arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 19 May 2004

Transcription

1 Quantum renormalization group of XYZ model in a transverse magnetic field A. Langari Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences, Zanjan , Iran Max-Planck-Institut für Pysik komplexer Systeme, ötnitzer Str.3, 7 Dresden, Germany arxiv:cond-mat/5v [cond-mat.str-el] 9 May We ave studied te zero temperature pase diagram of XYZ model in te presence of transverse magnetic field. We sow tat small anisotropy ( < ) is not relevant to cange te universality class. Te pase diagram consists of two antiferromagnetic ordering and a paramagnetic pases. We ave obtained te critical exponents, fixed points and running of coupling constants by implementing te standard quantum renormalization group. Te continuous pase transition from antiferromagnetic (spin-flop) pase to a paramagnetic one is in te universality class of Ising model in transverse field. umerical exact diagonalization as been done to justify our results. We ave also addressed on te application of our findings to te recent experiments on Cs CoCl. PACS numbers: 75..Jm, 75..Pq, 75..Cx Systems near criticality are usually caracterised by fluctuations over many lengt scales. At te critical point itself, fluctuations exist over all scales. At moderate temperatures quantum fluctuations are usually suppressed compared wit te termal ones. However if temperature is near zero, quantum fluctuations especially in te low-lying states dominate termal ones and strongly influence te critical beavior of system. Zero-temperature (quantum) pase transition may occur in te area of spin systems by applying noncommuting magnetic field wic introduces quantum fluctuations. Suc a situation as been studied in te tree dimensional Ising ferromagnet LiHoF in a transverse magnetic field. However due to its ig dimensionality, te system beaves in a mean-field-like manner. In tis paper we are going to consider te one-dimensional XYZ model in te presence of a transverse field were quantum fluctuations of symmetry breaking field play an essential role. Generally Renormalization Group (RG) is te proper metod to give us te universal beavior at long wave lengts were oter metods fail to work accurately. Te spin-(s =) Hamiltonian of tis model on a periodic cain of -sites is H = [J x σi x σx i+ +J yσ y i σy i+ + σz i σz i+ σx i ], () i= were J x > and J y > are excange couplings in te XY easy plane, < is te anisotropy in Z direction wic is in J y units and is proportional to te transverse field. σ α ;α = x,y,z are Pauli matrices. Wen =, te XXZ model (J x = J y ) is known to be solvable and critical (gapless) wile. Te Ising regime is > and is te ferromagnetic case. Magnetic field in te anisotropy direction commutes wit te Hamiltonian ( = ) and extends te gapless region (quasi long range order) to a border were a transition to paramagnetic pase takes place. Te model is still integrable and can be explained by a conformal field teroy wit central carge c = (Ref.[3] and references terein). In te case of XXZ model a transverse field breaks te U() symmetry of te Hamiltonian to a lower, Ising-like, wic develops a gap. Te ground state ten as long range anti-ferromagnetic order ( < ). However due to non-zero projection of order parameter on field axis it is a spin-flop éel state. In fact at a special field ( = J x (J x + )) te ground state is known exactly to be of classical éel type,5. Pase diagram, scaling of gap and some of te low excited states at as been studied in Ref.[6]. Te gapvanises at a critical field c, wereatransitiontoparamagneticpaseoccurs. Classical approac to tis model reveals te mean field results 7 wic is exact as s. However te study of critical region needs quantum fluctuations to be taken into account. Exact diagonalization and Density MatrixRenormalizationGroup(DMRG) 9 givesusteproperties of stable pases. A bosonization approc to tis model in certain limits leads to a nontrivial fixed point and a gapless line wic separates two gapped pases, moreover te connection to te axial next-nearest neigbor Ising model (AI) as been addressed. Te applicability of mean-field approximation as been studied by comparing wit te DMRG results of magnetization andstructurefactor. Recentlyteeffect oflongitudinal magnetic field on bot Ising model in Transverse Field (TF) andxxz