MBL THROUGH MPS. Bryan Clark and David Pekker. arxiv: Perimeter - Urbana. Friday, October 31, 14

Transcription

1 MBL THROUGH MPS Bryan Clark and David Pekker arxiv: Perimeter - Urbana

2 Many Body Localization... It has been suggested that interactions + (strong) disorder LX H = [h i Si z X + J Ŝ i Ŝi+1] i=1 h i 2 [ W, W ] produce a many-body localized phase at all temperatures.

3 A many body localized phase... has the following phenomenological properties: doesn t thermalize local constants of motion has atypical eigenstates

4 Thermalization Large quantum system Small subsystem: small Thermalized if, in equilibrium, small = thermal at the temperature that corresponds to the energy density of the system.

5 What thermalizes? States which obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis... Energy eigenstates will decohere. Nearby eigenstates will stay coherent. = 0 0i + 1 1i n ni e ith = 0 e ite 0 0i + 1 e ite 1 1i n e ite n ni To thermalize, nearby eigenstates must look the same with respect to local observables. Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis

6 and what doesn t thermalize? States which don t obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis... Integrable systems are one such system... which don t thermalize because of the extensive number of conserved quantities. Instead the density matrix approaches the generalized Gibbs Ensemble GGE. We should anticipate then, that MBL phases shouldn t obey ETH and should be like integrable systems.

7 A many body localized phase... has the following phenomenological properties: doesn t thermalize local constants of motion has atypical eigenstates

8 Atypical Eigenstates Low Entanglement (obeys area law) Increasing disorder Notice that there is interesting quantum effects happening at non-zero temperature 0 N=12 Delta=(0.05,10.5) Average over 10 disorder realizations and 5 eigenstates Strange Spectral Statistics... Poisson vs. Gaussian orthogonal ensemble

9 How should we understand these strange phenomena? We need a unifying understanding of MBL? MBL is all about the eigenstates. Can we characterize them?

10 H = LX h i S z i Simple Structure of Eigenstates i=1 h i 2 [ W, W ] ground state finite energy density state

11 Simple Structure of Eigenstates LX H = [h i Si z ] i=1 h i 2 [ W, W ] Ground State: Excited State: Highly Excited State:

12 Is their a simple structure for the eigenstates in a many-body localized phase? LX H = [h i Si z X + J Ŝ i Ŝi+1] i=1 h i 2 [ W, W ] Ground State: Excited State: Highly Excited State: A 1, 1 A 2, 2 A 3, 3 A 4, 4 A 5, 5 A 1, 1 B 2, 2 A 3, 3 A 4, 4 A 5, 5 B 1, 1 B 2, 2 A 3, 3 B 4, 4 A 5, 5

13 A wave function is an object that eats a configuration of spins and generates a number: (", #, ") =0.3 A product state eats a configuration of spins and generates a number by taking the product of complex numbers. (", #, ") =c 1," c 2,# c 3," A matrix product state (MPS) eats a configuration of spins and generates a number by taking the product of matrices/vectors. (", #, ") =M 1," M 2,# i ij M 3," j 2N matrices Each of size DxD

14 ii 2N matrices Each of size 1x A product state is a very simple MPS

15 A operator is an object that eats two configuration of spins and generates a number: ("#, #", "") =0.9 A matrix product operator (MPO) eats two configuration of spins and generates a number by taking the product of matrices/ vectors. ("#, #", "") =O 1,"# i O 2,#" ij O 3,"" j 4N matrices Each of size DxD

16 X 1 (O M 1 1 ) X 2 (O M 2 2 ) X 3 (O M 3 3 ) O O 2 O M1 1M 2 2M 3 3 O " 0 1 O # 0 2 O " 0 3 An operator applied to a product state picks out two of the four matrices (per site) from the operator. ii

17 X 1 (O M 1 1 ) X 2 (O M 2 2 ) X 3 (O M 3 3 ) O O 2 O M1 1M 2 2M 3 3 O # 0 1 O # 0 2 O " 0 3 An operator applied to a product state picks out two of the four matrices (per site) from the operator. ii Different product state - different matrices

18 ÛĤÛ = D Û ii = e i i All the eigenstates are encoded with 4n matrices! Ground State: G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 Excited State: E 1 E 2 G 3 E 4 G 5 e i i O " 0 1 O # 0 2 O " 0 3 Key question: are the sizes of E and G constant with bond dimension? Û ii

19 Let s check this... Ĥ Û MPO What s the bond U maps product states to eigenstates. dimension? Many such mappings Which one we pick is important! 1 This is no good. Want to preserve locality in mapping.

