eigenspace of P12 and P23 . we could break ρ into its irreducible parts. but by using Clebsch-Gordon coef cients. This means.3] E2 || ≤ from calculating ||C||.3] E2 from above by a suf ciently small positive number. that if we are able to bound G[2. c project.e. We know that the spectral gap above the ground state as an inverse relation with ||G[2. which project orthogonally onto the subspaces corresponding to the highest irreducible representations of ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 . in attempts to relate norm of this operator to the norm of G[2. One such system of interest is quantum spin chains. Using the results we showed that as long as ||A1 || ≤ 1/2 that ||C|| ≤ ||G[2. and ||G[2. conjectured value We found the max |λ| to be max |λ| = j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) ||C||. we examined a subsystem of three particles. we worked toward nding a relation- After determining the proposed value of ship between ||C||. we hope to ob- tain a good estimate for the spectral gap above the ground state by looking at a small subsection of a patterned chain (i. this implies that that the norms of these operators depend only on a single matrix ators were orthogonal projectors. one in which the spins are repeated in a speci For this speci c order). Looking at properties of both ρ and C determined a relationship between ||C|| = max |λ| and an irreducible representation in the decomposition of ρ. Furthermore. we de ned and analyzed the operator C = [P12 ⊗ I.3] E2 . and ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 . we determined A. su2. The G[2. 2||C||.3] E2 || ≤ 2j1 j2 j3 (j1 + j2 + j3 ) (j1 + j2 )(j2 + j3 ) 22 . however. Finally.3] E2 ||. While in actuality these chains tend towards the in nite limit. 5 Conclusion Determining the energy gap above the ground state of a given particle system is of great interest in the physics and engineering realms. respectively Instead. depend only on a single block of ||G[2.three spins where all spins are the same value. Since the form of the projectors used to create C was known. call it γ is bounded below by a nonzero positive value. numerical analysis led to the conjecture that this max |λ| is associated with the second largest irreducible representations of ρ.3] E2 . which we mathe- matically represented by taking the tensor product of the irreducible representations of ρ = ρj1 ⊗ ρj2 ⊗ ρj3 was not itself irreducible. and because the oper√ A labeled A1 . the Lie algebra of nal representation This insures that the speci ed spectral gap is non-vanishing.

Numerical solutions. interface(rtablesize = infinity). P23. lambda. 6 Appendix A: Maple Code with (LinearAlgebra).Syz.x. P12. that there may be some nice pattern to ||A1 || and thus to ||G[2.\\ # The dimensions of the highest irreducible representations from the neighboring pairs. Sxy. . b:=y+z-1. one fore each particle in the chain.3] E2 in nding a proof or counterexample to the attempts to calculate its norm explicitly Also. These results also indicated. CommutatorNorm :=proc(dim) local S. new questions regarding what set of spins do and do not imply ||A1 || ≤ 1/2 and other possible approaches to solve the probthat result in lem arise.Id[3])+Kron(Id[2]. x:=dim[1]. #Defining the final lowering operators used to create the projections P12 and P23 Sxy:=Kron(S[1]. conjectured value of ||C|| will provide further information into the direction one might take in approaching the problem in the future. #Defining the three dimensions. Q. however. a:=x+y-1. #Defining local variables a. however. and possibly analyzing the structure and properties of G[2.z.y.i. for i from 1 to 3 do S[i]:=LowOp(dim[i]).3] E2 ||. u.Id[2])+Kron(Id[1]. od. #Creating the first vectors for the highest irreps for the 23 .Id. #Creating the lowering operator and identity matrices associated with each particle in the chain. Possible future research includes determining conditions on the spin that will insure that ||A1 || ≤ 1/2. y:=dim[2].S[3]). Therefore. showed that there are indeed combinations of spins ||A1 || > 1/2.\\ Syz:=Kron(S[2]. z:=dim[3].S[2]).b.v. Id[i]:=IdentityMatrix(dim[i]).

