text:
# Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension

## Abstract

We analyze the phase stability and the response of a mixture of bosons and spin-polarized fermions in one dimension (1D). Unlike in 3D, phase separation happens for low fermion densities. The dynamics of the mixture at low energy is independent of the spin-statistics of the components, and zero-sound-like modes exist that are essentially undamped.

Binary mixtures of dilute quantum gases are a subject of steadily growing interest initiated by the realization of Bose Einstein condensation (BEC) of alkali atoms BEC  and motivated by the quest for and subsequent experimental realization of degenerate Fermi gas Jin . Strong *s*-wave interactions which facilitate evaporative cooling of bosons are absent among spin polarized fermions due to the exclusion principle; so the method of choice for cooling fermions to degeneracy has been through the mediation of fermions in another spin state Jin  or via a buffer gas of bosons Truscott ; Schreck . Degeneracy in dilute gases can be understood better than in their liquid helium counterparts due to the weaker interactions, and thus they offer prospects of detailed quantitative study of some of the most interesting phenomena in the physics of many body quantum systems such as the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) transition BCS .

On another front a new generation of BEC experiments on surface micro-traps Ott  and experiments on creating atomic waveguides Leanhardt  have generated interest in quantum gases in lower dimensions. Effective one and two dimensional BECs have been created, in which excitations in the confined directions are energetically not allowed Gorlitz . Bose condensation on optical lattices Greiner  are being actively studied by several groups; the atoms at each lattice site can be in regimes of effective 1D.

It is therefore a natural step to bring these two exciting developments together and consider binary mixtures of quantum gases in effective 1D, with the possibility of forming one dimensional degenerate Fermi gases and fermionic waveguides. Fermions in one dimension have been the subject and the source of some seminal models in many-body quantum physics Luttinger  mainly because they are theoretically more tractable than in 3D. Now there is actually the possibility of testing some of these models experimentally. Considerable recent theoretical work has already been done on three dimensional Bose-Fermi mixtures Molmer ; Stoof ; Viverit1 ; Minguzzi ; Yip ; Miyakawa1 ; Albus ; Roth ; Pu ; Viverit2  but very little has been said about one dimensional systems. The goal of this paper is to study theoretically some of the relevant properties of binary mixtures of bosons and spin polarized fermions in an effective one dimensional configuration. In particular we will consider their miscibility properties, phase stability and their excitations.

Model: We consider a longitudinally homogeneous one dimensional mixture of $`N_b`$ hard-core bosons with mass $`m_b`$ and $`N_f`$ spin-polarized fermions with mass $`m_f`$ at $`T=0`$ K. A natural choice of trap-geometry to consider such a mixture is in a toroidal trap Sauer ; Sackett  with no external potential along the circumference (of length $`L`$), but with tight cylindrically symmetric harmonic confinement of frequency $`\omega _0`$ in the transverse direction. This geometry can equally well be interpreted as an infinitely long, straight waveguide with periodic boundary conditions. For the atoms to have effective 1D behavior at zero temperature the ground state energy of the transverse trapping potential has to be much higher than the ground state energy of the bosons and the fermions in 3D, i.e. $`\mathrm{}\omega _0\mu _{b(3D)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _0ϵ_{f(3D)}`$ where $`\mu _{b(3D)}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_b/m_b`$ is the bosonic chemical potential and $`ϵ_{f(3D)}=\mathrm{}^2(6\pi ^2n_{f(3D)})^{2/3}/(2m_f)`$ the Fermi energy of non-interacting fermions, both in 3D. A measure of the transverse spatial extent of the atoms in the ring is given by the single-particle ground state widths for the transverse trap, $`r_k=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_k\omega _0}`$ where $`kb,f`$ and $`bf`$ correspond to bosons, fermions and *twice* the reduced mass of a boson and a fermion $`m_{bf}=2m_fm_b/(m_f+m_b)`$. A torus of high aspect ratio would have $`Lr_k`$.

Our treatment of the 1D Bose-Fermi mixture will rely on an effective Hamiltonian describing the longitudinal behavior of the gas in the toroidal trap

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_b}_x^2\mu _b+\frac{g_b}{2}\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_b\right]\widehat{\psi }_b}`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑x\widehat{\psi }_f^{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_f}_x^2\mu _f\right]\psi _f}+g_{bf}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_b\psi _f^{}\psi _f}`$
Here $`\widehat{\psi }_b(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_f(x)`$ are field operators for the longitudinal degree of freedom and $`x`$ is the circumferential spatial coordinate. We have assumed factorization of the transverse degrees of freedom; such a factorization is justified in regimes of effective 1D crossover  since the transverse spatial dependency is that of the single particle ground states $`\varphi _{b0}(r)`$ and $`\varphi _{f0}(r)`$ for the trapping potential regardless of the longitudinal behavior or statistics. Thus our effective 1D coupling strengths for the boson-boson and boson-fermion $`g_{bf}`$ interactions are

$`g_b={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_b}{m_b}}{\displaystyle 2\pi r𝑑r|\varphi _{b0}(r)|^4}=2\mathrm{}\omega _0a_b`$
$`g_{bf}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{bf}}{m_{bf}}}{\displaystyle 2\pi r𝑑r|\varphi _{b0}(r)|^2|\varphi _{f0}(r)|^2}=2\mathrm{}\omega _0a_{bf}`$ (2)
with $`a_b`$ and $`a_{bf}`$ being the respective scattering lengths. The linear density operators are $`\widehat{\rho }_b(x)=\widehat{\psi }_b^{}(x)\widehat{\psi }_b(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_f(x)=\widehat{\psi }_f^{}(x)\widehat{\psi }_f(x)`$, with spatially constant equilibrium expectations $`n_b=N_b/L`$ $`n_f=N_f/L`$; the density fluctuation operators are therefore $`\widehat{\delta \rho }_b(x)=\widehat{\rho }_b(x)n_b`$ and $`\widehat{\delta \rho }_f(x)=\widehat{\rho }_f(x)n_f`$.

