text:
# GENERALIZED HEISENBERG MODEL

## Introduction.

The anisotropic Heisenberg $`XXZ`$-model describes a chain of $`N`$ two-level atoms and has the Hamiltonian

$$H_{XXZ}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\sigma _i^+\sigma _{i+1}^{}+\sigma _i^{}\sigma _{i+1}^++\frac{q+q^1}{4}\sigma _i^z\sigma _{i+1}^z\right),$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i^\mu `$ are the Pauli matrices and $`q`$ is the anisotropy parameter. Hamiltonian acts in the Hilbert space of states $`(𝐂^2)^N`$, whose dimensionality is $`2^N`$. In 1931, Bethe proposed a general method (i.e., the Bethe anzatz) that allows reducing the problem of obtaining the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian to a problem known from the classical calculus, namely, the problem of obtaining solutions of a certain system of transcendental equations called the Bethe equations . The connection established later between quantum one-dimensional models and classical two-dimensional models of statistical physics showed that the central role in the Bethe method belongs to a relation known as the Yang-Baxter equation. The quantum inverse problem method proposed by Faddeev, Takhtadzhyan, and Sklyanin allowed systematizing and developing these ideas in a more algebraic form . The two-dimensional statistical six-vertex model (the ice model) is connected with the quantum one-dimensional Heisenberg $`XXZ`$ model. The connection between the transfer matrix $`T(u)`$ of the ice model and the Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg $`XXZ`$ model

$$H_{XXZ}=\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{cos}(\eta )+\mathrm{sin}(\eta )\frac{d}{du}\mathrm{log}T_{\widehat{\frac{1}{2}},\frac{1}{2}}(u)|_{u=0},$$
(2)
where $`e^{i\eta }=q`$, determines the correspondence between the energy eigenvalues and the transfer-matrix eigenvalues. The operators $`T(u)`$ and $`H_{XXZ}`$ commute and therefore have the same system of eigenvectors. It was shown in  and , which focused on the Heisenberg model with the anisotropy parameter equal to the root of minus one ($`q^{p+1}=1`$), that if the $`XXZ`$-model is reduced onto a specially selected space of states, than the resulting new model is equivalent in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$) to a certain minimal model of the conformal field theory. For example, in the case of open boundary conditions of a special form the central charge is $`c=16/p(p+1)`$. There exists an infinite family of transfer matrices. They commute with each other and also satisfy an infinite system of recursive functional fusion relations. It was shown in  that under certain conditions, the fusion relations for the transfer matrices of the six-vertex model are truncated and become a closed system of equations on eigenvectors such that the reduction on these eigenvectors in the thermodynamic limit leads to the minimal models of the conformal field theory. In other words, studying the quantum group reduction of the Heisenberg model and studying the conditions for the truncation of the fusion relations for the transfer matrices of the six-vertex model are the same problem. An algebraic explanation for the truncation of the fusion relations was given in . That the truncation results in a closed system of equations that allows obtaining the spectrum without solving the traditional transcendental Bethe equations presents additional intrinsic interest. The result can sometimes be obtained in an explicit form . The preceding discussion applies only to the chains of particles whose spins are $`\frac{1}{2}`$. In this work, we investigate the Heisenberg $`XXZ`$-model for a chain of particles with arbitrary spins with generalized periodic (twisted) boundary conditions. We first obtain the functional fusion relations for transfer matrices with an arbitrary value of spin. We then investigate the necessary conditions for the truncation of these relations. For this, we use the method based on the second linearly independent solution of the Baxter equation proposed in , generalized to the case of an arbitrary spin. We discuss suficient conditions for the truncation that are obtained from an algebraic analysis of the transfer-matrix structure. The case of the $`XXZ`$-chain of particles with spin $`1`$ is examined as an example.

## Fusion relations for transfer matrices of the six-vertex model with arbitrary spin.

Let the numbers $`l`$ and $`j`$ determine the respective spins in the quantum and auxiliary spaces. The transfer matrix $`T_{l,j}(u)`$ acts in the configuration (quantum) space $`(𝐂^{2l+1})^N`$, commutes for different values of the spectral parameter $`u`$ and the auxiliary space spin $`j`$,

$$[T_{l,j_1}(u_1),T_{l,j_2}(u_2)]=0,$$
(3)
and is therefore a generating function of the integrals of motion. In the six-vertex model by definition, we have

$$T_{l,j}(u)=tr_{\pi _j}\left(q^{2\beta \gamma ^z}R_{lj}(u)\mathrm{}R_{lj}(u)\right),$$
(4)
where $`\beta `$ is the twist parameter, i.e., the number characterizing the boundary conditions (the case where $`\beta =0`$ corresponds to the usual periodic conditions). The matrix elements of the operator $`\gamma ^z`$ in the representation with the spin $`j`$ have the form

$$\pi _j(\gamma ^z)_{nk}=(j+1n)\delta _{nk};n,k=1,2,\mathrm{},2j+1.$$
(5)
The operator $`R_{lj}(u)`$ acts in the space $`𝐂^{2l+1}𝐂^{2j+1}`$, and is a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation

$$R_{lj}(uv)R_{lj^{}}(u)R_{jj^{}}(v)=R_{jj^{}}(v)R_{lj^{}}(u)R_{lj}(uv).$$
(6)
For example, in the case of the quantum spin $`l=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`R`$-matrix of the six-vertex model has the form

$$R_{\widehat{\frac{1}{2}}j}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}(u+(\frac{1}{2}+\widehat{H})\eta )& \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\widehat{F}& & \\ \mathrm{sin}(\eta )\widehat{E}& \mathrm{sin}(u+(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{H})\eta )& & \end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where the operators $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{F}`$, and $`\widehat{H}`$ are the generators of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$ with the following matrix elements in the representation $`\pi _j`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\pi _j(\widehat{H})_{mn}=(j+1n)\delta _{m,n},& m,n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}j+1.& & \\ \pi _j(\widehat{E})_{mn}=\omega _m\delta _{m,n1},& \pi _j(\widehat{F})_{mn}=\omega _n\delta _{m1,n}.& & \end{array}$$
(8)
We introduce the notation $`\omega _n=\sqrt{[n]_q[2j+1n]_q}`$; $`[x]_q=(q^xq^x)/(qq^1)`$. The $`R`$-matrices with higher spins $`l>\frac{1}{2}`$ can be relatively easily obtained by solving Yang-Baxter equation (6) recursively. For $`R_{\widehat{1}1}(u)`$, for example, we obtain

$`R_{11,11},R_{33,33}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(u+\eta )\mathrm{sin}(u+2\eta )`$ (9)
$`R_{11,33},R_{33,11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(u)\mathrm{sin}(u\eta )`$
$`R_{13,31},R_{31,13}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{sin}(\eta )\mathrm{sin}^2(\eta )`$
$`R_{11,22},R_{33,22},R_{22,11},R_{22,33}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(u)\mathrm{sin}(u+\eta )`$
$`R_{12,21},R_{21,12},R_{23,32},R_{32,23}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2\eta )\mathrm{sin}(u+\eta )`$
$`R_{12,32},R_{21,23},R_{23,21},R_{32,12}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2\eta )\mathrm{sin}(u)`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(3\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(2u+\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`R_{22,22}.`$
We set the normalization of the $`R`$-matrices to be such that the matrix element $`R_{11,11}(u)`$ represents a product of the form $`\mathrm{sin}(u+\eta )\mathrm{sin}(u+2\eta )\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}(u+2l\eta )`$ In this normalization, the $`R`$-matrix has no poles in the complex plane of the spectral parameter $`u`$. In the chosen normalization, if we introduce new variables $`t_{l,j}(u)`$ instead of $`T_{l,j}(u)`$ using the relations

$`j=0`$ $`:`$ $`t_{l,0}(u)={\displaystyle \underset{k=(l\frac{1}{2})}{\overset{l\frac{1}{2}}{}}}\varphi (u+k\eta ),`$ (10)
$`jl{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`:`$ $`t_{l,j}(u)=T_{l,j}(u){\displaystyle \underset{k=(lj\frac{1}{2})}{\overset{lj\frac{1}{2}}{}}}\varphi (u+k\eta ),`$
$`j>l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`:`$ $`t_{l,j}(u)=T_{l,j}(u),`$
where

$$\varphi (u)\mathrm{sin}^N(u+\eta /2),$$
(11)
than the functional fusion relations for the transfer matrices become

$`t_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u(j+1/2)\eta )t_{l,j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`t_{l,0}(u(j+1)\eta )t_{l,j\frac{1}{2}}(u+\eta /2)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`t_{l,0}(uj\eta )t_{l,j+\frac{1}{2}}(u\eta /2).`$
The procedure of obtaining the fusion relations is known , in the course of this procedure, it is important to attend to normalization rules (10, 11). We therefore omit the detailed derivation of relation (12).