model intf asbeen discussed 3. Here wearegoingto presentte pase diagramofxyz model, Eq. (), by means of RG flow of coupling constants to sow explicitly its universality class. Apart from teoretical point of view, recent experiments on Cs CoCl in te presence of transverse magnetic field canbe explained byxyz model wit =.5. Using Quantum Renormalization Group (QRG) we will sow explicitly tat te anisotropy is not relevant and te universality class is governed by Ising model in Transverse Field (ITF). In addition QRG results rule out te existence of spin liquid pase between spin flop and paramagnetic pases wic are separated at te critical field ( c ). Exact diagonalization data supports our QRG results by calculating te structure factor and magnetization of finite cain sizes. Our results are in good agreement wit te experimental data. We will also discuss on te reasons wy magnetization does not saturate just

2 above critical point. Quantum RG sceme in real space is started by decomposing lattice into isolated blocks. Te Hamiltonian of eacblock is diagonalizedexactly and some ofte lowlying states is kept to construct te basis for renormalized Hilbert space. Finally te Hamiltonian is projected to te renormalized space 5. We ave considered a two sites block and kept te ground ( ǫ ) and first ( ǫ ) excited states of eac block to construct te embedding operator (T = ǫ + ǫ ) 6. Energy eigenvalues are ǫ = J x J y and ǫ = J x +(J y ). Te and are renamed basis in te renormalized Hilbert space. Te interaction between blocks define te effective interaction of renormalized cain were eac block is considered as a single site. A remark is in order wen projecting te Hamiltonian to te effective (renormalized) Hilbert space. Te effective Hamiltonian is not exactly similar to te initial one, i.e. te sign of σ y i σy i+ and σi zσz i+ terms is canged. To avoid tis and producing a self similar Hamiltonian we first implement a π rotation around x-axis for even sites and leaves odd sites uncanged. Terefore te Hamiltonian is transformed to te following form, / H = [J x σi x σi+ x J y σ y i σy i+ σz iσi+ z σi x ]. () i= We note to interpret our final results in terms of tis transformation. Te renormalized Hamiltonian (H ren = T H(transformed)T) is similar to Eq.() wit renormalized coupling defined below. J x = J x J y = J y = ǫ ǫ = ( (Jy ) ϑ (J y ) +ϑ ) (J y +ϑ) (J y ) +ϑ J x ( (Jy ) ϑ (J y ) +ϑ ) (J y ϑ) (J y ) +ϑ (3) were ϑ = +(J y ). Tis RG-flow is not valid wen were te U() symmetry at J x = J y can not be recovered by Eq. (3). It will be discussed later. However due to level crossing wic appens for te eigenstates of block Hamiltonian, Eq. (3) is valid wen g x ( + +g )/ and g g x. Tis covers XYZ model (J x J y ) in transverse field wen <. Te new parameters g x = Jx J y, g = J y and g = J y are defined because tese ratios actually define competing pases. We ave plotted te RG-flow (arrows) and different pases in Fig.. Te RG equations (Eq. (3)) sow running of to zero. In oter words te anisotropy term is irrelevant ( < ). So we ave only plotted te = plane. It means tat te universality class of XYZ model in transverse field (TF) is te + g x (I) g* (III) (II) + FIG. : Pase diagram of XY model in transverse field. Arrows sow running of couplings under RG. Filled circles sow fixed points and te open circle is te tricritical point were lines separating different pases merge. Te tick line at te top of pase diagram (g x = + ) is a line of fixed points. Pase (I) is antiferromagnetic Ising in y-direction (spin-flop), (II) paramagnetic in x-direction and (III) is antiferromagnet in x-direction. g is te ITF fixed point. same as XY model in TF. Moreover te excange interaction in te x-direction is also irrelevant wile J x < J y. As J x vanises under RG, tere are only two effective terms in te Hamiltonian. Tis is exactly te case of Ising model in TF (ITF model). So te interplay of J y σ y i σy i+ and (σx i + σx i+ ) defines eiter ordering in y or paramagnetic in x direction. Solving te RG equation for fixed points, we found te non-trivial fixed point g (g x =,g.6,g = ) apart from te oter wic is at(g x =,g =,g = ) and represents saturated ferromagnet. We ave linearised te RG-flow at g and found one relevant direction (wose eigenvalue is larger tan one). Te eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of