*Phase stability in the static limit*: We first consider the mixture in static equilibrium in which case the expectations of the fluctuation operators are zero; the kinetic energy of the bosons vanishes while the kinetic energy for the fermions contributes the Fermi energy per particle $`ϵ_f=g_fn_f^2/3`$, with $`g_f=\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2/(2m_f)`$ and the Fermi wave-vector $`k_f=\pi n_f`$. In this static case the *total* number of particles is fixed, so we take the ground state expectation of the *canonical* Hamiltonian for the system and thus obtain a simple expression for the total energy of a *uniform* mixture of bosons and fermions at equilibrium

$`E_u=L\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g_b}{2}}n_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{3}}n_f^3+g_{bf}n_bn_f\right].`$ (3)
The first derivative of this with respect to the densities yield the Thomas-Fermi equations

$`\mu _b=g_bn_b+g_{bf}n_f\mu _f=g_{bf}n_b+g_fn_f^2,`$ (4)
for the chemical potentials, and the derivative with respect to the linear-volume (L) gives the pressure

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{E}{L}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_b}{2}}n_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_f}{3}}n_f^3+g_{bf}n_bn_f.`$ (5)
The second derivative condition for a stable minimum with respect to small changes in the densities puts a *lower limit* on the fermion density

$`n_f{\displaystyle \frac{g_{bf}^2}{2g_fg_b}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{bf}^2}{a_br_f^2}}.`$ (6)
This constraint is the opposite of that in 3D where the stability condition puts an *upper limit* on the fermion density. The reason for the difference is that the power law of the density dependency of the Fermi energy changes with dimensionality. The energy contribution from the Fermi pressure grows faster as a function of linear density in 1D than it does with increase in bulk density in 3D, however the boson-fermion interaction energy behaves similarly in 3D and in 1D with respect to bulk density and linear density respectively; thus at higher fermion densities, the total energy in 1D is more likely to be lowered if the fermions are spread out over a larger volume mixed in with the bosons.

The stability criterion in (6) applies for small fluctuations, we now analyze the general phase stability for a Bose-Fermi mixture in 1D; such an analysis was done for mixtures in 3D by Viverit *et al.* Viverit1 . A binary mixture can have at most two distinct phases that we label $`i=1,2`$. The linear volume occupied by each phase is $`L_i`$, the number of bosons (fermions) therein $`N_{b(f),i}`$ and the corresponding densities $`n_{b(f),i}=N_{b(f),i}/L_i`$. The volume fractions of the phases are $`\mathrm{}=L_1/L`$ and $`1\mathrm{}=L_2/L`$ and ratio of the densities in the two phases are labelled $`\eta _{b(f)}=n_{b(f),1}/n_{b(f),2}`$. The total energy for the phase-separated mixture is

$`E_s={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}L_iE_i={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}L_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g_b}{2}}n_{b,i}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{3}}n_{f,i}^3+g_{bf}n_{b,i}n_{f,i}\right]`$ (7)
Equilibrium between the phases require

$`(a)p_1=p_2;(b)\mu _{b(f),1}=\mu _{b(f),2}`$
$`(c)\mu _{b(f),i}>\mu _{b(f),j}\mathrm{if}n_{b(f),i}=0,`$ (8)
where the pressure and chemical potentials in each phase are given by Eqs. (4) and (5) with the total densities *replaced* by partial densities. We will use the identity $`\mathrm{}n_{b(f),1}+(1\mathrm{})n_{b(f),2}=n_{b(f)}`$ in Eq. (3) to evaluate the energy $`E_u`$ of the uniform phase to compare with the energy $`E_s`$ of the phase-separated mixture in Eq. (7). It is convenient to introduce density measures in terms of the interaction strengths: $`C_f=g_{bf}^2/(g_fg_b)`$ for fermions and $`C_b=g_{bf}^3/(g_fg_b^2)`$ for bosons. There four possible ways of phase separation, the feasibility of each is determined by the specific nature of the conditions (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension) and the principle of minimum energy. We now discuss each case, leaving out the somewhat tedious algebra for brevity.

(i) Two pure phases : The fermions are all in one phase and the bosons in the other, so we set $`n_{f,1}=n_{b,2}=0`$. The equilibrium conditions (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensiona) and (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensionc) constrain the partial densities: $`n_{f,2}3C_f/4`$ and $`n_{b,1}3C_b/4`$. When those conditions are used in Eqs. (3) and (7) they give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\left[E_uE_s\right](1\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_F}{3}}n_{F,2}^30,`$ (9)
which means that the separated phase has lower energy for all values of the volume fraction $`\mathrm{}[0,1]`$ and hence is energetically preferred in the density regimes where phase equilibrium is possible:

$`n_f(1\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}C_fn_b\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}C_b.`$ (10)
(ii) A mixed phase and purely bosonic phase : The fermions are all in one phase, $`n_{f,1}=0`$ but there are bosons in both phases. The two equations arising from pressure equality (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensiona) and the equality of boson chemical potentials (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensionb) fix the fermion partial density $`n_{f,2}=3C_f/4`$ which obeys the condition $`n_{f,2}C_f`$ due to the inequality of the fermion chemical potentials $`\mu _{f,1}\mu _{f,2}`$. Then it follows from $`\mu _{b,1}=\mu _{b,2}`$ that $`n_{b,1}n_{b,2}=3C_b/4`$.

On applying the equations for the partial pressures and the boson chemical potentials to Eqs. (3) and (7) we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\left[E_uE_s\right]=(1\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_F}{3}}n_{F,2}^30.`$ (11)
so that the separated phase is energetically preferred in this case as well, in the density regimes given by

$`n_f=(1\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{3C_f}{4}}n_b=n_{b,2}+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{3C_b}{4}}`$ (12)
that do not overlap with those of the previous case.

(iii) A mixed phase and purely fermionic one : All the bosons are in one phase, $`n_{b,2}=0`$ while the fermions can be in both phases. The phase equilibrium conditions require that the fermion density ratio $`\eta _f(0,1)`$ and that it satisfies the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3n_{f,2}}{2C_f}}(1+\eta _f)^2=(2+\eta _f).`$ (13)
This limits the fermion density in the second phase to be $`C_f/2n_{f,2}4C_f/3`$. However on using the equality of partial pressures (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensiona) and that of the fermion chemical potentials in the two phases, $`\mu _{f,1}=\mu _{f,2}`$ we find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\left[E_uE_s\right]=\mathrm{}(1\mathrm{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_F}{3}}[n_{F,1}n_{F,2}]^30,`$ (14)
where the inequality holds because $`\eta _f1`$. The uniform mixture will thus be energetically preferred for all values of $`\mathrm{}`$, hence this phase separation will not occur.

(iv) Two mixed phases : Finally we consider the case where both phases have fermions as well as bosons. There are three equations arising from the equilibrium conditions (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensiona) and (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimensionb) which lead to the following equation for the fermion density ratio

$`(1\eta _f)^3=0`$ (15)
with solution $`\eta _f=1`$ which, due to $`\mu _{b,1}=\mu _{b,2}`$, also implies that the boson density ratio $`\eta _b=1`$ which means that the only allowed solution is when the entire system is uniform, and there is no phase separation of this type.

The allowed phases for different linear densities are plotted in Fig. (1); phase separation occurs for low fermion densities, in qualitative agreement with the linear stability condition. Taking the bulk density to be $`n_{f(3D)}n_f/\pi r_f^2`$, the criteria for single phase $`n_f>\frac{3}{4}C_f`$ and effective one-dimensionality $`ϵ_{f(3D)}\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ give the limits of fermion density for which bosons and fermions in 1D can coexist in a single phase: $`a_{bf}^2/(a_br_f^2)<n_f<1/r_f`$. Transverse trap widths $`r_f1\mu `$m achievable currently would allow single phase mixtures for fermion bulk densities up to $`n_{f(3D)}10^{18}`$ m-3, which corresponds to the density of the coldest 6Li samples in a recent experiment Hadzibabic  that created a degenerate system of bosons (23Na) and fermions (6Li) in 3D. Scattering lengths for alkali atoms are of the order of $`110`$ nm, that would allow a range of few orders of magnitude of fermion density where a stable uniform 1D mixture of bosons and fermions would form; this range can be widened by increasing the transverse trap strength or reducing the boson-fermion scattering length. Unlike in 3D, phase separation effects in 1D can be observed by reducing the density which is usually easier to do than increasing it.