We call the operator

$$H_{XXZ}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\eta )\mathrm{sin}(2\eta )\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}(2l\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}^{2l1}(\eta )}\frac{d}{du}\mathrm{log}T_{l,l}(u)|_{u=0}.$$
(13)
the Hamiltonian of the anisotropic Heisenberg model for a chain of particles with spin $`l>\frac{1}{2}`$ in chosen normalization (10, 11), by analogy with Eq. (2). This operator describes a chain of particles with spins $`l`$ with the interaction only between nearest neighbors . We note that $`T(u)`$ in formula (2) denotes $`T_{1/2,1/2}(u)`$, where the indices are omitted for simplicity. Generally, not only the nearest neighbor interaction, i.e., the dipole interaction, but also the quadrupole interaction should be taken into account when describing a chain of particles with spin $`l>1/2`$, but this is beyond the scope of this work.

## Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.

The transfer matrix $`T_{l,j}(u)`$ is equal to the trace of the monodromy matrix with respect to the auxiliary space . The monodromy matrix $`L_{lj}(u)`$ acts in the configuration space $`(𝐂^{2l+1})^N𝐂^{2j+1}`$. In the case where $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$, we have

$$L_{l\frac{1}{2}}(u)=q^{\beta \sigma ^z}R_{l\frac{1}{2}}(u)\mathrm{}R_{l\frac{1}{2}}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}q^\beta A_l(u)& q^\beta B_l(u)\\ q^{+\beta }C_l(u)& q^{+\beta }D_l(u)\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
Using the quantum inverse problem method, we determine the vacuum vector $`|0`$ (all spins are directed upwards). Taking explicit expression (7) for the $`R`$-matrix into account, we obtain

$`C_l(u)|0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
$`A_l(u)|0`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (u+l\eta )|0`$
$`D_l(u)|0`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (ul\eta )|0`$
for this vector. If $`\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ are the roots of the Bethe equations (see Eq. (18) below), then the Bethe eigenvector is

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{v})=B_l(v_1)\mathrm{}B_l(v_n)|0$$
(16)
Using the commutation relations for $`A_l(u)`$, $`B_l(u)`$, and $`D_l(u)`$  following from Yang-Baxter equation (6), we obtain the expression for the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`T_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u)=q^\beta A_l(u)+q^\beta D_l(u)`$

$`T_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^\beta \varphi (u+l\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(uv_i\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}(uv_i)}}`$
$`+`$ $`q^{+\beta }\varphi (ul\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(uv_i+\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}(uv_i)}}.`$
The Bethe equations themselves can be derived taking into account that $`T_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u)`$ has no poles in the complex plane of the spectral parameter $`u`$. The equations have the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (v_k+l\eta )}{\varphi (v_kl\eta )}}`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2\beta }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(v_kv_i+\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}(v_kv_i\eta )}}.`$ (18)
The Baxter’s $`Q`$-operator acts in the space $`(𝐂^{2l+1})^N`$. By definition, it has the eigenvalues

$$Q_l(u)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sin}(uv_i).$$
(19)
Taking Eq. (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) into account, we obtain the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation, generalized for the case of an arbitrary spin $`l`$:

$$T_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u)Q_l(u)=q^\beta \varphi (u+l\eta )Q_l(u\eta )+q^{+\beta }\varphi (ul\eta )Q_l(u+\eta ).$$
(20)
According to , such an equation can be interpreted as a discrete analogue of a second-order differential equation; therefore, there must exist a second linearly independent solution $`P_l(u)`$ corresponding to the same eigenvalue of the transfer matrix:

$$T_{l,\frac{1}{2}}(u)P_l(u)=q^\beta \varphi (u+l\eta )P_l(u\eta )+q^{+\beta }\varphi (ul\eta )P_l(u+\eta ).$$
(21)
The connection between the transfer matrix and the operators $`P`$ and $`Q`$ can be determined. We do not go into the details of the calculation and just write the result:

$`t_{l,j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^\beta q^{\frac{2\beta }{\eta }u}[P_l(u+(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta )Q_l(u(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta )`$
$``$ $`Q_l(u+(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta )P_l(u(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta )],`$
where $`t_{l,j}(u)`$ is connected with $`T_{l,j}(u)`$ through relations (10). Formula (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) also determines the normalization of the function $`P_l(u)`$ not fixed by Eq. (21). Strictly speaking, relation (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) is a hypothesis confirmed by the coincidence of Eq. (12) with the functional fusion relations for the transfer matrices obtained using connection (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.), while formula (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) can be easily verified by direct calculation if the spin values are suficiently small. Therefore, formula (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) can be proved by induction. Analytic properties of the function $`Q_l(u)`$ are determined by formula (19), for example, $`Q_l(u+\pi )=(1)^nQ_l(u)`$. In the next section, we investigate the properties of the function $`P_l(u)`$ in the case where the anisotropy parameter is equal to the root of minus one.

## Truncation of fusion relations for the anisotropy parameter $`q^{p+1}=1`$.

It follows from relation (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.) that for $`q^{p+1}=1`$ (i.e., $`\eta =\frac{\pi }{p+1}`$) and with the condition

$$\frac{Q(u+\pi )}{Q(u)}=\frac{P(u+\pi )}{P(u)},$$
(23)
satisfied, fusion relations (12) are truncated, i.e.,

$`t_{l,\frac{p}{2}}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (24)
$`t_{l,\frac{p}{2}j\frac{1}{2}}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n\beta }t_{l,j}(u+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}).`$
We investigate the conditions under which requirement (23) is satisfied. We set $`j=0`$ in Eq. (Connection of the transfer matrix with the first and second linearly independent solutions of the Baxter $`TQ`$-equation.). Using Eq. (10), we obtain

$$q^\beta \frac{_{k=1}^{2l}\varphi (u+(kl\frac{1}{2})\eta )}{Q(u\eta /2)Q(u+\eta /2)}=q^{\frac{2\beta }{\eta }u}\left(\frac{P(u+\eta /2)}{Q(u+\eta /2)}\frac{P(u\eta /2)}{Q(u\eta /2)}\right).$$
(25)
The left-hand side of Eq. (25) is a ratio of trigonometric polynomials that can be uniquely expanded in a sum:

$$q^\beta \frac{_{k=1}^{2l}\varphi (u+(kl\frac{1}{2})\eta )}{Q(u\eta /2)Q(u+\eta /2)}=K(u)+q^\beta \frac{G(u+\frac{\eta }{2})}{Q(u+\frac{\eta }{2})}q^\beta \frac{G(u\frac{\eta }{2})}{Q(u\frac{\eta }{2})},$$
(26)
where $`K(u)`$ and $`G(u)`$ are uniquely determined trigonometric polynomials of the degrees $`\mathrm{deg}(K(u))=2lN2n`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(G(u))<n`$. We also use another expansion,

$$K(u)=q^\beta F(u+\frac{\eta }{2})q^\beta F(u\frac{\eta }{2}),$$
(27)
and then

$$P(u)=q^{\frac{2\beta }{\eta }u}(Q(u)F(u)+G(u)).$$
(28)
We require that the behavior of the function $`F(u)`$ under the shift of the argument by $`\pi `$ is same as that of the function $`F(u)`$, i.e., $`K(u+\pi )=(1)^{2lN}K(u)`$. We then obtain the condition

$$(1)^{2\beta }=(1)^{2lN}.$$
(29)
Solving Eq. (27) by expanding the functions $`K(u)`$ and $`F(u)`$ in Fourier series, we obtain yet another condition,

$$lNn<\mathrm{min}(\beta ,p+1\beta )mod(p+1).$$
(30)
Therefore, conditions (29) and (30) are necessary for truncation (24) of functional fusion relations (12).

## Algebraic structure.

It is known that for the $`XXZ`$-chain of particles whose spins are $`1/2`$, the truncation of functional relations (12) is explained by the transfer matrix$`T_{l,\frac{p}{2}}(u)`$ being expressible either as

$$T_{l,p/2}(u)=X^p(\mathrm{})+(\mathrm{})X,$$
(31)
in the case of open boundary conditions of special type  or as

$$T_{l,p/2}(u)=X^{p+1\delta }(\mathrm{})+(\mathrm{})X^\delta ,$$
(32)
in the case of generalized periodic boundary conditions , where $`\delta =\beta s`$ is a positive integer number, the integer or half-integer $`s`$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $`S^z`$ ($`\beta `$ is integer or half-integer as $`s`$, because $`\delta `$ always integer), and the operators $`X`$ and $`S^z`$ are the generators of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$ with the forms

$$X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _{i1}^z)}\sigma _i^+q^{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{i+1}^z+\mathrm{}+\sigma _N^z)},S^z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}\sigma _i^z.$$
(33)
The dots $`(\mathrm{})`$ in formulas (31) and (32) denote certain operators obtained in  and , whose explicit form is unimportant in this analysis. The truncation of the fusion relations occurs on the cohomologies

$$V_p=KerX/ImX^p,$$
(34)
in the case described by Eq. (31) and on the cohomologies

$$V_{p,\delta }=KerX^\delta /ImX^{p+1\delta }.$$
(35)
in the case described by Eq. (32). Practically, the particle spin values are not used for obtaining formulas (3132). Therefore, formula (32) also holds in our case, but with one correction: in this case, the generators $`X`$ and $`S^z`$ of the quantum algebra $`\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{q}(\mathrm{sl}(2))`$ are expressed by the formulas

$$X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}q^{\widehat{H}_1+\mathrm{}+\widehat{H}_{i1}}\widehat{E}_iq^{\widehat{H}_{i+1}\mathrm{}\widehat{H}_N},S^z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{H}_i.$$
(36)
In this formula, the matrix elements of the operators $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{F}`$, and $`\widehat{H}`$ are given by expression (8) where $`j`$ should be replaced with $`l`$.