Id[3]). The source code I used was found at http://www. u[1]:=StdVec(x*y). # The function LowOP makes the individual lowering operators of each particle. Matrix(x. P12:=basis(a. Vector(d. # The final operator C and the printing out the matrix lambda consisting of the eigenvalues of C. StdVec:=proc(d) local s. Here. This code is not found in the version of Maple I used.P. u[1].s). #The function StdVec makes the std basis vector e_1 for the given dimension d. s:={1=1}.j)->piecewise(j=i-1. v[1].Sxy).1 24 .Id[3]). P23:=basis(b.sqrt(j*(x-j))). x=2s+1 where s is the spin of the particle. f:=(i.P23).j.P23)-Kron(Id[1].(i-1)*RowDimension(B)+RowDimension(B). #The function Kron defines the tensor product of two matrices.f.Kron(Id[1].ColumnDimension(B)): for i to RowDimension(A) do for j to ColumnDimension(A) do P:=ScalarMultiply(B.B::Matrix) local M.. end.i. M:=Matrix(RowDimension(A)*RowDimension(B).f).Syz). end. LowOp:=proc(x) local i.mapleprimes. C:=Kron(P12.Kron(P12.neighboring pairs. It puts the values j*(x-j) in the jth column. Then creating the two projections. end.com/forum/kronecker/tensor-products Kron:=proc(A::Matrix. v[1]:=StdVec(y*z). lamba:=Eigenvalues(C). ColumnDimension(A)*ColumnDimension(B)): P:=Matrix(RowDimension(B).A[i.j]): M[1+(i-1)*RowDimension(B).j.

%Output: The eigenvalues (in decreasing order) of the operator A1. w[i]]. A. It uses the lowering operator to get a new independent vector in the span. od.w[i]. Each row consists of the spins for a chain of %three particles.Rt. R:=Matrix(A).+(j-1)*ColumnDimension(B). which %satisfies ||G_23E_2||ˆ2=||A1|| and the dimensions of all irreps of the 3 %particle spin chain. P:=R. 7 Appendix B: Matlab Code %Program: Energy Values of G_23E_2 %Input: A matrix A of spins.. w[d]:=w[d]/norm. w[i+1]:=S. basis:=proc(d. #The function basis creates the basis for the subspace acted on by the highest irreducible representation of a pair of particles.x. the projector is made by taking the sum of the tensor product of each vector with itself. w[1]:=x.(j-1)*ColumnDimension(B) +ColumnDimension(B)]:=P: od. Finally.2. Both are sent out of the program as arrays.2. Rt. od. w[i]:=w[i]/norm. for i from 1 to d do A:=[op(A).S) local w. A:=[]. Rt:=HermitianTranspose(R). M.conjugate=true). end.conjugate=true). end. The result is an orthonormal basis. 25 . and then normalizes the vector. R. norm. od. P. norm:=VectorNorm(w[d]. for i from 1 to d-1 do norm:=VectorNorm(w[i].

j)=sqrt(j*(dim(1)-j)).j)=sqrt(j*(dim(3)-j)).j)=sqrt(j*(dim(2)-j)).eye(dim(3)))+kron(eye(dim(2)). irreps]=energyvalues(A) A for i=1:3 dim(i)=2*A(i)+1. v. end S2=zeros(dim(2). S23).dim(3)). u.function [enval. end S3=zeros(dim(3). The number at the end of the S denotes its position %in the chain of three particles. %u and v are the eigenvectors of the S_3 operator on each neighboring pair %with the highest eigenvalue.1). S12). S3). These are also known to be two vectors %correlating to the highest irreducible representation. u(1)=1. v(1)=1.dim(2)).1).eye(dim(2)))+kron(eye(dim(1)). 26 .dim(1)). P12=projector(dim(1)+dim(2)-1. end %The next section of code creates the lowering operators for each %individual particle. %Creates the projectors by sending to a projector making function. for j=1:dim(3)-1 S3(j+1. u=zeros(dim(1)*dim(2). for j=1:dim(2)-1 S2(j+1. P23=projector(dim(2)+dim(3)-1. %-------------------------------------------------------S1=zeros(dim(1). S2). S12=kron(S1. S23=kron(S2. v=zeros(dim(2)*dim(3). end %---------------------------------------------------------%Creating the lowering operators that act on the two neighboring pairs of %particles. for j=1:dim(1)-1 S1(j+1.