linearised RG at g in (g x,g,g ) space are: λ =.59 = (,,); λ =.3 = (,.6,); λ 3 = 6 = (,,). Te relevant direction ( λ ) is te orizontal line passing troug g and λ is te tick line ending at g. Te critical exponents at tis fixed point are β =,ν =. and z =.55. Te discrepancies of exponents from exact values (β =.5,ν = and z = ) 7 are te result of -sites blocking, owever tese are exactly equal to te exponents of ITF cain wic is calculated by QRG 6. As far as g x, te control parameter is g. Wen g < g c (pase (I)), te staggered magnetization in y- direction (SM y ) is nonzero wic is te order parameter to represents te pase transition at g c (te line wic ends at g ). However magnetization in x-direction (M x) is also nonzero wic causes to consider tis pase as a g

3 3.. M x (a) (b) infinity 6 =.5 J x =J y= =.5 J x=j y= SM y (QRG) M x (QRG) M x(extp. Lanczos) = FIG. : a Te order parameter (SM y) and magnetization in x-direction (M x) versus transverse field. QRG and extrapolated Lanczos results are compared for (M x). b Lanczos results of M x vs. transverse field for =,6,, and extrapolation to, at =.5 and J x = J y =. Te inset sows tat M x beaves qualitatively te same for = and.5. spin flop pase. Tis is an Ising like pase wic as a nonzero gap. Tis gap is going to be closed at g c were te transition to paramagnetic pase takes place. At tis point te quantum fluctuation of TF destroys te antiferromagnetic(af) ordering completely. Te paramagnetic pase (II) appears at g > g c were spins are aligned in te field direction and will be saturated in ig TF. ote tat te proper order parameter for tis pase transition is staggered magnetization in y-direction. So it is not necessary to gain te saturation value for M x just after g c. Tis also appens in ITF model. We ave plotted bot SM y and M x in Fig. (a). Te comparison wit Lanczos results sow very good qualitative agreement. Altoug it is not expected tat QRG gives good quantitative results we got fairly well agreement wit Lanczos results. To discuss te beavior close to =, we need to take into account te U() symmetry in te QRG sceme. So we will consider te XY model at = and te effect of TF is taken into account by perturbation. In tis case te only relevant parameter is g x. Implementing a 3 sites blocking, te RG flow is: g x = gx, 3 wic as stable gx =, and an unstable fixed point g x =. Te stable fixed points define two AF Ising pases ordered in y-direction (gx = ) and x-direction (g x = ). Te gx = is te critical point were a transition occurs between two stable pases. ow te transverse field is considered perturbatively wic gives te following RG flow for g. ( g = gx +g x gx ) +gx g ; g () Te perturbation approac is justified since g. For any value of g x, Eq. () leads to g < g, wic means te direction of flow is toward te g x axis. As a result of QRG at g = we expect to ave a pase transition at small g by canging g x close to g x. Te boundary of tis pase transition is sown by dased line in Fig. wic is te gapless line reported in Ref.[]. Tis line represents te pase transition between pases (I) and (III), AF Ising in y- and x-direction, respectively. As g x (J y ) te model beaves as an AF Ising in a longitudinal magnetic field. In tis limit a first order pase transition at J x = divides te AF J x < from paramagnetic J x > pases. Aline offixed pointscomes out of a 3-sites block QRG for J x < wic as been sown as a tick line at te top of pase diagram (Fig. ). Tus a line wit slope gx g = (as J y ) constructs te boundary of pase transition between (II) and (III). Tis pase transition is in te universality class of AF Ising in a magnetic field. To complete te structure of pase diagram we propose a tri-critical point (open circle in Fig. ) wic is te coexistence point of tree pases. Still we do not ave an RG equation at tis point. We ave implemented te Lanczos algoritm on finite sizes ( =,6,,) using periodic boundary conditions to calculate M x and structure factors bot in x and y directions. In Fig. (b) we ave plotted M x for different cain sizes at =.5 and an extrapolation to. Te value of =.5 is cosen to fit te case of Cs CoCl. Te general beavior is similar to wat we ave obtained from QRG (Fig. (a)). Tere is no sarp transition to te saturation value at a given because M x is not te proper order parameter to tis pase transition. Oscillations