## Chain of particles with spin $`l=1`$ with the anisotropy parameter equal to root of minus one.

We consider the simplest case where $`q^5=1`$. We use the notation $`G(u)T_{\widehat{1},1}(u+2\pi /5)`$ for convenience. We then obtain the functional equations

$`G(u+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`G(u{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})`$ (37)
$`G(u+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{10}})G(u{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{10}})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^N(u+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{10}})\mathrm{sin}^N(u{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{10}})`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(G(u+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\mathrm{sin}^N(u+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{10}})\mathrm{sin}^N(u{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{10}})\right),`$
from relations (10, 24). It can be seen that $`G(u)=G(u)`$. Because the transfer-matrix eigenvalues have no poles with respect to $`u`$, the solution of Eqs. (37) should be sought in the form

$$G(u)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}g_k\mathrm{cos}(2ku).$$
(38)
We now consider the chain of four particles. In this case, the solution of system (37) has the form

$`G_{1,2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\mathrm{sin}^4(u)(6\pm 5(\sqrt{5}3)+5(\sqrt{5}1)\mathrm{cos}(2u)+`$
$`+2(\sqrt{5}+1)\mathrm{cos}(4u)),`$
$`G_3(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\mathrm{sin}^4(u)(3\sqrt{5}9+4(\sqrt{5}2)\mathrm{cos}(2u)`$
$`2(\sqrt{5}1)\mathrm{cos}(4u)),`$
$`G_{4,5}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^4(u)({\displaystyle \frac{3715\sqrt{5}\pm \sqrt{43070\sqrt{5}}}{64}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}4\pm \sqrt{20580\sqrt{5}}}{16}}\mathrm{cos}(2u){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}1}{16}}\mathrm{cos}(4u)).`$
Using formula (13), we obtain the corresponding energy levels:

$`E_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\sqrt{5})\pm (1+\sqrt{5}),`$ (40)
$`E_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+3\sqrt{5}}{2}},`$
$`E_{4,5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(73\sqrt{5}\pm \sqrt{94+22\sqrt{5}}.)`$
To verify this result, we calculated the energy eigenvalues and compared them with those given by Eqs. (40). Levels (40) are unique, while the other levels in the same sectors are degenerate.

## Conclusion.

We have proved that the fusion relations for transfer matrices with an arbitrary spin $`l`$ are truncated. The truncation occurs if conditions (2930) are satisfied on the space of cohomologies (35). The truncation results in a closed system of equations whose solution determines the energy spectrum of states in the reduced Heisenberg $`XXZ`$-model for a chain of particles whose spin is $`l`$ with generalized periodic boundary conditions.

## Acknowledgments.

The author thanks A. A. Belavin and M. Yu. Lashkevich for the useful comments and fruitful discussions. This work is partially supported by RFBR 01-02-16686 and 00-15-96579, CRDF RP1-2254 and INTAS-00-00055.


format: text

text:
# Angular momentum localization in oval billiards

(Current address:
Department of Physics, University of Oregon, 1371 E 13th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97403
Received August 7, 2000; published in Physica Scripta T 90, 263 (2001))

## Abstract

Angular momentum ceases to be the preferred basis for identifying dynamical localization in an oval billiard at large excentricity. We give reasons for this, and comment on the classical phase-space structure that is encoded in the wave functions of “leaky” dielectric resonators with oval cross section.

PACS: 05.45.Mt, 42.15.-i, 42.25.-p

Geometric optics is an important engineering tool because of its explanatory and predictive power, even when wave effects are present, as is the case in resonant cavities. Nevertheless, quantum chaos has not been widely recognized as an issue in optical resonators until recently , because the engineer often has the freedom to choose geometries for which either the ray picture is simple or the wave equation is separable (up to small perturbations). This is a luxury that we do not usually have in naturally occuring, “self-assembled” optical resonators such as, e.g., aerosol droplets  or microcrystallites .; these examples typically have mixed phase spaces. What we learn from such systems in turn allows us to accept chaotic ray dynamics as a way to introduce added freedom into the design of optical devices in a wide range of material systems, such as semiconductor microdisks , polymers and glasses . One of the essential phenomena that makes chaotic resonators useful in this respect is dynamical localization, because it allows cavity resonances with decay rates that exceed the values expected from classical ray considerations. Mixed dynamics does not necessarily make it impossible to identify localization , provided the classical phase space stucture is properly taken into account. In this paper, we discuss how localization can be characterized in oval dielectric cavities.

From the quantum-chaos perspective, dielectric microcavities allow us to study the ray-wave duality in a class of open billiard systems bounded by “penetrable” walls which introduce an escape condition in phase space . This openness arises because the internal and external region are coupled across the dielectric-air interface. In many cases this interface can be considred as abrupt on the scale of the wavelength, in which case one arrives at a set of polarization-dependent dielectric boundary conditions which in the ray limit correspond to Fresnel’s laws of reflection. The latter have two basic consequences: (a) if the cavity has refractive index $`n`$ and the outside is assumed to be air, then rays hitting the surface with angle of incidence greater than $`\chi _c\mathrm{arcsin}1/n`$, measured with respect to the normal, undergo total internal reflection. (b) the interface exhibits a finite reflectivity even at normal incidence, $`\chi =0`$, given by $`R=(n1)^2/(n+1)^2`$; this “ray splitting” implies that rays violating the total-internal-reflection condition may still continue along an internal trajectory with attenuated amplitude . In fact, for large refractive index $`n`$, the limit of a closed cavity with reflectivity $`R=1`$ is approached.

In the quantum-classical transition under such circumstances, the competition between the internal time scales (as set most prominently by the density of levels) and the state-dependent decay rates must be taken into account . This becomes especially interesting in cavities with mixed phase spaces because of their intricate temporal evolution . The main objects of study in microlaser design are single, isolated resonances. The reason is that the properties of a laser are typically determined by the spatial and emission characteristics of only one or a few quasibound states. In a single-mode laser, it is the state whose $`k`$ lies closest to the real axis . In contrast to the random-wave assumption that is justified in the presence of hard chaos , highly anisotropic intensity patterns of wave functions are typical for mixed systems. These are in fact desirable in a laser because anisotropy can translate to focused emission. Individual quasibound states can be studied in great detail in microlaser experiments, because one can make spatially and spectrally resolved images of the emitter under various observation angles .

The numerical aspects of the electromagnetic scattering problem are challenging and have several decades of history, particularly in atmospheric sciences. If the dielectric constant can be assumed piecewise constant in the spatial domains defining the scatterer, one computational method is that of wavefunction matching: in each dielectric region, a “Treftz basis” is introduced , consisting of free-space stationary solutions at a fixed wavenumber $`k`$. The unknown expansion coefficients of a true wave solution in this basis are determined by imposing the dielectric boundary conditions. In the present study, we are interested in quasibound states of a cylindrical dielectric surrounded by air. For simplicity, we specialize to the case where the electric field is polarized parallel to the cylinder axis, so that Maxwell’s equations reduce to a scalar wave equation . The internal and external wave functions

$`\psi _{\mathrm{int}}(r,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}A_mJ_m(nkr)e^{im\varphi },`$ (1)
$`\psi _{\mathrm{ext}}(r,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}B_mH_m^{(1)}(kr)e^{im\varphi }.`$ (2)
satisfy the usual quantum mechanical boundary conditions at the interface,

$$\psi _{\mathrm{int}}=\psi _{\mathrm{ext}}\mathrm{and}\psi _{\mathrm{int}}/𝐞=\psi _{\mathrm{ext}}/𝐞.$$
(3)
Here, $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are polar coordinates, $`𝐞`$ the outward normal; $`k`$ is the free-space wavenumber, and $`m`$ labels angular momentum. Implicit in the form of $`\psi _{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the condition that only outgoing cylindrical waves be present in the exterior, i.e. the solutions will represent emission without any incoming wave  – appropriate for fluorescence or lasing. The resulting homogenous system of Eq. (3) for the $`A_m`$, $`B_m`$ has a nontrivial solution only at a set of discrete, complex values of $`k`$.

One advantage of Eq. (1) is that it permits a reformulation in terms of the internal scattering matrix of the 2D cross-sectional billiard, in the sense of the “scattering approach to quantization” . However, it is by no means clear that these expansions in angular momentum eigenfunctions with coefficients $`A_m`$, $`B_m`$ converge. The assumption that this is in fact the case is known as the Rayleigh hypothesis . For definiteness, the convex boundaries which shall serve as our model systems are parametrized in polar coordinates by two-dimensional multipoles of constant area,

$$r(\varphi )=R\left(1+ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\nu \varphi )\right)/\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/2},$$
(4)
where $`\nu =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ`$ measures the fractional deformation. The simplest cases are the Limacon shape ($`\nu =1`$) and the quadrupole ($`\nu =2`$). Convergence problems arise if the cross section is too strongly deformed, so that the radii of convergence of the inner or outer expansion, Eqs. (1) and (2) intersect the boundary; this can make it impossible to formulate the matching conditions.