*Dynamic response*: We now consider the dynamical properties of the mixture. For weak interaction strengths and low energy modes we can use linear response theory which is a convenient formulation of first order time-dependent perturbation theory in the interaction picture. We consider small density fluctuations of the bosons and the fermions about equilibrium. The boson fluctuation can be considered a density dependent perturbation for the fermions and vice versa, so that we have two coupled linear equations for the expectation of the density fluctuations $`\delta \rho _b(x)`$ and $`\delta \rho _f(x)`$

$`\delta \rho _b(q,\omega )=\chi _bg_{bf}\delta \rho _f(q,\omega )`$
$`\delta \rho _f(q,\omega )=\chi _fg_{bf}\delta \rho _b(q,\omega )`$ (16)
with retarded density-density response functions

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}|n|\widehat{\delta \rho }^{}(𝐤)|0|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _{n0}}{(\omega +i\eta )^2\omega _{n0}^2}}\right].`$ (17)
The small imaginary shift $`i\eta `$ preserves causality and the ground state $`|0`$ represents the Fermi sea for the fermions and the condensate for bosons. In the Bogoliubov approximation for the bosons the response function as well as the quasi-particle spectrum in 1D have algebraic forms identical to those in 3D and are given by

$`\chi _b(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{n_bq^2}{m_b[\omega ^2\omega _b^2(q)]}}`$
$`\omega _b(q)^2=(ϵ_q/\mathrm{})^2+(v_bq)^2`$ (18)
with free quasiparticle energy $`ϵ_q=\mathrm{}^2q^2/(2m_b)`$ and sound velocity $`v_b=\sqrt{g_bn_b/m_b}`$ .The poles correspond to the energies of the collective modes which are undamped in the Bogoliubov approximation.

The fermions being spin-polarized do not have s-wave interaction so that the response function for the fermions is taken to be that for free fermions; unlike the bosonic response function this has a form in 1D quite distinct from that in 3D:

$`\chi _f(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{m_f}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2q}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega +i\eta )^2\omega _{}^2}{(\omega +i\eta )^2\omega _+^2}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{}^2\omega _\pm ^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^4}{4m_f^2}}((k_f\pm q)^2k_f^2)^2`$ (19)
The calculation leading from the general expression Eq. (17) to Eq. (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension) is analogous to that in 3D FandW  with the Fermi-sphere replaced by a “Fermi-interval” $`[k_F,k_F]`$. It is apparent that $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _f(q,\omega )0`$ only if $`|\omega _{}||\omega ||\omega _+|`$.

The low energy, long wavelength collective modes are of particular experimental interest, so we do a Taylor expansion of the expression (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension) for the fermionic response function $`\chi _f`$ for small values of $`q`$, but keeping the ratio of the energy transfer to momentum transfer $`\omega /q`$ constant. The result is quite interesting

$`\chi _f(q,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{n_fq^2}{m_f[(\omega +i\eta )^2\omega _f(q)^2]}}`$
$`\omega _f(q)^2=(ϵ_q/\mathrm{})^2+(v_fq)^2.`$ (20)
It is apparent that if we replace the Bogoliubov sound velocity with the Fermi velocity $`v_bv_f=\mathrm{}k_f/m`$, the real part of this limiting form is *identical* to the Bogoliubov density-density response function; and the spectrum corresponding to its poles are identical in form with that of the Bogoliubov poles.

This equivalence of the bosonic and fermionic density fluctuations is distinctly a property of one dimension with no analog in higher dimensions. Such an equivalence is not surprising when one recalls the Luttinger liquid model of Haldane Haldane  where the low energy behavior of quantum fluids in one dimension were shown to be independent of spin-statistics. However it is important to note that the fermionic response function that we consider above is that for free fermions while the Luttinger-Tomonaga Luttinger  model assumes long range interactions among the fermions.

The absence of interaction among fermions distinguishes the qualitative nature of the fermionic excitations from the Bogoliubov modes, despite the similarity in the low energy structure of the response functions. Strictly speaking the fermionic excitations are elementary excitations, whereas the Bogoliubov modes are collective modes of the bosons for which the interactions play a central role. One could of course interpret the fermionic excitations as zero sound modes in the limit of vanishing interaction; in that limit we recall that the zero sound velocity coincides with the Fermi velocity even in 3D.

The similarity of the response functions at low energies combined with the fact that homogeneous Bogoliubov modes have the same form in 1D and 3D allows us to directly apply the results obtained for spatially uniform binary mixtures of bosons in three dimensions to the Bose-Fermi mixtures in 1D. As an example, we consider the normal modes of the mixture determined by the vanishing of the coefficient determinant of the response equations (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension), $`1g_{bf}^2\chi _b\chi _f=0`$, which leads to an expression for the normal mode velocities similar to that for binary mixtures of bosons in 3D

$`v_\pm ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(v_b^2+v_f)\pm \sqrt{(v_bv_f)^2+4g_{bf}^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_fn_b}{m_fm_b}}}\right].`$ (21)
Here we have used the linear dispersions $`\omega _b(q)v_bq`$ and $`\omega _f(q)v_fq`$ for long wavelength modes. Hydrodynamic equations for boson-fermion density fluctuations in the collisional regime also give a similar expression for the sound velocities Minguzzi , but with the crucial difference that the fermion sound velocity in that case is that of first sound. In the static limit $`q0`$ we find that the condition $`v_\pm ^20`$, necessary for positive compressibility, leads to the same condition obtained earlier in Eq. (6) from energy considerations.

The frequencies corresponding to the original low energy Bogoliubov phonons shift due to the interaction with the fermions by about $`\delta \omega =\omega _qv_bqn_fn_bg_{bf}^2q^2/m_bm_f(v_b^2v_f^2)`$; the shift is positive or negative depending on whether $`v_b>v_f`$ or $`v_b<v_f`$, similar to the behavior in 3D Yip . But these modes in the mixed system differ from their analog in 3D mixtures in that they are not damped unless the velocity matches the Fermi velocity as seen from Eq. (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension). In 3D mixtures, such modes are damped if $`v_b<v_f`$.

For modes with higher momentum where the exact fermion response function (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension) has to be used, there is damping for mode frequencies in the range $`|\omega _{}||\omega ||\omega _+|`$ with the damping rate given to lowest order by $`\gamma mc_bg_{bf}^2/(4\mathrm{}^2g_b)`$. The key difference from 3D is that this rate is *independent* of the mode.

The exact fermionic response function (Bose-Fermi Mixtures in One Dimension) in one dimension has several interesting features distinct from 3D. For zero energy transfer it is seen that $`\chi _f(q,0)`$ has a logarithmic divergence at $`q=2k_f`$ due to perfect nesting, whereas in 3D the derivative of the response function is divergent, which leads to Friedel oscillations. In 1D Bose-Fermi mixtures, the logarithmic divergence of response function leads to periodic density variations in the fermions of period $`2k_f`$ associated with the formation of coherent superposition of particle-hole pair states called the Peierls channel Gruner . Due to the boson-fermion density coupling, the bosons acquire a similar periodicity but out of phase with the fermion density modulation as demonstrated variationally by Miyakawa *et al.* Miyakawa .

In conclusion, we have studied the phase stability of a boson-fermion mixture in one dimension and demonstrated that phase separation would occur at low fermion densities a behavior opposite to that in 3D. This means that phase separation effects may be studied at densities easier to achieve than in 3D. The regimes of coexistence of bosons and fermions in the same space are within the reach of experimental capabilities, and there is the exciting prospect of creating degenerate fermions in one dimension. Also we have shown that the low energy density-density response of free fermions is identical in form to that of weakly interacting bosons; this means that binary mixtures will have similar normal modes regardless of whether the components are bosons or fermions. These modes are analogous to zero sound modes and are essentially undamped at low momenta. Away from the low energy regime, the similarity of response functions does not hold, and the fermionic response in 1D acquires interesting features, in particular a logarithmic divergence at twice the Fermi momentum which leads to periodic density modulation of the system analogous to Friedel oscillations.

We appreciate valuable conversations with Tom Bergeman, Takahiko Miyakawa, Chris Search, and Ewan Wright. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research grant N00014-99-1-0806.


format: text

text:
# Half-quantum vortices in strongly correlated Bose liquids.

## Abstract

We discuss the structure of a vortex in a superfluid Bose liquid with a suppressed Bose-Einstein condensate and an intensive pair correlated condensate. The vortex represents the pair of half-quantum vortices topologically confined by the soliton.

In strongly interacting and strongly correlated Bose liquid – superfluid 4He – the density of the Bose-condensate is small compared to the total mass density of the liquid, $`\rho _0\rho `$. This fact leads to speculations that the rest part of the liquid can be described in terms of the Cooper-like pair-correlated condensate (the most recent discussion of this idea is in Ref. ; references to the older papers can be found in ). We would like to point out that if this idea is correct, it must have a pronounced effect on the core structure of the elementary vortex, which must be non-axisymmetric.

Let us accept that the Cooper-like pair condensate is dominating and gives the dominating contribution to the superfluid density. Then the phenomenological free energy describing interacting pair- and Bose- condensates, which contains all the relevant physics, can be written as follows

$$F=\frac{1}{2}\rho 𝐯_\mathrm{s}^2+ϵ(\rho )+F\{\mathrm{\Psi }\}.$$
(1)
Here $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$

$$𝐯_\mathrm{s}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\varphi ,$$
(2)
is the superfluid velocity expressed in terms of the of pair condensate phase $`\varphi `$; and $`\rho `$ is the total mass density of the liquid (we consider $`T0`$). The single-particle Bose-condensate produces the small correction which as we assume can be described in terms of the Ginzburg-Landau functional, the last term in Eq.(1). The Galilean invariant Ginzburg-Landau functional for the wave function of Bose condensate $`\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ has the form

$$F\{\mathrm{\Psi }\}=\frac{\beta }{2\rho }\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\rho _0\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^2}\left|\left(im𝐯_\mathrm{s}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\varphi }{2}\right).$$
(3)
Here $`\rho _0\rho `$ is the density of the Bose condensate in equilibrium, which is much smaller that the total density. The last term in Eq.(3) is the Josephson interaction coupling the two condensates; it provides the phase coherence of the two condensates in equilibrium, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\varphi }{2}`$ and thus the two condensates have the common superfluid velocity.

We are interested in the structure of the $`N=1`$ vortex in this mixture of two condensates. Around the $`N=1`$ vortex the phase of the Bose-condensate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ changes by $`2\pi `$, while the phase $`\varphi `$ of the pair-condensate wave-function changes by $`4\pi `$. In other words, from the point of view of the pair condensate, the $`N=1`$ vortex is doubly quantized. If $`\rho _0=0`$, i.e. in case of pure pair condensate, the elementary vortices of pair condensate have $`2\pi `$ winding of $`\varphi `$, and thus they have twice smaller elementary circulation $`\kappa _2=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _0`$, where $`\kappa _0=2\pi \mathrm{}/m`$. From the point of view of the Bose condensate they represent vortices with $`N=1/2`$ (discussion of the half-quantum vortices – Alice strings – can be found in the book ). For nonzero but small $`\rho _0\rho `$, the half-quantum vortices are combined into pairs forming $`N=1`$ vortices (Fig. 1). Let us consider the structure of such a vortex molecule.

Introducing

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\varphi }{2},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=|\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}$$
(4)
one obtains

$$F\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\}=\frac{\beta }{2\rho }\left(|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|^2\rho _0\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m^2}\left|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right|^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(5)
This equation is completely uncoupled from equation for $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$. However, in the presence of half-quantum vortices there is a topological connection due to the Aharonov-Bohm effect: for the Bose condensate, the half-quantum vortex in the pair condensate is viewed as the Aharonov-Bohm tube with the half-quantum magnetic flux. Since $`\varphi `$ has $`2\pi `$ winding around each half-quantum vortex, the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ must have a $`\pi `$-jump across some line terminating on a half-quantum vortex. The structure of the whole system can be easily found in two extreme cases determined by the Josephson coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$.

If the Josephson coupling is big, the phase of the Bose-condensate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is strongly pinned by the phase $`\varphi `$ of the pair condensate, and one has either $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\pi `$. In this case the $`\pi `$-jump is realized due to the $`\pi `$-soliton in Fig. 1(a). The Bose-condensate wave function can be represented as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x,y)}{\sqrt{\rho _0}}}=\left(\mathrm{\Theta }(xx_0)+\mathrm{\Theta }(xx_0)\right)\mathrm{sign}y+`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(x+x_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0x)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\xi }},`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the step function; $`(x,y)=(x_0,0)`$ and $`(x,y)=(x_0,0)`$ are positions of half-quantum vortices, which are topologically confined by the $`\pi `$-soliton; and $`\xi `$ is the coherence length of the Bose-condensate. The phase $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ has $`\pi `$-jumps on the dashed lines terminating on half-quantum vortices in Fig. 1(a).

If the tension $`\sigma `$ of the $`\pi `$-soliton is known, the distance $`R=2x_0`$ between the Alice strings in such a non-axisymmetric vortex can be easily found from the consideration of the $`R`$-dependent part of the energy of the vortex per unit length:

$$U_{\mathrm{vortex}}(R)=\sigma R\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m^2}\rho \mathrm{ln}R.$$
(7)
Here the first term is the energy of confinement of half-quantum vortices due to the tension of the soliton, and the second term is the hydrodynamic repulsion of half-quantum vortices. Minimization gives the equilibrium distance:

$$R=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2\rho }{2\sigma m^2}.$$
(8)
For dilute Bose condensate, the coherence length of the Bose condensate is large compared with the coherence length of the pair condensate, $`\xi a`$; the coherence length of the pair condensate $`a`$, which determines the core of the Alice string, is on the order of interatomic distance. Taking into account that the relative density of the Bose condensate $`\rho _0/\rho a^2/\xi ^2`$; the surface tension $`\sigma \mathrm{}^2/(ma\xi ^3)`$; and $`\rho m/a^3`$, one obtains $`R/a\xi ^3/a^3(\rho /\rho _0)^{3/2}1`$.

In the other extreme case, when the pinning of the Bose-condensate phase is weak, it is more advantageous to fix the order parameter magnitude $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|=\sqrt{\rho _0}`$, and vary the phase $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. In this configuration instead of $`\pi `$-soliton, the Bose condensate contains the fat soliton with the $`N=1`$ vortex in the center (Fig. 1(b)). Within the fat soliton the phase of the condensate changes from $`\pm \pi /2`$ to $`0`$ in the region of thickness $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\mathrm{}/(m\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{1/2})`$. The tension of the fat soliton, which now enters the confinement term in Eq.(7), is $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\rho _0\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{1/2}\rho _0(\mathrm{}/m)\mathrm{}^2/(ma\xi ^2\stackrel{~}{\xi })`$.

The weak-pinning regime occurs when $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi `$, while the strong-pinning regime occurs when $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi `$. In both regimes, and also in the intermediate regime when $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi `$, the structure of the vortex core is highly anisotropic, and the core size considerably exceeds the interatomic distance $`a`$.

In conclusion, if the idea that the dominating non-condensate particles form the pair-correlated state is valid for superfluid 4He, vortices in superfluid 4He must be highly anisotropic in the limit $`\rho _0/\rho 0`$.

I thank N. B. Kopnin for discussion. This work was supported by ESF COSLAB Programme and by the Russian Foundations for Fundamental Research.


text:
# Phys. Rev. B 68, 134445 (2003) Luttinger liquid behavior in spin chains with a magnetic field

## I Introduction

The one-dimensional (1D) antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_{i+1}h\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i^z$$
(1)
is one of the most thoroughly investigated paradigms of interacting many-body systems. It is well-known that for zero magnetic field the low-energy physics depends very much on the spin length $`S`$. As Haldane predicted in 1983,Hal-gap-83  integer $`S`$ chains possess an energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g(S)`$ above the ground state, the size of which vanishes exponentially as $`S\mathrm{}`$, whereas half-integer $`S`$ chains are gapless. The presence of the Haldane gap in integer spin chains implies the occurrence of a critical field $`h_c=\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ beyond which the system gets magnetized. As the gap collapses at the critical field the ground state structure changes adequately, and in an already magnetized state there remains no conceptual difference in the low-energy properties between integer and half-integer chains.

Partially magnetized antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chains at low energies are expected to be one-component Luttinger liquidsHal-JPC81  (LLs) irrespective of the spin length $`S`$. This is known rigorously in the $`S=1/2`$ case where the model can be analyzed using the Bethe Ansatz.Hal-PRL80  The validity of the Luttinger liquid description for $`S1`$ chains and coupled spin-1/2 ladders has been investigated and confirmed by analyticalTsvelik ; Chi-Gia ; Kon-Fen  and numericalSak-Tak ; Usa-Sug ; Hik-Fur  methods. Although there is a theoretical possibility of finding gapful behavior (magnetization plateau) at special values of the magnetization, such a scenario does not seem to be realized in pure nearest-neighbor Heisenberg chains (see Ref. Osh-Yam-Aff,  for $`S=3/2`$). Neither would we expect multi-component LLs, which can otherwise occur for more general (higher-order) couplings.Fat-Lit

The LL concept bears a strong relationship to $`c=1`$ conformal field theory (CFT).Gog-Ner-Tsv  In fact the LL is hardly more than the CFT adapted to the situation with two Fermi points $`2k_F`$ momentum apart. The one-component LL is a three parameter theory.Hal-JPC81  In the present context the first parameter, the location of the Fermi points $`\pm k_F`$, is determined by the magnetization through

$$2k_F=2\pi (Sm),$$
(2)
where $`m=S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z/L`$ is the (bulk) magnetization. The second parameter, the Fermi velocity $`v`$ is just an energy scale, whereas the third parameter, to be called the ”dressed charge” $`Z`$, determines the universality class and the critical exponents. (In the bosonization literature the notation $`K=Z^2`$ is standard.) The traditional LL parameters, the velocities for charge and current excitations can be expressed with $`Z`$ as $`v_{\mathrm{charge}}=v/Z^2`$, $`v_{\mathrm{current}}=vZ^2`$.Hal-PRL81

All three parameters are functions of the actual magnetization $`m`$ and the spin length $`S`$. The LL parameters of the $`S=1`$ chain in a magnetic field have already been determined to some extent using numerical methods. Sakai and Takahashi diagonalized small finite chains up to $`N=16`$ with periodic boundary condition and used the prediction of CFT on finite size energy spectra to estimate the critical exponents.Sak-Tak  A similar method was used by Usami and SugaUsa-Sug  for the $`S=1/2`$ ladder which behaves as a Haldane-gap system for strong ferromagnetic interchain interaction. More recently Campos Venuti et al. used the DMRG to compute directly the transverse two-point function $`G^{xx}(r)=S^x(0)S^x(r)`$ on chains with $`N=80`$ and fitted these data to the expected asymptotic form of $`G^{xx}`$.Campos-Venuti

In this paper we apply an alternative method. We calculate precise numerical estimates to the critical exponents and by this to the LL dressed charge $`Z`$ via a direct numerical determination of the magnetization profiles in finite open chains. The magnetization profile is, by definition, the positional dependence of the local magnetization $`m_n=S_n^z`$ in an open chain with some well-defined boundary condition. The form of the profile depends on the applied boundary condition, and may involve surface exponents as well whenever the boundary condition on the left and right ends differ. In order to simplify the expected behavior we will only consider cases where the boundary condition is identically open (free) on both ends; in this case only bulk exponents come into play.BurkEise  In a semi-infinite chain, far from the chain’s end, the magnetization profile is expected to decay to its bulk value $`m`$ algebraically as

$$m(r)m+A_m\mathrm{cos}(2k_Fr+\varphi )r^{\eta _z/2},$$
(3)
where $`A_m`$ is a non-universal amplitude, $`\varphi `$ is a phase shift, $`\eta _z`$ is the (bulk) critical exponent, defined through the translation invariant longitudinal two-point function $`G^{zz}(r)=S^z(0)S^z(r)m^2A\mathrm{cos}(2k_Fr+\varphi )r^{\eta _z}`$, and $`k_F`$ is determined as a function of $`m`$ by Eq. (2). The form of the Friedel oscillation in Eq. (3) contains indirect information about the LL parameter $`Z`$, and this can be exploited in a numerical procedure to calculate precise estimates. This program has been carried out for the $`S=1/2`$ chain and ladders in Ref. Hik-Fur, , for the Kondo lattice model in Ref. Shibata, , for the Hubbard model in Ref. Bedurftig, , and for the $`tJ`$ model in Ref. White-Affleck, .

While the algebraic decay with $`\eta _z/2`$ is a standard consequence of criticality,Fis-deG  the $`2k_F`$ oscillation is a special LL feature, which stems from the fact that we work with two families of (chiral) CFT operators living around the two Fermi points in $`k`$-space. Without the $`2k_F`$ oscillation it is a standard exercise in CFT to derive the shape of the magnetization profile in a strip geometry of width $`L`$ by applying the logarithmic mapping.Cardy ; BurkEise  This transformation, together with the proper account for the $`2k_F`$ LL term yields a prediction for the magnetization profile of a finite Luttinger liquid segment of length $`L`$ with open boundary condition on both endsHik-Fur ; White-Affleck

$$m^{(L)}(r)m+A_m\mathrm{cos}\left[2k_F\left(r\frac{L}{2}\right)\right]\left[\frac{L}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{r}{L}\right)\right]^{\eta _z/2}.$$
(4)
Note that there is no need to introduce explicitly a phase shift $`\varphi `$ as in the semi-infinite case Eq. (3), since the symmetry of the profile with respect to $`rLr`$ implies that $`\varphi =k_FL`$.

The predicted LL profile in Eq. (4) is based on the continuum limit. However, for finite lattice systems such as the Heisenberg chain, we expect corrections. Conformal invariance and thus Eq. (4) is only expected to be valid asymptotically in the large $`L`$ limit with $`r`$ satisfying $`0<<r<<L`$. Clearly, in a strict sense the magnetization cannot diverge at the chain ends since $`m_nS`$. Phenomenologically this natural cut-off at the boundary acts as an effective impurity put into the CFT model at the system ends. This defines an effective ”scattering length”, $`\delta N=𝒪(1)`$, associated with the boundary, suggesting that we should replace the naive system size $`L=N`$ in Eq. (4) with an ”effective” system size $`LN+2\delta N`$. Based on this intuitive argument in the following we will work with a slightly modified Ansatz

$`m_n^{(N)}`$ $``$ $`m+A_m\mathrm{cos}\left[2k_F\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2}}\right)\right]`$ (5)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{N+2\delta N}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{n1/2+\delta N}{N+2\delta N}}\right)\right]^{\eta _z/2}`$
where $`\delta N`$ is a free fitting parameter. When $`\delta N=0`$ Eq. (5) is simply the discrete version of Eq. (4) (note that now the system is defined for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$).

In the lack of a consistent scheme to calculate corrections, the above amendment to the fitting formula is not rigorous. Justification can stem from a direct comparison with exact results. In the following we first discuss in detail the exactly solvable $`S=1/2`$ chain as a benchmark case. We demonstrate that the Ansatz in Eq. (5) is capable of reproducing the (numerically) exact $`S=1/2`$ critical exponents to high precision even with $`\delta N=0`$. When $`\delta N`$ is also fitter for, the accuracy improves by an order of magnitude.

## II The $`S=1/2`$ chain: Bethe Ansatz results

The $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg chain in a magnetic field can be solved exactly by the Bethe Ansatz (BA) method.Grif-Yan-Yan  The BA itself cannot yield the correlation functions and critical exponents directly, but assuming conformal invariance the operator content can be read off from the structure of the low-energy excitations above the ground state.Cardy  These latter can be determined by a systematic calculation of the finite size corrections to the $`L=\mathrm{}`$ BA equations (assuming periodic boundary condition).Woy-Eck-deVega  The energy and momentum of the lowest energy (primary) states (with respect to those of the ground state, $`E_g`$ and $`P_g`$) can be cast into the form

$`\delta E`$ $`=`$ $`E_𝐚E_g={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi v}{N}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^++\mathrm{\Delta }^{}),`$ (6)
$`\delta P`$ $`=`$ $`P_𝐚P_g=Q+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}),`$ (7)
where $`𝐚=\{d,l\}`$ is a shorthand for two integer topological quantum numbers labeling the states. The $`𝒪(1)`$ momentum term is

$`Q=Q_𝐚=2k_Fd+\pi l,`$ (8)
with $`k_F`$ defined in Eq. (2). The ”conformal dimensions” $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ read

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[Zd\pm \frac{l}{2Z}\right]^2,$$
(9)
where $`Z`$ is the dressed charge. The topological quantum numbers have a direct physical interpretation in the LL representation: $`l`$ ($`d`$) denotes the number of fermions added to (transferred from the left Fermi point to the right in) the band.

The critical exponents appearing in the one- and two-point correlation functions can be expressed with the conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$. In general a physical operator such as $`S^z`$ decomposes into all operators which are not forbidden by conservation (selection) rules. In particular, for $`S^z`$ the number of fermions in the band is conserved, thus necessarily $`l=0`$. The asymptotic decay is determined by the operator which has the lowest critical exponent, i.e., $`d=1`$ giving

$$\eta _z=2(\mathrm{\Delta }^++\mathrm{\Delta }^{})|_{l=0,d=1}=2Z^2,$$
(10)
and an oscillation $`2k_F`$ by Eq. (8). The transverse critical exponents $`\eta _x`$ is determined by the operator $`l=1,d=0`$, i.e.,

$$\eta _x=2(\mathrm{\Delta }^++\mathrm{\Delta }^{})|_{l=1,d=0}=\frac{1}{2Z^2},$$
(11)
with the associated oscillation frequency $`Q=\pi `$. Equations (10) and (11) imply $`\eta _z\eta _x=1`$.

In the BA approach the dressed charge $`Z=Z(B)`$ is determined by a set of integral equations for the density of rapidities $`\rho (x)`$, and the dressed charge function $`Z(x)`$,Par-Schm-Cab

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`g(x)+{\displaystyle _B^B}K(xx^{})\rho (x^{})𝑑x^{},`$ (12)
$`Z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle _B^B}K(xx^{})Z(x^{})𝑑x^{},`$ (13)
where

$$g(z)=\frac{1}{\pi (1+z^2)},K(z)=\frac{2}{\pi (4+z^2)}.$$
(14)
The limits of integration are defined implicitly through the constraint

$$_B^B\rho (x^{})𝑑x^{}=1/2m.$$
(15)
The coupled integral equations in Eqs. (12), (13) and (15) are to be solved numerically.Par-Schm-Cab  First, assuming $`B`$ is given, Eq. (12) is solved for $`\rho `$. This is inserted into Eq. (15) to find the associated value of $`m`$. When $`m`$ is given, as in our case, this procedure can be iterated to find $`B`$ as a function of $`m`$ at arbitrary precision. Finally Eq. (15) is solved for the function $`Z(x)`$ and the dressed charge $`Z=Z(B)`$ is determined. The numerically determined dressed charge as a function of the magnetization is plotted in Fig. 1. In the next section this will serve as a reference curve to check the accuracy of the fitting Ansatz in Eq. (5).