20 MBL IPR Are you spread out over all of Hilbert space or just a little piece of it? IPR Px (x) 4 P x (x) 2 MBL should be localized Let map product state i to eigenstate [i] Minimize X i hi [i]i 2 over all functions This can be done with bipartite matching. Low disorder High disorder

21 For large disorder, the bond dimension saturates.

22 A more refined look at the MPO bond dimension. Large disorder Low disorder Low bond dimension System-dependent bond dimension Disorder near transition Broad bond dimension

23 A many body localized phase... has the following phenomenological properties: doesn t thermalize has atypical eigenstates local constants of motion

24 Hamiltonian H We want a basis where the Hamiltonian becomes essentially block diagonal.

25 Seeing the transition... # off-diagonal terms Apply rotation into blocks... Check the number of off-diagonal terms. Almost a ground state property... Disorder Strength Increasing Disorder

26 [Ĥ,Ô] =0 Constants of Motion Let Ô = U(I I z I I)U ÔĤ ĤÔ ÔUU Ĥ ĤUU Ô U (ÔUU Ĥ U ÔUU ĤU ĤUU Ô)U U ĤUU ÔU)

27 Constants of Motion Let Ô = U(I I z I I)U UẐ3U = U X i i iihi! U X! i e i ihe i i H X i i e i ihe i! X! i e i ihe i H =0 i [Ĥ,Ô] =0 These are constants of motions...are they orthogonal? local?

28 Let Ô 3 = U(I I z I I)U Ô 2 = U(I z I I I)U Ô 2 Ô 3 = U(I z I I I)U U(I I z I I)U = U(I z I I I)(I I z I I)U Yes they are orthogonal.

29 U I U z U U The constant of motion differs from the identity by a single matrix. This means it can only differ locally from the identity. It s a local constant of motion!

30 Thermalization If ETH then volume law Delocalized phase by exact diagonalization (16 sites) 0.5 Xs k z \, k= Energy

31 ETH Area law A first preliminary test of ETH: 24 sites! Nearly degenerate states have very different local observables. Failure of ETH! Xs 5 z \ Energy

32 If you have n constant of motions represented by MPO s which differ by a single matrix from an identity MPO then there is a MPO representation

33 Doesn t Thermalize Won t overlap GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEEW EGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEEE will overlap Can t get information down here. GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGGGG GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGGGE GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGGEG GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGGEE GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEGG GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEGE GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEEG GGEEGEGGEGEGGEGGEEE

34 Eigenstate Filter Need a property to filter out an eigenstate. A Entanglement: In a many-body localized phase, the eigenstates have low entanglement: area law* S = Tr[ A log A ] Key insight: Although eigenstates have low entanglement, superposition of eigenstates have larger entanglement. = q Increasing disorder 0 We need a low entanglement filter! Want the lowest entangled state close to a given energy. * Bela and Chetan; Brian Swingle; Abanin, et. al N=12 Delta=(0.05,10.5) Average over 10 disorder realizations and 5 eigenstates

35 Eigenstates... Diagonalizing in our little block produce PGE (pretty-good eigenstates). Can we get great great eigenstates?

36 Getting a MPS MPS are a good representation. How do we get them? DMRG on (H E) 2 + artificially drop bonddimension during run. s= YH 2 ] - XH\ 2 Bond Dimension Metric of Goodness MPS step MPS step Disorder 10; 24 Sites Level Spacing: 1.5*10-5 Energy Typical DMRG: For a site produce an effective Hamiltonian H and solve for the ground state of H Modified DMRG: For a site produce an effective Hamiltonian H and choose the eigenstate of H closest to the current energy of your state DMRG step Disorder 20; 24 Sites Level Spacing: 3*10-5 se= YH 2 ] - XH\ DMRG step * Also time evolution variants of these; easier to analyze but general experience is diagonalization approach tends to be more accurate.

37 Other Eigenstates New Approach: For a site produce an effective Hamiltonian H and choose the eigenstate of H closest to the current energy For a site produce an effective Hamiltonian H and choose another eigenstate. Largest overlap Generated energy

38 Conclusion MBL is a phase where a local unitary transform makes you almost block diagonal with extensive # of blocks. MBL is a phase with MPS eigenstates. Blocks don t talk => No ETH => No thermalization => Any eigenstate supports only local blocks (localized) All eigenstates are (essentially) ground states => Area law => Possion level statistics We can explicitly produce the block diagonal basis and eigenstates. We can find very high quality eigenstates to test MBL on.