As long as the shape is convex, however, numerical experience shows  that the problem can be regularized over a wide range of deformations by performing the wavefunction matching at a discrete number $`N`$ of points in real space and making the number $`M`$ of angular momenta $`m`$ in Eq. (1) smaller than $`N`$. The resulting rectangular matrix problem can then be solved by singular-value decomposition . Additional improvment can be achieved by finding two or more choices of origin for the polar coordinates such that the respective domains of convergence for all resulting versions of Eq. (1), taken together, cover the boundary completely. The additional unknowns in these expansions are then connected by analytical continuation. A simple example for this analytical-continuation approach is the annular billiard , in which a circle with an eccentric circular inclusion permits expansions of the type Eq. (1), centered either at the inner or outer circle; the connection between the two expansions is given analytically via the addition theorems for Bessel functions.

There are no truly bound states in this finite-sized 2D photonic system; the same is true for the generalization to a three-dimensionally confined cavity of finite extent. This is the reason for having to permit complex $`k`$ above, assuming $`n`$ is real. The fact that all states are metastable distinguishes these systems from the otherwise similar subject of attractive wells in quantum mechanics. This is a reminder of the inequivalence between optical and quantum-mechanical wave equations. Microwave experiments  can under certain restrictions emulate of Schrödinger’s equation, if the genuinely electrodynamic aspects of the resonator (resulting from the vectorial nature and hyperbolic charactistics of Maxwell’s time-dependent wave equations) are not important. In dielectric optical cavities, on the other hand, one is often forced by the intended applications to go beyond this analogy .

As was first argued in Ref. , the Poincaré map of the billiard, Eq. (4), contains the essential information determining the emission characteristics of the corresponding resonator. Therefore, it is necessaery to understand the properties of this map in detail. It can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{sin}\overline{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\chi +F(\overline{s},\mathrm{sin}\chi ),`$ (5)
$`\overline{s}`$ $`=`$ $`s+G(s,\mathrm{sin}\chi ),`$ (6)
where $`s`$ is the arc length along the boundary and the bar denotes the new coordinates after one iteration of the map. The functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ contain the nonlinearity of the dynamics, as shown in Fig. 1 where we plot $`F`$ versus final position $`s`$ for three fixed values of $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$. Note that the amplitude of the nonlinearity goes to zero as $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$. To quantify this, Fig. 2 plots the root-mean-square of $`F`$ versus starting $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$. A fit with $`(1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi )^{3/2}`$ shows good agreement. The reason for this functional form with its non-analyticity at $`\mathrm{sin}\chi =1`$ is understandable from very general considerations:

If one considers $`F`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ instead of $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$, then a Taylor expansion around $`\mathrm{cos}\chi =0`$ yields a mapping equation of the form

$$\mathrm{cos}\overline{\chi }f_0(\overline{s})+f_1(\overline{s})\mathrm{cos}\chi +f_2(\overline{s})\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +\mathrm{}$$
(7)
We expect $`f_00`$ since a trajectory starting with $`\mathrm{cos}\chi =0`$ must end up with $`\mathrm{cos}\overline{\chi }=0`$ (corresponding to “rolling” or “grazing” motion along the convex surface. Using this expansion for $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$ in Eq. (5), we obtain

$$\mathrm{sin}\overline{\chi }\mathrm{sin}\chi f_1(\overline{s})f_2(\overline{s})(1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi )^{3/2}.$$
(8)
The resulting $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ \- dependence in Fig. 2 suggests that the map of the convex billiard should exhibit invariant curves in the “whispering-gallery” (WG) region ($`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$) at arbitrarily large deformations, where other KAM curves (such as the one belonging to the inverse golden mean winding number) have been broken up.

The last statement is in fact implied by Lazutkin’s theorem , which however requires 553 continuous derivatives of $`r(\varphi )`$ to prove that invariant WG tori exist with nonzero Lebesgue measure. Here, we can go beyond the mere existence statement and ask what consequences the existence of a stable WG region has for the neighboring phase space. We shall find that only a much smaller number of 3 continuous derivatives enters the physical considerations describing the phaes space of the convex billiard. We base our argument on an adiabatic approximation used in Ref. , which will be discussed further below. There, the unknown multiplier $`f_1(\overline{s})f_2(\overline{s})`$ of Eq. (8) is determined from geometric considerations to yield

$$\mathrm{sin}\overline{\chi }=\mathrm{sin}\chi \frac{2\kappa ^{}(\overline{s})}{3\kappa ^2(\overline{s})}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi )^{3/2},$$
(9)
where $`\kappa (s)`$ is the curvature and $`\kappa ^{}`$ its derivative. In Ref. , this together with a similar approximation for the position mapping function $`G(\overline{s},\mathrm{sin}\chi )`$ is used to convert the amplitudes of the two mapping equations, Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), into a differential equation:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{sin}\chi }{ds}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\overline{\chi }\mathrm{sin}\chi }{\overline{s}s}=\frac{F(\overline{s},\mathrm{sin}\chi )}{G(\overline{s},\mathrm{sin}\chi )}\frac{F(s,\mathrm{sin}\chi )}{G(s,\mathrm{sin}\chi )},$$
(10)
which can be solved by separation of variables to obtain an adiabatic invariant curve

$$p(s)\sqrt{1\left(1\sigma ^2\right)\kappa ^{3/2}(s)}.$$
(11)
Here, we use the abbreviation

$$p\mathrm{sin}\chi ,$$
(12)
which is the momentum conjugate to $`s`$. The intergation constant $`\sigma `$ parametrizes the value around which $`p(s)=\mathrm{sin}\chi (s)`$ oscillates.

The range of validity of Eq. (9) extends beyond the WG limit $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$, as Fig. 2 already suggests. A position mapping equation which also yields reasonable agreement for the whole range of possible initial $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ has been derived in Ref.  by introducing a generating function $`Z(\overline{s},p)`$ for the billiard map. From $`Z`$, the new momentum and old positions are obtained as partial derivatives,

$$\overline{p}=\frac{Z}{\overline{s}}|_p,s=\frac{Z}{p}|_{\overline{s}}.$$
(13)
This definition guarantees that the map is area preserving. The first equation above is just what we already obtained in Eq. (9), so we can infer $`Z(\overline{s},p)`$ by integrating Eq. (9) over $`\overline{s}`$. This leads to

$$Z(\overline{s},p)=p\overline{s}+\frac{2}{3\kappa (\overline{s})}(1p^2)^{3/2}+c(p),$$
(14)
where $`c(p)`$ is the integration constant which may still depend on $`p`$. Applying the second of Eqs. (13) to this result, we arrive at the position mapping equation,

$$s=\overline{s}+c^{}(p)\frac{2p}{\kappa (\overline{s})}(1p^2)^{1/2}.$$
(15)
This can in principle be inverted to get $`\overline{s}`$ as a function of $`p`$ and $`s`$. We dispose of the arbitrary $`c^{}(p)`$ in such a way that Eq. (15) reduces to the exact expression in the circular billiard where $`\kappa 1`$. The result is, reinstating $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ for $`p`$,

$$s=\overline{s}2\mathrm{arccos}(\mathrm{sin}\chi )+2(1\frac{1}{\kappa (\overline{s})})\mathrm{sin}\chi (1\mathrm{sin}^2\chi )^{1/2}.$$
(16)
In contrast to the analogous result in Ref. , this position map remains well-defined over the whole range of $`|\mathrm{sin}\chi |=0\mathrm{}1`$. The billiard shape enters in Eqs. (9) and (16) only through the curvature as a function of $`\overline{s}`$.

The “effective map” as defined through Eqs. (9) and (16) reproduces the global structure as well as local detail of the true Poincaré sections for the Limacon and quadrupole billiards . Although some additional rescaling of the deformation parameter $`ϵ`$ is required for best agreement, one can use the effictive map to understand classical properties of the billiard, such as the existnce of Lazutkin’s invariant tori. The utility of this approach consists in breaking the billiard problem up into two distinct subproblems: the geometric analysis leading to the Poincaré mapping on the one hand, and the nonlinear dynamics of that map on the other hand. We now wish to apply Eqs. (9) and (16) to our understanding of Lazutkin’s theorem.

The adiabatic approximation leading to Eq. (9) relies on the fact that for trajectories in the whispering-gallery region, there is a separation of time scales between slow changes in the average $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ and a fast circulation in arc length $`s`$ around the boundary; this separation becomes infinitely wide as $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$, as required by Lazutkin’s theorem. In other words, if multiple iterations of the map return $`\overline{s}`$ to an inifintesimal neighborhood $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ of its initial value $`s`$, then the same will automatically be true for the second variable $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$, in such a way that the derivative in Eq. (10) exists. Now let us approach the adiabatic limit from the side of a chaotic trajectory described by the effective map, for which that derivative is ill-defined but a finite separation of time scales still exists. Then we can then ask for the local diffusion constant, defined as the proportionality constant between the rms spread of $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ (averaged over $`\overline{s}`$) and the number of mapping iterations $`n`$,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }p(n)\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`D(p_0)n`$
$`D(p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(1p_0^2)^3{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\kappa }(s)}{\kappa ^2(s)}}\right]^2𝑑s,`$ (17)
where $`L`$ is the circumference of the boundary. The assumption of a diffusive growth in the variance of $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ leads us to make the random phase approximation  for $`s`$, as contained in the integral over $`s`$ above.