## III The $`S=1/2`$ chain: DMRG results

In order to test the fitting formula Eq. (5) we calculated the magnetization profile in the ground state of finite chain segments with open boundary condition using the density matrix renormalization group method.Whi  The chain length was $`N=120`$ and we kept $`M=160`$ states. The truncation error was found to be in the range $`1P_M=10^{13}10^{11}`$. We applied the finite lattice algorithm with four iteration cycles which was found sufficient for convergence. An example of the magnetization profile as determined by the DMRG is depicted in Fig. 2.

It is worth discussing the fitting procedure itself in some detail. The Ansatz in Eq. (5) has five parameters: $`m,A_m,k_F,\delta N`$ and $`\eta _z`$. Although $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z`$ is a conserved quantity, and thus can be set to a given value in the DMRG, due to the open boundary condition the control over the exact (bulk) value of $`m`$ is lost. While it is true that for long enough chains $`m`$ will be close to $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z/N`$, the finite size deviation should be tracked during the fitting procedure. Similarly, although $`k_F`$ is a well-specified function of $`m`$ in the bulk \[see Eq. (2)\], it was found advantageous to keep it as an independent fit parameter, and only use Eq. (2) a posteriori as a consistency check. On the other hand, it is better to avoid fitting on $`\delta N`$ directly. Instead the best working alternative seems to be making a four-parameter fit on $`m,A_m,k_F`$ and $`\eta _z`$, while $`\delta N`$ kept fixed. The optimal value of $`\delta N`$ is the one which yields the highest stability with respect to local fits, i.e., calculating the four fitting parameters from a small number of sites at different locations in the chain. An example of this procedure is shown in Fig. 3. We found that the optimal value of $`\delta N`$ is a weak function of $`m`$, being about $`\delta N0.5`$ for $`m=0`$, and decreasing monotonically to $`\delta N0.4`$ for $`m=1/2`$. This is more or less consistent with the value $`\delta N=1/2`$ used in the bosonization approach of Ref. Hik-Fur, .

Having obtained $`\eta _z`$ using the above fitting procedure, the fundamental quantity of the theory, the dressed charge $`Z`$, can be calculated from Eq. (10). Figure 1 shows the numerically determined dressed charge as a function of $`m`$. The relative error of the fitting procedure is under $`0.1\%`$, except for very small $`m`$ values where logarithmic corrections to the fitting formula and $`Z`$ are expected, and the fitting procedure loses stability (see the error bar in the figure at $`m=0.03`$). Otherwise, the agreement with the exact values is very good and stable for $`0.03m<1/2`$. For comparison Fig. 1 also shows the estimate of $`Z`$ when the naive scattering length $`\delta N=0`$ is used. Even with this the error is within $`1\%`$, except for very small $`m`$.

We conclude that for $`S=1/2`$ the LL Ansatz for the magnetization profile, Eq. (5), is a very efficient tool in calculating the critical exponents (dressed charge). The final result is highly accurate already with $`\delta N=0`$, but an additional increase in precision can be achieved by adding the scattering length as an extra fit parameter.

## IV The $`S=1`$ chain

Encouraged by the success of the fitting procedure for $`S=1/2`$, in this section we apply it to the $`S=1`$ Heisenberg chain. The forthcoming analysis is not intended to prove that the $`S=1`$ chain in its magnetized regime is a Luttinger liquid - this has been done convincingly already.Tsvelik ; Chi-Gia ; Kon-Fen ; Sak-Tak ; Campos-Venuti  Instead, our starting point is the assumption that we have a one-component Luttinger liquid, and then use LL theory and the numerically calculated magnetization profiles to determine the value of $`Z`$ and the critical exponents with high accuracy.

Although the spin-1 problem cannot be treated rigorously, there are two limits where clear theoretical predictions exist. In the high magnetization limit near saturation the physics can be understood by regarding the system as a dilute gas of magnons created in the ferromagnetic vacuum.Sak-Tak  Magnons behave as bosons with short-range repulsive interaction. In the dilute limit the exact form of the interaction is irrelevant and an essentially hard-core boson description becomes valid. In 1D hard-core bosons are equivalent to free spinless fermions, which imply an LL parameter $`Z=1`$ with correlation exponents $`\eta _z=2`$ and $`\eta _x=1/2`$ as $`m1`$.

There is a similar argument in the $`m0`$ limit. Below the critical magnetic field $`h_c<\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ is the Haldane gap, the elementary excitations are massive spin-1 bosons.Aff-Sor  At $`h_c`$ these bosons condensate, but due to the interboson repulsion the magnetization only increases gradually. Near $`m0`$ the boson density is low and by the above argument we again obtain $`Z=1`$, $`\eta _z=2`$ and $`\eta _x=1/2`$. Note that this argument only works for $`S=1`$ with a Haldane gap. For $`S=1/2`$ for which the nonmagnetized ground state is massless, the elementary excitations form a strongly interacting dense gas with $`Z=1/\sqrt{2}`$ as is given by the Bethe Ansatz, and the SU(2) symmetry at $`m=0`$. Alternative theories for $`S=1`$, based on either a Majorana fermion representationTsvelik  or on the bosonization of spin-1/2 laddersChi-Gia  lead to a similar conclusion in this limit.

Although the magnetized $`S=1`$ chain is a Luttinger liquid, this classification only applies at low energies and long distances. Indeed, at higher energies and shorter distances the $`S=1`$ chain produces features which cannot be understood within the framework of LL theory. These features, absent in $`S=1/2`$ chains, stem from the additional degrees of freedom staying massive for $`S>1/2`$. These degrees of freedom have signature both in the energy spectrum and correlations, and manifest themselves in the numerical, finite chain calculations. Their origin can be easily understood in the low-magnetization limit. At zero magnetic field the system possesses an energy gap, the Haldane gap. The lowest excited states form a triplet branch with a minimum energy at momentum $`k=\pi `$. The operator $`S_i^z`$ has large matrix elements between the ground state and the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z=0`$ component of this triplet. This leads to an exponentially decaying alternating (antiferromagnetic) behavior in the longitudinal correlation function. When the magnetic field is switched on, the Zeeman energy splits the triplet branch, and at $`h=\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z=1`$ component at $`k=\pi `$ crosses over with the ground state. However the $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^z=0`$ component remains in the spectrum (at energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$) and still contributes to the short-range longitudinal correlation functions. As a consequence the two-point function shows a crossover from a seemingly exponential decay on short distances caused by the massive mode to an algebraic decay determined by the soft, LL mode on longer distances.