l=0. P23). for s=A(1)+A(2):-1:abs(A(1)-A(2)) k=k+1. end %final l is the final number of cols. 27 . P23). %The zero eigenvectors of this operator are used to create G13. and the matrix A1. G23E2=G23*G12-G13. enval=swap(enval). which acts on the whole Hilbert space.l)=s. irreps12(k. G12=eye(dim(1)*dim(2)*dim(3))-kron(P12. for s=irreps12(1. %--------------------------------------------------------------------k=0. I(i. %enval=eig(G23E2). %swap(eig(G23E2)) %norm(G23E2) %swap(eig(A1)) %norm(A1) enval=eig(A1). for i=2:k j=0.1)-A(3)) l=l+1. Q=null(P). %The final operator G_23E_2. %Creates the projection onto the null space of the projectors of the %highest irreps.%P is the sum of the two projectors. for s=irreps12(i. G13=Q*Q'. eye(dim(3)))+kron(eye(dim(1)). which %projects onto the intersection of the kernel of these two projections.1)+A(3):-1:abs(irreps12(i.1)=s. end %final k is the final number of rows. P=kron(P12. A1=G23E2'*G23E2. eye(dim(3))).1)+A(3):-1:abs(irreps12(1. %The next protion of code determines the spins associated with the %irreducible representations for the given system of three particles.1)-A(3)) j=j+1. I(1. G23=eye(dim(1)*dim(2)*dim(3))-kron(eye(dim(1)).j)=s.

%Once I have the matrix filled in. %Since I know -1 will not be a size of an irrep. w=w/norm(w). irreps=irreps'. I will read off %the values that are not -1 into an array for the %final irrep vector. %I use this to fill in space to complete the matrix. w. %------------------------------------------------------------------function P=projector(n. P=w*w'.j)˜=-1 m=m+1. irreps=swap(irreps). m=0. irreps(m)=I(i. %The next functions create the Projectors for the program. end end function v=swap(u) %Takes in a vector u. for i=2:n w=S*w.j). end end end %Sorting the irrep vector into descending order like the enval vector. %Sends back vector with its entries ordered from largest to smallest %in value. P=P+w*w'. irreps=irreps'.end end if j<l for m=j+1:l I(i.m)=-1. S) %n=number of vectors in largest irrep %w=initial vector in largest irrep %S=lowering operator used to create other vectors. 28 . end end %Creating final irrep vector by throwing out -1 entries in the matrix. for i=1:k for j=1:l if I(i. %Sends back the projector P.

Finitely correlated states of quantum spin chains. 20 Dec. part 1. Nachtergaele. Commun. 565–606.” Online Posting. References [1] Hannabuss. Commun.end end v=-u. B. New York. 1997. and R. Fannes. Nachtergaele. 175 (1996). and Nonrelativistic Quantum Systems. [3] B.mapleprimes. Fritz Gesztesy et al. Quantum Field Theory. American Mathematical Society 2007. The spectral gap for some spin chains with discrete symmetry breaking. Nachtergaele. (Eds). . arXiv:math-ph/0603017. 443–490. in Spectral Theory and Mathemat- ical Physics: A Festschrift in Honor of Barry Simon's 60th Birthday. v=-v. Phys. Math. Quantum Spin Systems after DLS1978.: An Introduction to Quantum Theory Oxford Grad. Text in Math. pp 47–68.com/ 29 . Math. [4] B. Statistical Mechanics. F. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics. v=sortrows(v). K. Oxford University Press. 144 (1992). Werner. [2] M. > [5] ”Kronecker Product. Phys. 2006 forum/kronecker/tensor-products <http://www. V olume 76.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful