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

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

171 submissions , 136 unreviewed
4,258 questions , 1,606 unanswered
5,064 answers , 21,511 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
615 active unimported users
More ...

  Partial Transpose in Gapped Time-reversal Symmetric Spin Chains

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
39 views

Suppose you have a one-dimensional quantum spin system with on-site Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{S}$. Suppose there is an anti-unitary, anti-linear operator $C$ on $\mathcal{S}$ inducing an anti-linear, anti-unitary operator $C_X$ on any $\mathcal{H}_{X} := \bigotimes_{x \in X} \mathcal{S}$.

In this situation one can define a partial transpose; namely consider disjoint subsets $X_1,X_2 \subset \mathbb{Z}$ and let $A = A_1 \otimes A_2$ be a operator on $\mathcal{H}_{X_1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{X_2}$. Then define the partial transpose to be the $\mathbb{C}$-linear extension of

$$ (A_1 \otimes A_2)^{T_1} = (C_{X_1} A_1^* C_{X_1}) \otimes A_2 \ .$$

Assume $\Omega$ is a injective translation invariant matrix product state symmetric under $C_{\mathbb{Z}}$. Consider two adjacent disjoint intervals $X_1,X_2$ and $X = X_1 \cup X_2$ and let $L = \min(|X_1|,|X_2|)$. Then

$$ \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \text{Tr}(\rho_X^{T_1} \rho_X) = \pm \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \text{Tr}(\rho_X^2)^{\frac{3}{2}} \ . $$

Here, if $\mathcal{C}$ implements $C$ on the auxiliary space, the sign is $+1$ if $\mathcal{C}$ is a real structure and $-1$ if $\mathcal{C}$ is quaternionic.

1) Are some references to this? Is this known? I know that people have calculated some things with partial transposes in critical systems, but for gapped systems? There is of course the work by Shinsei Ryu et al, but they work with fermionic systems (which is my goal as well) and they don't seem to give proofs.

I want to conclude: since MPS states are dense in Hilbert space, the above then holds for all $C$-invariant states.

2) In going from the statement about MPS to general states: what could go wrong? For example, there is the problem of frustration, which i think plays no role here because i am considering pure states in the thermodynamic limit.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lorenz Mayer
asked Apr 11 in Theoretical Physics by Lorenz Mayer (20 points) [ no revision ]
I don't know any references on this, but in 1D you could presumably use a Jordan-Wigner transformation and use the fermionic results. By the way, it'd be good if you'd add link to Ryu's work in the post.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Anyon
Do I understand correctly that a special case would be the "normal" partial transpose, with a wavefunction with real coefficients?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Norbert Schuch
A real structure is just a way to formalize what is meant when we say a wave function has real coefficients, so yes.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lorenz Mayer
I did it on the AKLT state... for MPS i am also pretty confident because one can do the calculation (its just a bit lengthy). I am more wondering what could go wrong in going from a statement about MPS to a statement about all states.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lorenz Mayer
I have a calculation for MPS, and i want to conclude from there a statement about all pure translation invariant exponentially clustering $C$-symmetric ground states by taking limits.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lorenz Mayer
"since MPS states are dense" -- What precisely do you mean by that? (Ordering of limits! Dense in what?)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Norbert Schuch
Interesting equation. Do you know why homogeneity is not preserved in your equation?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user lcv
@lcv Why should homogeneity be preserved in the first place?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Norbert Schuch
Hi @NorbertSchuch, well, I haven't said it should be preserved. But in general is a very strong property, (like inequalities are preserved taking limit). It is quite possible that it is simply hidden, i.e. the RHS could have a factor $1/\mathrm{Tr} (\rho_X )$

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user lcv
@lcv Basically, yes, there is a normalization "hidden". In terms of the entanglement spectrum $\Lambda$ (of the half-chain), the LHS is $\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda^2)^3$ and the trace in the RHS is $\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda^2)^2\,\mathrm{tr}(\Lambda)^2$, which is homogeneous in $\Lambda$ (and thus in the state). Normalization implies $\mathrm{tr}\Lambda=1$, which then yields the relation above between the two traces.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Norbert Schuch
@NorbertSchuch, great thanks! All is good under the sun. (The issue it's not entirely 'accademic'. We may decide to normalize probabilities to $\lambda$. Indeed in some communities they pick $\lambda=100$). Have a good day

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-04-13 07:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user lcv

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$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
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).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...