Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

206 submissions , 164 unreviewed
5,103 questions , 2,249 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,794 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  What is a free fermion model?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
1883 views

Title says it all really.. Why is the XX spin chain a free fermion (non-interacting) model, and the XXZ chain not?

Is it right that $\sum_l a_l^\dagger a_{l+1}$ isn't an interaction between fermions because it's creating a fermion on one site and destroying it on another? But why is $\sum_l a_l^\dagger a_l a_{l+1}^\dagger a_{l+1}$ an interaction term?

Is something like

\begin{equation} H_1 = -\sum_l (J+(-1)^lK) ( \sigma_l^x \sigma_{l+1}^x +\sigma_l^y \sigma_{l+1}^y) \end{equation}

a free fermion model? If not, why not?

Edit I don't have enough reputation to set a bounty, but if anyone could answer this question, I'd be very grateful!

Edit 2 Anyone?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user user6050
asked Nov 8, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by user6050 (15 points) [ no revision ]
lcv's answer to this question physics.stackexchange.com/q/2014/2451 seems relevant, see physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2014/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@Qmechanic Thank you for replying. As far I can see, Icv's answer just mentions free fermion models but doesn't say what they actually are, which is what I'm asking.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user user6050
Whenever the Hamiltonian may be written as at most bilinear polynomial of the basic fields, it's a "free theory". Free fermion models are models with at most quadratic terms in the fermions. Such Hamiltonians are solvable in terms of one-particle states that are occupied by particles which move independently of each other. Higher-than-quadratic terms in fermions are called "interacting" because they interact: energy eigenstates can't be easily obtained from free one-particle states. If you use Feynman diagrams, interactions produce vertices of the diagrams.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
@LubošMotl Thank you. So the example Hamiltonian is a free fermion model since in fermions, it only contains $\sum_l a_l^\dagger a_{l+1}$ and $\sum_l (-1)^l a_l^\dagger a_{l+1}$ type terms. By this reasoning, even a spin chain $H_2 = - \sum_l J_l (\sigma_l^x \sigma_{l+1}^x + \sigma_l^y \sigma_{l+1}^y)$ where $J_l$ is different for each $l$ is a free fermion model. Is that right?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user user6050
@LubošMotl Also, if you were to expand your comment as an answer, I'd be happy to accept it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user user6050

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

To expand on LubošMotl's comment, see the following classic paper by Lieb, Schultz and Mattis. For one-dimensional systems and nearest neighbor interactions, the spin chain that you mention as an example in the comment can be converted into a free fermionic model. See section II in the above paper for details.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-06 02:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vijay Murthy
answered Dec 2, 2011 by Vijay Murthy (90 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...