There is a similar effect in the one-point function we consider here. Near the chain’s end there is an exponentially localized effective $`S=1/2`$ degree of freedom, the so-called ”end spin”, which also survives in the magnetized regime, at least when the magnetization is not too high.Yam-Miy  Its presence produces a crossover from exponential decay to algebraic decay in the one-point correlation function as is illustrated in Fig. 4. As the magnetization increases the massive modes rise in energy, and have a less and less significant impact on the low-energy physics. At the same time the end spins gradually dissolve and disappear in the bulk as was observed by Yamamoto and Miyashita.Yam-Miy

In order to measure the critical exponent $`\eta _z`$ we used the DMRG algorithm with $`N=120`$ and $`M=160`$ with five iteration cycles. The truncation error varied in the range $`1P_m=10^{12}10^8`$, the calculation being more precise in the high magnetization regime. A limited number of runs with $`N=240`$, $`M=300`$ was done to check the numerical precision and to obtain results at points where longer systems were needed. We applied the fitting procedure described above and care was taken to stay in the bulk of the chain sufficiently far from the ends. Since for $`m=0`$ the correlation (localization) length of the end spin is about 6 lattice sites, which becomes even shorter for $`m>0`$, a chain length $`N=120`$ was found sufficient.

We observed that the fitting procedure is somewhat less accurate here than for $`S=1/2`$, meaning that finite size corrections to the Luttinger liquid profile Eq. (5) are more important in for $`S=1`$. The fitting procedure becomes especially unreliable below $`m0.05`$ and around $`m0.5`$. In the former case the increasing wavelength, which becomes comparable to the system size, whereas in the latter case the vanishing prefactor $`\mathrm{cos}[2k_F(n(N+1)/2)]0`$ can be blamed for the numerical difficulty. Far enough from these problematic regions the relative error of the calculated exponent was estimated to be less than $`1\%`$.

Beyond measuring the local magnetization profile $`m_n`$, for $`S=1`$ there is another, independent quantity whose profile can also be measured easily. This is the local quadrupole moment $`q_n=(S_n^z)^2`$. Note that for $`S=1/2`$ this quantity is redundant and thus carries no additional information. For $`S=1`$, however, the quadrupole profile provides us an alternative way to measure the critical exponent which in many cases became even more precise than the one obtained through the magnetization profile. The quadrupole profile is expected to behave according to the same scaling form Eq. (5) with the replacement $`mq`$, $`A_mA_q`$.

Figure 5 shows the dressed charge determined using Eq. (10) from the measured $`\eta _z`$ exponent of magnetization and quadrupole profiles. The inset also shows the corresponding critical exponents $`\eta _z`$ and $`\eta _x`$ as a function of the bulk magnetization. We see that for $`m1`$ the predicted value $`Z=1`$ is reached very rapidly. We analyzed the $`m`$-dependence close to $`m=1`$ and found it to be describable with a power law with a rather large exponent around 4, although a scaling faster than any power law cannot be excluded either. Due to the lack of sufficient numerical precision near $`m=1`$ we were unable to resolve this question reliably.

For $`m0`$ the conclusion is also somewhat vague because the $`m`$-dependence is very steep and due to numerical difficulties we were unable to approach this limit closely enough. However, a $`Z=1`$ value predicted by the theory seems highly consistent with our data. Assuming this, our numerical values seem to indicate an $`m`$-dependence $`Z1m^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =0.5\pm 0.1`$. Knowing that $`m`$ scales above the gap as $`m\sqrt{h\mathrm{\Delta }_g}`$,Sak-Tak-98  this would imply $`Z1(h\mathrm{\Delta }_g)^\beta `$ for small $`h`$ with $`\beta 1/4`$.

Between the two limits $`Z`$ is larger, reaching its largest value $`Z1.21`$ at $`m0.36`$. This behavior should be compared to that of $`S=1/2`$, where $`Z<1`$ in the whole regime (see Fig. 1). Earlier data on the critical exponents available in the literature, which were determined by other methods such as the finite-size scaling analysis of the energy spectrumSak-Tak ; Usa-Sug  or the staggered structure factor,Campos-Venuti  are consistent with our results.

The numerically determined critical amplitudes are depicted in Fig. 6. The amplitude of the magnetic moment fluctuations $`A_m`$ increases monotonically as a function of $`m`$. However, the rate of increase is not smooth as it is seen in the figure. $`A_m`$ changes sign somewhere close to $`m=1/2`$. Where $`A_m0`$ the observable fluctuations are governed by the next smallest critical exponent, and thus a precise measurement is beyond our method. In contrast with this, the amplitude of the quadrupole fluctuations $`A_q`$ remains positive in the whole magnetized regime. We observe that it decreases for small $`m`$, reaching its minimal (still positive) value at $`m0.36`$. Above this it increases and saturates for $`m1`$.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the optimal value of the scattering length $`\delta N`$ changes considerably as $`m`$ varies. As the inset of Fig. 6 shows that $`\delta N`$ is around $`0.5`$ for small $`m`$, then decreasing to $`\delta N0.5`$ at $`m0.7`$, then increasing again to $`\delta N0`$ at $`m=1`$. There is a relatively large uncertainty in the optimal value determined, but this imprecision has little impact on the estimated value of $`Z`$ and the correlation exponents.

## V Summary

In this paper we have analyzed the critical fluctuations in open $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=1`$ Heisenberg chains in their magnetized regime. The low energy physics is a one-component Luttinger liquid in both cases. We have calculated the LL’s characteristic dressed charge and the amplitude of the leading critical fluctuations. Our method consisted of determining numerically the magnetization and quadrupole operator profiles and applying a fitting procedure based on conformal invariance. The method has been thoroughly tested on the Bethe Ansatz solvable $`S=1/2`$ chain, confirming its reliability and high precision. In the $`S=1`$ case, where the exact solution is unknown the method provided high-precision estimates of the critical exponents, justifying and complementing earlier results derived by alternative methods. We also determined critical amplitudes which has much less been studied so far for these systems.

Beyond calculating the characteristic parameters with high accuracy our results also allow us to make a detailed comparison between the $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=1`$ chains. Although both are Luttinger liquids, the respective dressed charges as functions of the magnetization differ quite considerably. The only limit where the two systems become equivalent is the full saturation limit, $`mS`$, where $`Z1`$. Otherwise, for $`S=1/2`$ the dressed charge is $`Z<1`$, while for $`S=1`$ it is $`Z>1`$. There are interesting differences in the behavior of the critical amplitudes and the scattering lengths at the chain ends, as well.

We thank F. Iglói and J. Sólyom for valuable discussions. This work was partially supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA) under grant Nos. T30173, T43330 and F31949, and by the Bolyai Research Scholarship Program. The numerical calculations were done at the NIIF Supercomputing Facility.