In fact, this approximation is hard to justify in generic billiards with a mixed phase space, but improvements can in principle be made by including an average over a finite number of mapping steps in the definition of $`D`$. The main conclusion from Eq. (17) is that the diffusion constant follows the $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ dependence of Fig. 2 (squared) and hence vanishes for $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$. Now define the (discrete) diffusion time in $`p`$, $`\tau _p`$ to be the number of iterations it takes to diffuse across the whole allowed $`p`$-interval; define further the phase randomization time $`\tau _s`$ as the number of reflections necessary before $`s`$ has wrapped once around the boundary. Then from Eq. (17),

$$\tau _p\frac{1}{(1p^2)^3},$$
(18)
and from Eq. (16),

$$\tau _s\frac{1}{p\sqrt{1p^2}}.$$
(19)
The proportionality constants are functions of the deformation alone. As the whispering-gallery limit is approached, $`\tau _p`$ diverges much faster than $`\tau _s`$, so that the existence of invariant curves can be inferred as $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$. Since no more than the first derivative of $`\kappa `$ appears in the “kick strength” of the analytic mapping of Eqs. (9) and (16), this suggests that only three continuous derivatives of the boundary suffice to explain Lazutkin’s tori.

As an example of how the above remarks on phase space transport properties in a convex billiard help us understand the quasibound states of the corresponding resonator, Fig. 3 shows how dynamical localization can be discerned in the numerical solutions of the wave problem. The same states displayed here have been investigated in Ref.  as a function of the deformation $`ϵ`$. There, an adiabatic quantization based on the invariant curves Eq. (11) was introduced, according to which all three states were found to correspond to approximately the same value of $`\sigma `$, i.e. the adiabatic invariant characterizing the phase-space location of the state. The wavenumbers $`k`$ of the lowest and highest state in Fig. 3 differ by roughly a factor of four, and as a consequence the decay rates in the limit of a circular resonator range over approximately ten orders of magnitude. However, at large deformation $`ϵ`$ where the escape from the resonator is dominated by classical ray diffusion, the resonance widths $`\delta k`$ are found to be nearly wavelength independent. As a correction to this classical behavior, one observes a tendency toward slightly faster decay at larger wavenumber $`k`$. This correction, together with the fact that the adiabatic quantization for the resonance positions actually agreed better with the exact results at smaller $`k`$ led to the hypothesis  that dynamical localization is present in the states under consideration, especially at low $`k`$.

Figure 3 allows us to identify qualitatively the effect of dynamical localization in a mixed phase space with open boundary conditions. The solid vertical lines in the figure indicate the semiclassically expected maxima of the angular momentum distribution for the three wavefunctions. This semiclassical quantization is performed by applying the EBK method to the invariant curves of Eq. (11). The quantized values of $`\sigma `$ are then translated back to angular momentum by using the approximate semiclassical relation known from the circle,

$$m=nkR\mathrm{sin}\chi .$$
(20)
We use this together with our classical considerations to estimate the spread in $`m`$ that is evident in the wavefunctions.

The interval of $`m`$ on the horizontal axis corresponds to the range $`0\mathrm{sin}\chi 1`$; the dashed vertical lines indicate the “ionization border” $`\mathrm{sin}\chi =1/n`$. At $`ϵ=0.08`$ in the quadrupole, unbroken KAM curves exist only above $`\mathrm{sin}\chi 0.9`$. The sharp falloff in $`|A_m|`$ at large $`m`$ is due to the classical inaccessibility of the high-$`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ region by diffusion – it directly shows the imbalance in the nonlinearity between large and small $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$.

Exponential localization is identifiable in Fig. 3 only to the left of a plateau surrounding the semiclassical maxima, of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }m4`$ in (a) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m10`$ in (b). The explanation for this is that the adiabatic curve, Eq. (11), for $`\sigma =0.8`$ oscillates between $`\mathrm{sin}\chi _{max}=0.89`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\chi _{min}=0.72`$. The latter translates to an angular momentum spread of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9},`$ and $`14`$, respectively, for the states quantized at $`kR11.97,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}27.26},`$ and $`44.16`$. The agreement with the Figure confirms that the semiclassical maximum, ionization border and width of the plateau in $`m`$ all scale proportional to $`kR`$. This leaves us with an $`m`$ interval $`\delta m`$ to the right of the escape threshold, of width $`\delta mnkR(\mathrm{sin}\chi _{min}\mathrm{sin}\chi _c)=nkR(0.720.5)`$, corresponding to a classically diffusive region in which a probability decay should be observed. In the Figure, an exponential decrease away from the semiclassical plateau is discernible for $`kR=11.97`$ (a) and $`27.26`$ (b), whereas the state at $`kR=44.16`$ (c) exhibits large angular momentum components over the whole classically confined region. The localization lengths $`\xi `$ estimated from the observed slopes for the two lower-$`kR`$ states are approximately in a ratio of $`2:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, in reasonable agreement with the factor of two between the respective wavelengths. This is the expected behavior , because the diffusion constant entering $`\xi `$ is the same in all resonances.

Angular momentum as a prefered basis for measuring dynamical localization is a useful initial choice in the oval billiard, but as the existence of the plataeus above indicates, it is not strictly the correct one. Recall that $`\sigma `$, and not $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ or angular momentum, is the adiabatic invariant in the semiclassical quantization for the states in Fig. 3. This can be made very clear by comparing to the special case of the ellipse where the adiabatic curve Eq. (11) becomes exact. Then $`\sigma `$, which in the circle is the angular momentum, acts as a constant of the motion while $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ still oscillates. Clearly, there is no diffusion although the angular momentum decomposition shows a spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ whose width is determined by the eccentricity. For the oval billiard, this means that $`\sigma `$ should be considered as the diffusing variable. Classically, the transformation from $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ to $`\sigma `$ is given by Eq. (11). Wave-mechanically, the goal will be to project the true wave function $`\psi `$ onto a Treftz basis defined by these adiabatic invariant curves.

Judging by the results presented here, this is a worthwile program for future work because a better-adapted basis significantly expands the interval over which one is allowed to assume the separation of time scales which leads to classical diffusion in the first place. In billiards that remain close to a circle, such as a short stadium  or rough billiard  this problem does not arise. However, in oval billiards, these classical considerations apply. Moreover, the breakdown of the Rayleigh hypothesis makes it not only desirable but necessary to abandon angular momentum as the basis in which to detect dynamical localization.

I would like to thank Steve Tomsovic for valuable discussions.


text:
# Generation and degree of entanglement in a relativistic formulation

## Abstract

The generation of entangled states and their degree of entanglement is studied ab initio in a relativistic formulation for the case of two interacting spin-1/2 charged particles. In the realm of quantum electrodynamics we derive the interaction that produces entanglement between the spin components of covariant Dirac spinors describing the two particles. Following this consistent approach the relativistic invariance of the generated entanglement is discussed.

The generation of entangled states and the measurement of their degree of entanglement are at the heart of diverse fundamental tests of quantum mechanics. On the other hand, special relativity is a fundamental theory that has to be considered in the study of measurements realized by different moving observers. In special relativity, for example, the observed simultaneity of two space-like separated events can be broken when they are observed in a different reference frame. As a consequence, there is a natural interest in studying nonlocal quantum correlations in the framework of special relativity . Recent experiments  have addressed the question about the compatibility of the apparently independent predictions of quantum mechanics and special relativity. In Ref. , Peres et al. have shown that the spin entropy of a single free spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle has no invariant meaning when the kinematical degrees of freedom are traced out. More recently, in Ref. , Gingrich and Adami have studied the transfer of entanglement between momentum and spin of two particles under a Lorentz transformation.

In this paper a consistent approach is presented to the generation and measurement of entanglement in a quantum relativistic framework. As an illustrative example, the case of two interacting spin-1/2 massive particles, say electrons, is considered in the context of quantum electrodynamics (QED). We derive the spin interaction that produces entanglement, maximal or not, between the spin components of the covariant Dirac spinors associated with the two particles. The main goal is to keep throughout the process a relativistic covariant formalism for the electrons and to obtain the quantum interactions that generate entanglement between them. This ab initio procedure will permit us to discuss consistently the invariant properties of the degree of entanglement of the generated states .

Let us consider two non-relativistic spin-1/2 charged particles, e.g. electrons, $`1`$ and $`2`$ with charge $`e`$ and spin states given in the basis of the $`z`$ axis eigenstates $`|=(1,0)^T`$ and $`|=(0,1)^T`$. For the system of the two-particle spin states we construct the spin tensor product states $`|ij=|i|j`$ with $`i,j=\{,\}`$. The magnetic dipole-dipole interaction between the spins of two particles, in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, is described by the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=𝝁_1\mathbf{}\times \left(𝝁_2\times \mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r}}\right)`$ (3)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{3(𝐧𝝁_1)(𝐧𝝁_2)𝝁_1𝝁_2}{4\pi r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝝁_1𝝁_2\delta (𝐫)`$
where $`r`$ is the distance between the electrons, $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector in the direction of $`r`$, $`𝝁`$$`=(e\mathrm{}/2m_ec)`$$`𝝈`$ is the dipole moment operator of each electron and $`𝝈`$ $`𝐱\sigma ^x+𝐲\sigma ^y+𝐳\sigma ^z`$ is the spin operator. When Hamiltonian (3) is applied to the initial state $`|`$, for non-overlapping particles and for $`𝐧=𝐧_z`$ it generates entanglement by means of the term $`𝝁_1𝝁_2/4\pi r^3`$. After an interaction time $`t`$ an entangled state is produced, which up to a global phase is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{cos}(2Jt)|i\mathrm{sin}(2Jt)|$$
(4)
where the coupling constant $`J=e^2\mathrm{}^2/(16\pi m_e^2c^2r^3)`$.

The dipole interaction model in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics involves only the spin degrees of freedom of the two particles and its compatibility with special relativity, frequently introduced ad hoc, should be proven from fundamental principles. In what follows, we derive a spin interaction Hamiltonian, similar to Eq. (1), from first principles and in the realm of quantum electrodynamics, which describes the interaction in a relativistic manner. This allows the creation of entangled states, similar to Eq. (2), between the spin components of the Dirac spinors of the two particles, while keeping relativistic covariance in a natural way.

In the relativistic quantum domain we consider two identical spin-1/2 charged particles described by Dirac spinors. They may be considered as relativistic quantum mechanical objects or as one-state particles of quantum field theory that are allowed to interact with a quantized electromagnetic field. Their interactions will be studied within the covariant formalism of QED by considering scattering processes. In particular, the spin interaction Hamiltonian can be derived by calculating the amplitude that corresponds to Feynman diagrams describing the scattering of the charged particles when they exchange one virtual photon . Two diagrams contribute to this amplitude as a consequence of the indistinguishability of the particles resulting from the fermion statistics (see Fig. 1).

Each particle participating in the scattering is described by a Dirac spinor, which for the plane wave case is given by

$$\psi (x,ϵ)=u(p,ϵ)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}px},$$
(5)
where $`x`$ is a point in space-time, $`p`$ is the energy-momentum of the plane wave and $`ϵ`$ is the polarization of the spin variable. The wave function $`\psi (x,ϵ)`$ satisfies the Dirac equation

$$(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu _\mu m)\psi =0,$$
(6)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are the Dirac matrices. Then, the vector $`u(p,ϵ)`$ is a four dimensional spinor of the form

$`u(p,ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{p\sigma }\xi ^ϵ\\ \sqrt{p\overline{\sigma }}\xi ^ϵ\end{array}\right),`$where $`\sigma ^\mu (\mathrm{𝟏},𝝈)`$, $`\overline{\sigma }^\mu (\mathrm{𝟏},𝝈)`$ and $`\xi `$ is any two component spinor normalized to $`\xi ^{}\xi =\mathrm{𝟏}`$. For example, for $`ϵ=`$, $`\xi ^{}=(1,0)^T`$, which means that the particle has spin up in the $`z`$ direction. The initial state of two well separated particles with known spin orientation can be expressed as

$$u(p_1,ϵ_1)u(p_2,ϵ_2).$$
(7)
In the following, we calculate their scattering amplitude $``$ without tracing their spin components, by employing the QED Feynman diagrams and rules. The leading order contributions to this amplitude in terms of a perturbation expansion of the QED coupling $`e`$ are presented in Fig. 1. The amplitude of this process is given by

$`i=`$ (8)
(9)
$`(ie)^2[\overline{u}(p_1^{},ϵ_1^{})\gamma ^\mu u(p_1,ϵ_1){\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{(p_1^{}p_1)^2}}\overline{u}(p_2^{},ϵ_2^{})\gamma ^\nu u(p_2,ϵ_2)`$ (10)
(11)
$`\overline{u}(p_1^{},ϵ_1^{})\gamma ^\nu u(p_2,ϵ_2){\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{(p_1^{}p_2)^2}}\overline{u}(p_2^{},ϵ_2^{})\gamma ^\mu u(p_1,ϵ_1)].`$ (12)
For nonrelativistic velocities we can employ the Born approximation for the scattering amplitude, given by $`p^{}|i|p=i\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)\delta ^{(3)}(E_𝐩^{}E_𝐩)`$ for $`𝐪=𝐩^{}𝐩`$. This does not violate the relativistic covariance of the description but rather isolates the dominant contributions for particles moving slowly in a specific reference frame. By substituting for low momentum $`u(p^{},ϵ^{})\gamma ^iu(p,ϵ)0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`u(p^{},ϵ^{})\gamma ^0u(p,ϵ)1`$ we obtain by Fourier transformation the usual Coulomb interaction $`V(r)=(2m)^2e^2/(4\pi r)\delta ^{ϵ_1ϵ_1^{}}\delta ^{ϵ_2ϵ_2^{}}.`$ The Kronecker $`\delta `$ symbols indicate that the spin indeces of the spinors remain unaffected by the Coulomb interaction. Here, only the first diagram has been employed as an antisymmetrization of the resulting wave function automatically compensates for the contributions due to the exchange diagram. In the next order of approximation with respect to small momentum, where still the Born approximation holds, we employ the exact formula

$`u(p^{},ϵ^{})\gamma ^iu(p,ϵ)=`$ (13)
(14)
$`\xi _{}^{ϵ_1^{}}{}_{}{}^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i(𝐩_1+𝐩_1^{})}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_1\times (𝐩_1𝐩_1^{})}{2m}}\right]\xi ^{ϵ_1}.`$ (15)
Considering in the amplitude (12) only the cross terms with $`𝝈`$, we obtain by Fourier transformation the dipole-dipole interaction matrix

$$\frac{e𝝈_1}{2m}\mathbf{}\times \left(\frac{e𝝈_2}{2m}\times \mathbf{}\frac{1}{4\pi r}\right).$$
(16)
This term is analogous to Eq. (3), giving rise to the spin interaction, but this time in the space of spinors. In particular, if we have an initial two-particle state with non-overlapping wave functions and spins oriented oppositely along the $`z`$ axis, the effective Born potential becomes

$$V=J\left(2\delta ^{ϵ_1ϵ_2^{}}\delta ^{ϵ_2ϵ_1^{}}\delta ^{ϵ_1ϵ_1^{}}\delta ^{ϵ_2ϵ_2^{}}\right),$$
(17)
equivalent to the term $`𝝁_1𝝁_2/4\pi r^3`$ of Eq. (3) but acting on four-component Dirac spinors. If the relativistic description of the particles is relaxed, the spin interaction of Eq. (3) is recovered. For the initial two-particle state $`u(𝐩_1=0,ϵ_1=)`$ $`u(𝐩_2=0,ϵ_2=)`$, the evolved state after an interaction time $`t`$ reads

$`\mathrm{cos}(2Jt)u(𝐩_1=0,ϵ_1=)u(𝐩_2=0,ϵ_2=)`$ (18)
(19)
$`i\mathrm{sin}(2Jt)u(𝐩_1=0,ϵ_1=)u(𝐩_2=0,ϵ_2=),`$ (20)
up to an overall phase. Here, we have assumed that the particles are asymptotically at rest with respect to a common reference frame. The relativistic covariance of the entangled two-particle state of Eq. (20) is certainly not present in Eq. (4). Notice that the form of the coherent superposition of Eqs. (2) and (10) is preserved and $`Jt`$ is a relativistic invariant quantity due to the invariance of the action of the electromagnetic interactions .

The Dirac equation is relativistically covariant, i.e. it has an invariant form under transformations from one inertial frame to the other. Let us consider a spin-1/2 particle with momentum $`p`$ and spin $`ϵ`$ described by the wave function $`\psi (p,ϵ)`$. In a transformed reference frame its momentum is given by $`p^{}=Lp`$, where $`L`$ is a Lorentz boost represented by a non-unitary matrix. The quantized Dirac states $`|\psi (p,ϵ)=\psi (p,ϵ)a_{𝐩}^{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}|0`$, with $`a_{𝐩}^{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}`$ being the creation operator of an electron and $`|0`$ the vacuum state, transform unitarily, i.e. $`|\psi ^{}(p^{},ϵ^{})=U(L)|\psi (p,ϵ)`$.

We consider now the initial wave function of the two particles $`u(p_1,ϵ_1)u(p_2,ϵ_2)`$, which for simplicity we shall take to have zero three-momentum  and with spin components oriented oppositely along the $`z`$ axis, i.e. $`ϵ_1=`$ and $`ϵ_2=`$. Then, each spinor is given by $`u(𝐩=0,ϵ=)=\sqrt{m}(\xi ^{},\xi ^{})^T`$. According to the previous, when the two particles are allowed to interact for a certain time $`T=\pi /(4J)`$, the spinor “EPR state”

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐩_1=0,`$ $`𝐩_2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[u(0,ϵ_1=)u(0,ϵ_2=)`$ (23)
$`iu(0,ϵ_1=)u(0,ϵ_2=)]`$
is generated. This state corresponds to a Lorentz frame where both particles are at rest. For this “EPR state” the kinematical degrees of freedom are incorporated in a relativistic formalism, in contrast to Eq. (4). Hence, the wave function of each of the particles can be transformed to a relativistic frame along the $`x`$ direction where it becomes

$$u(𝐩=p_x𝐱,ϵ=)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{Ep_x\sigma _x}\xi ^{}\\ \sqrt{E+p_x\sigma _x}\xi ^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
Note that in general the kinematics and the spin degrees of freedom of each particle are not factorizable, so they have to be incorporated in the theory ab initio in the entanglement generation procedure. An arbitrary Lorentz transformation that consists of a boost and a rotation acting on the “EPR state” gives the state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐩_1=𝐩,`$ $`𝐩_2=𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[u(𝐩,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1=)u(𝐩,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2=)`$ (27)
$`iu(𝐩,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1=)u(𝐩,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1=)],`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ indicates spin up or down in the new spin direction. Here, we are allowed to make this transformation as the spinors are written in a relativistic covariant formalism. The spin states of each particle observed in the moving reference frame are equivalent to a local unitary transformation of the spin states observed in the rest frame, thus preserving the degree of entanglement. Transforming the entangled state to a different reference frame results into a state that can be observed by moving detectors. Ideal detectors could distinguish the different orientations of the spin for different momenta of a particle as the momentum and the spin operators commute. Therefore, in the considered situation, different from Ref. , even though the spin is not a relativistic invariant quantity, the degree of entanglement is.

In this paper, we showed that the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction employed in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to describe the spin entanglement between two spin-1/2 charged particles can be derived from first principles, i.e. quantum electrodynamics. In this way, the system can be described in a Lorentz covariant formalism throughout the whole process. Hence, we were able to produce entanglement between Dirac spinors and to ask consistently about its relativistic properties. We showed that, as a natural consequence, the measurement outcomes of any two moving observers should witness the same degree of entanglement, independent of their relative motion. In this relativistic context, it is clear that no superluminal communication or causality violation in the spin measurements is expected. All entangling Hamiltonians could be, in principle, derived from fundamental principles, showing the fundamental compatibility of quantum correlation measurements and special relativity.

We thank H. Walther, C. Joachain, F. De Zela and N. Zagury for useful comments.


text:
# Random-field Ising model on complete graphs and trees

## Abstract

We present exact results for the critical behavior of the RFIM on complete graphs and trees, both at equilibrium and away from equilibrium, i.e., models for hysteresis and Barkhausen noise. We show that for stretched exponential and power law distributions of random fields the behavior on complete graphs is non-universal, while the behavior on Cayley trees is universal even in the limit of large co-ordination.

The central issue in the equilibrium random field Ising model(RFIM) is the nature of the phase transition from the ferromagnetic state at weak disorder to the frozen paramagnetic state at high disorder. The existence and universality class of the RFIM transition, is key as the best experimental tests of RFIM theory are diluted antiferromagnets in a field, which are believed to be in the same universality class as the RFIM Fishman and Aharony (1979). After some controversy it was rigorously demonstrated that the RFIM transition occurs at a finite width of the distribution in three dimensions Imbrie (1984) and at an infinitesimal width in one and two dimensions. Moreover, Aharony Aharony (1978) showed that within mean field theory at low temperatures, the transition is first order for bimodal disorder distributions but second order for unimodal distributions. Numerical studies at zero temperature suggest that in four dimensions the bimodal case is first order and the Gaussian case is second order. The analysis in three dimensions is less conclusive Swift et al. (1997). The difference between the Gaussian and bimodal cases has been attributed to percolative effects Swift et al. (1994). We have recently shown that at zero temperature, the mean-field theory is non-universal Duxbury and Meinke (2001) in the sense that the order parameter exponent may vary continuously with the disorder. Exact optimization calculations Rieger (1998); Alava et al. (2001) in three dimensions have also suggested that the correlation length exponent, as deduced from finite size scaling, is non-universal D’Auriac and Sourlas (1997).

Motivated by the fact that the RFIM is non-universal within mean-field theory for the stretched exponential distribution, we have analyzed the the RFIM on complete graphs with disorder distribution, $`(\delta h/|h|)^x`$ ($`0<x<1`$, $`|h|<\delta h`$). We find that this distribution is anomalous in the sense that this sort of disorder never destroys the spontaneously magnetized state, at least within mean-field theory. The behavior of the RFIM on complete graphs is thus quite varied and anomalous. To determine whether this non-universality extends to other lattices, we have analyzed the zero temperature RFIM on a Bethe lattice for the stretched exponential and power law distributions of disorder. We prove that the Bethe lattice is universal, provided the transition is second order, even in the limit of large co-ordination. This is surprising since in this limit the Bethe lattice usually approaches the mean-field limit.

We also extend the results outlined above to the non-equilibrium case. Ground state calculations of hysteresis and Barkhausen noise in the RFIM have demonstrated that the spin avalanches are controlled by the equilibrium RFIM critical point Dahmen and Sethna (1996); Sethna et al. (2001). It is thus not surprising, and we confirm, that the magnetization jump in the hysteresis loop is non-universal for the stretched exponential disorder distribution. The integrated avalanche distribution also has a non-universal exponent due to the non-universality of the order parameter. But the “differential" mean-field avalanche exponent is universal even in cases where the order parameter exponent is not. In contrast, as expected from the equilibrium results, the Bethe lattice exhibits universal non-equilibrium critical behavior.

The Hamiltonian of the random-field Ising model is,

$$=\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j\underset{i}{}(H+h_i)S_i,$$
(1)
where the exchange is ferromagnetic ($`J_{ij}>0`$) and the fields $`h_i`$ are random and uncorrelated. In the non-equilibrium problem we sweep the applied uniform field, $`H`$, from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and monitor the magnetization at a fixed $`J_{ij}=J`$ and for a fixed disorder configuration $`\{h_i\}`$. This model has been proposed as a model for Barkhausen noise by Dahmen et al. Dahmen and Sethna (1996). The local effective field responsible for a spin-flip is

$$h_i^{eff}=J\underset{ji}{}S_j+h_i+H$$
(2)
The condition for a spin to flip is that $`h_i^{eff}>0`$. The random fields are drawn from a specified distribution $`\rho (h)`$. To test universality, we use the following distributions which are defined on the interval -$`\delta hh\delta h`$,

$$\rho _1(h)=\frac{y+1}{2y\delta h}\left[1\left(\frac{|h|}{\delta h}\right)^y\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<y<\mathrm{}$$
(3)
and

$$\rho _2(h)=\frac{y+1}{2\delta h}\left(\frac{|h|}{\delta h}\right)^y1<y<\mathrm{}$$
(4)
We have shown that $`\rho _1`$, which is the low field expansion of a stretched exponential disorder distribution, leads to non-universality in the ground state of the equilibrium mean-field RFIM Duxbury and Meinke (2001). Here we extend that result to the non-equilibrium case. We then show that the distribution $`\rho _2`$ destroys the RFIM phase transition, in mean-field theory and on trees, for $`1<y<0`$.

First we discuss the behavior of the ground state of the zero-temperature, mean-field RFIM. The magnetization is given by

$$m=_{\mathrm{}}^{h_c(m)}\rho (h)𝑑h+_{h_c(m)}^{\mathrm{}}\rho (h)𝑑h$$
(5)
were $`h_c(m)=JmH`$. The energy at a given magnetization is

$$E(m)=\frac{Jm^2}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|h|\rho (h)𝑑h+2_0^{h_c}h\rho (h)𝑑h.$$
(6)
Extremizing with respect to the order parameter, $`m`$, yields the ground-state mean-field equation,

$$m_e=2_0^{Jm_e+H}\rho (h)𝑑h$$
(7)
The non-equilibrium critical points are found from the susceptibility $`\chi =m/H`$, which from (7) is given by,

$$\chi =\frac{2\rho (Jm+H)}{12J\rho (Jm+H)}$$
(8)
The avalanche distribution, $`d(s,t)`$ that gives the probability of finding an avalanche of size $`s`$ at parameter value $`t`$, is found using a Poisson statistics argument Dahmen and Sethna (1996), which yields,

$$d(s,t)s^\tau e^{t^2s}=s^\tau g(s^\sigma t),$$
(9)
where $`g(x)`$ is a scaling function and $`t=12J\rho (Jm_e+H)`$. Experimentally, it is more natural to make a histogram of all avalanches up to the critical applied field at which the magnetization changes sign. This “integrated" distribution behaves as,

$$D(s,\delta h)=s^{\tau \sigma \beta \delta }g(s^\sigma r)$$
(10)
where $`r=|\delta h\delta h_c|`$. For a Gaussian distribution of disorder, $`\beta =1/2`$, $`\sigma =1/2`$, $`\tau =3/2`$. We have shown, however, that in the ground state for the distribution (3), the equilibrium order parameter exponent, $`\beta =1/y`$. In contrast it is evident from Eq. (9) that the exponents $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are universal. The non-universality in non-equilibrium behavior arises in the magnetization jump and in the shape of the non-equilibrium phase boundary, as we now demonstrate. Consider the distribution (3). Integrating (7) yields the mean field equations,

$$m=\frac{y+1}{y}(\overline{J}m+\overline{H})\frac{1}{y}|\overline{J}m+\overline{H}|^{y+1}$$
(11)
for $`Jm+H>0`$, and

$$m=\frac{y+1}{y}(\overline{J}m+\overline{H})+\frac{1}{y}|\overline{J}m+\overline{H}|^{y+1}$$
(12)
for $`Jm+H<0`$. Here we have defined, $`\overline{J}=J/\delta h`$, $`\overline{H}=H/\delta h`$. Setting $`\overline{H}=0`$ in either (11) or (12) yields the equilibrium magnetization Duxbury and Meinke (2001),

$$m_{eq}=\frac{1}{\overline{J}}\left[y+1\right]^{1/y}\left[1\frac{y}{\overline{J}(y+1)}\right]^{1/y}$$
(13)
At the critical point, the magnetization scales with the magnetic field as $`m_e(r=0,H)H^{1/\delta }`$. From Eq. (12) it is evident that $`\delta =y+1`$. The susceptibility $`\chi =m/\overline{H}`$ diverges when the barrier between the two local magnetization minima of the ground state energy ceases to exist. From (8), we have

$$\chi =\frac{(y+1)[1(\overline{J}m+\overline{H})^y]}{y(y+1)\overline{J}[1(\overline{J}m+\overline{H})^y]}.$$
(14)
and the critical condition

$$y=(y+1)\overline{J}[1(\overline{J}m_{neq}+\overline{H_c})^y].$$
(15)
This equation has the simple solution,

$$x_c=\overline{J}m_{neq}+\overline{H_c}=\left[1\frac{y}{\overline{J}(y+1)}\right]^{1/y}.$$
(16)
Substituting (16) into (11), we find that the non-equilibrium magnetization jump is positive and has the value

$$m_{neq}=\left[1+\frac{1}{\overline{J}(y+1)}\right]\left[1\frac{y}{\overline{J}(y+1)}\right]^{1/y},$$
(17)
for $`HH_c^+`$. Substituting this into (16), the critical field is found to be,

$$H_c=J\left[1\frac{y\delta h}{J(y+1)}\right]^{1+1/y}.$$
(18)
This negative critical field is expected when starting with the positive magnetized state. By symmetry, the negative magnetization solution is at $`H_c`$. The value of the magnetization at that point is $`m_{neq}`$. Note that $`|m_{neq}|`$ is not the size of the magnetization jump in the hysteresis loop. The jump in magnetization in the hysteresis loop is $`\delta m_{hyst}=|m_{neq}|+m(|H_c|)`$, where $`m(|H_c|)`$ is found by solving Eq. (12). The critical exponent associated with the jump in magnetization is determined by the behavior of the distribution $`\rho (h)`$ at small fields, so that the critical exponents found here apply to distributions of the form $`\rho (h)=exp((|h|/H)^y)`$. For $`y<1`$ these are the stretched exponential distributions ubiquitous in glasses, while for $`y>2`$ they are more concentrated near the origin.

Now we briefly consider the distribution $`\rho _2(h)`$ given in Eq. (4). For $`y>0`$ this distribution is bimodal and it is easy to confirm the conclusion of Aharony Aharony (1978) that the transition is first order. However the cases $`1<y<0`$ are more interesting. In these cases the disorder is dominated by small random fields, as the distribution is singular at the origin. It is easy to carry out the mean-field calculation (7) with the result,

$$m_{eq}=\left(\frac{\delta h}{J}\right)^{1+1/y}\delta h>J$$
(19)
By comparing the energies of $`E(m=0)`$, $`E(m=1)`$ and $`E(m_{eq})`$ (using Eq. (6)), we find that for $`\delta h<J`$, the ground state is fully magnetized, while for $`\delta h>J`$ the ground state has magnetization (19). The interesting feature of the result (19) is that there is no phase transition at finite $`\delta h`$, and the system is always ordered. The disorder distribution (4) thus destroys the ground state phase transition, due to the large number of small random fields.

Now we determine whether the non-universal results found above for the mean-field theory extend to the ground state of the RFIM on a Cayley tree.

The coordination number of a tree is taken to be $`z`$, while the probability that a spin is up is $`P_+`$ and the probability that a spin is down is $`P_{}`$. The probability that a spin is up at level $`l`$ can be written in terms of the probabilities at the level which is one lower down in the tree, this yields Bruinsma (1984); Dhar et al. (1997)

$$P_+(l)=\underset{g=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ g\end{array}\right)P_+^g(l1)P_{}^{\alpha g}(l1)a_+(\alpha ,g)$$
(20)
where $`a_+(\alpha ,g)`$ is the probability that the local effective field is positive when $`g`$ neighbors are up. If we know the distribution $`\rho (h_i)`$ we can compute $`a_+(\alpha ,g)`$. Analyzing the equilibrium behavior, we have,

$$a_+^{eq}(\alpha ,g)=_{(\alpha 2g)JH}^{\mathrm{}}\rho (h)𝑑h$$
(21)
The equilibrium Cayley tree model has been extended to the non-equilibrium case by considering a growth problem in which the spin above the currently considered level in the tree is pinned in the down position Dhar et al. (1997); Sabhapandit et al. (2000). This models the growth of a domain. The formalism is the same as in Eq. (20), with the modification that

$$a_+^{neq}(\alpha ,g)=a_+^{eq}(z,g).$$
(22)
From this equality and the form (20) it is easy to derive all of the non-equilibrium results from the equilibrium results found using Eqs. (20) and (21). To find the hysteresis curve on a Cayley tree, we just shift the equilibrium magnetization as a function of field: by $`HHJ`$ when sweeping from large positive fields and; by $`HH+J`$ when sweeping from large negative fields. The behavior is evident in previous numerical work, but does not seem to have been noticed before.

By direct iteration of the recurrence relation (20) we show that a stable steady state solution, $`P_+^{}=1P_{}^{}`$, exists. It is easy to solve equation (20) in the steady state limit, at least for small values of $`\alpha `$. For $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ Cayley trees have no ordered state for any finite $`\delta h`$, for the disorder distribution (3). But for $`\alpha =3`$ a ferromagnetic state does exist for a range of disorder. As we see from Eq. (20), the $`\alpha =3`$ case leads to a polynomial of order $`3`$ which can be simplified to,

$$\frac{m}{4}[m^2(13b+a)1+3a+3b]=0$$
(23)
were $`m=2(P_+^{}1/2)`$, $`a=a_+^{eq}(3,0)`$ and $`b=a_+^{eq}(3,1)`$. Eq. (23) has the following solutions:

$$m=0;\text{and}m=\pm \left(\frac{3a+3b1}{3b1a}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(24)
These solutions apply for any disorder distribution. For the distribution $`\rho _1(h)`$, performing the integrals yields,

$$m=\left[\frac{4y12(y+1)\overline{J}+3(3^{y+1}+1)\overline{J}^{y+1}}{3(13^y)\overline{J}^{y+1}}\right]^{1/2}$$
(25)
We can now expand the magnetization around the critical point, $`J_c`$, $`\overline{J}=\overline{J}_cϵ`$. We find,

$$m\left[(12(y+1)+3\left(\begin{array}{c}y+1\\ y\end{array}\right)(1+3^{y+1})\overline{J}^y)ϵ\right]^{1/2}$$
(26)
Thus $`mϵ^{1/2}`$ for any $`y`$, so that $`\beta =1/2`$ is universal. Since the non-equilibrium behavior on trees is related to that of the equilibrium behavior in such a simple manner, this universality extends to the hysteresis and avalanche exponents. It is easy to confirm numerically that the behavior extends to large values of the branch co-ordination number $`\alpha `$. Moreover by doing an expansion of (20) using $`P_+=1/2+m`$, it is possible to show analytically that only the first and third order terms in $`m`$ exist, regardless of the value of $`y`$ in the disorder distribution (3). This confirms that for this distribution, the behavior is universal for all coordination numbers.

For the distribution $`\rho _2(h)`$ and $`\alpha =3`$ we get from Eq. (24)

$$m=\left[\frac{43(3^{y+1}+1)\overline{J}^{y+1}}{3(3^y1)\overline{J}^{y+1}}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(27)
Just like we have done before we can expand $`m`$ around the critical point, $`\overline{J}=\overline{J_c}ϵ`$:

$$m[\left(\begin{array}{c}y+1\\ y\end{array}\right)(3^{y+1}+1))\overline{J_c}^yϵ]^{1/2}.$$

Thus for $`\rho _2`$ $`\beta =1/2`$ is a universal exponent, too.

In summary, on complete graphs (i.e. in mean-field theory) the RFIM at $`T=0`$ is non-universal. In particular, the stretched exponential disorder distribution leads to a non-universal order parameter exponent and non-universal integrated avalanche exponent. In addition, the power law distribution has a regime in which a predominance of small random fields destroys the transition and the RFIM always has a finite magnetization. In contrast the Cayley tree does not show either of these behaviors. Even in the limit of large coordination it is universal, with the usual mean-field order-parameter exponent $`1/2`$. We have carried out some preliminary numerical studies of the behavior in three dimensions (with short range interactions) and find that the power law distribution of random fields does not destroy the transition. Moreover, the exceedingly small value of $`\beta `$ in three dimensions renders any non-universality in $`\beta `$ a moot point. However the behavior in dimensions higher than three, or for longer range interactions in three dimensions could be more interesting. Finally, even for short range interactions in three dimensions, there have been suggestions of non-universality in the finite size scaling behavior D’Auriac and Sourlas (1997). It is unclear, as yet, whether that behavior is related to the non-universality seen here.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the DOE under contract DE-FG02-90ER45418.