of M x at finite for < c is te result of level crossing between ground and first excited states of tis model. Te last level crossing appens at. We ave also plotted te case of = to sow te same qualitative beavior as =.5 in te inset of Fig. (b). Lanczos results leads to SM y = for any value of, since in a finite system no symmetry breaking appens. However te structure factor (S yy (q = π)) diverges in te ordered pase as. Te structure factor at momentum q is defined as S αα (q) = r < σ α σ α r > e iqr ; α = x,y (5) In Fig. 3(a), S yy (q = π) is plotted versus for different transverse field. As far as > 3., S yy (q = π) grows slowly and sows saturation at a finite value wen. In te oter and a super linear beavior versus

4 yy S (q= ) π xx S (q=) (a) =.5 J x=j y= 6 (b) =.5 J x=j y= FIG. 3: Structure factor (a) S yy (q = π), (b) S xx (q = ) versus for different transverse field. S yy (q = π) sows divergence as wile < c 3. (in te ordered pase). All plots for S xx (q = ) sow divergence in termodynamic limit ( ). However super linear beavior for < c 3. and almost linear beavior for > c is te sign of two different pases. sows a divergence of structure factor for < 3.. It corresponds to ordered pase wic is AF in y-direction. Tus te critical field at =.5 is c = 3.±.5. A similar computation results to c =.9 ±.5 for =. To get an impression tat te QRG results are very surprising we just mention te value of critical field for comparison wit Lanczos ones, c ( =.5) = 3.3 and c ( = ) = 3.. We ave also plotted te structure factor S xx (q = ) versus in Fig. 3(b). Tis sows divergence for any value of as wic verifies ordering in x- direction. Te spin flop pase (I) as nonzero M x wic increases by to te saturation value in paramagnetic pase (II). However we observe different qualitative beavior for < c = 3. and > c. Te former is super linear and te latter is almost linear. As mentioned before, M x is not te proper order parameter and is not expected to be saturated at a specific. Te saturation appens for enoug large value of TF. Summing up te QRG and numerical results, we claim tat te universality class of XYZ model in TF ( < ) is te ITF model. Tus tere exists only two stable pases, namely (I) and (II), wic are distinguised by a critical field at c. In tis respect tere is no spin liquid pase just after transition point. We found very good agreement in te sense of universal beavior wit te experimental results on Cs CoCl. We ave obtained te corresponding critical magnetic field H c =.3 T comparing wit te reported H c =. T. Te difference sould come from two doublets nature (s = 3/) of actual material and te effective Hamiltonian of s = / in our calculation wic is responsible for low fields. Te oter mismatcing is te observed crossover beavior in M x. As proposed in Ref. te crossover beavior is related to te saturation of te lower doublet of Co + and te inset of iger doublet effects. However for te XYZ cain as a spin / model tis does not appen. At J x = J y, applying small noncommuting fields break te U() rotational symmetry and develops a gap wic as te consequence of promoting long-range order in a spinflop pase (I). Increasing field stabilizes te perpendicular AF order wic can be observed by te maximum in SM y. Higer TF reduces ordering up to a critical field ( c ) were gap vanises. Just after tis transition point a gapped paramagnetic pase appears (II). Acknowledgments Te autor would like to tank D. V. Dmitriev, V. Ya. Krivnov, A. A. Ovcinnikov, M. Peyravy, T. Vojta, K. Yang and A. P. Young for fruitful discussions and useful comments. D. Bitko, T.F. Rosenbaum and G. Aeppli, Pys. Rev. Lett. 77, 9 (996). C.. Yang and C.P. Yang, Pys. Rev. 5, 3 (966); ibid,5, 37, (966). 3 F. C. Alcaraz and A. L. Malvezzi, J. Pys. A., 5 (995). G. Müller and R. E. Srock, Pys. Rev. B3, 55 (95). 5 S. Mori, I. Mannari and I. Harda, J. Pys. Soc. Jpn. (63), 37 (99). 6 D. V. Dmitriev, V. Ya. Krivnov, A. A. Ovcinnikov and A. Langari, JETP, 95, 53 (); D. V. Dmitriev, V. Ya. Krivnov, and A. A. Ovcinnikov, Pys. Rev. B 65, 79 (). 7 J. Kurmann, H. Tomas and G. Müller, Pysica A, 35 (9). S. Mori, J.-J. Kim and I. Harda, J. Pys. Soc. Jpn. 6, 39 (995). 9 F. Capraro and C. Gros, Eur. Pys. J. B 9, 35 (). A. Dutta and D. Sen, Pys. Rev. B 67, 935 (3). J.-S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler and U. Löw, Pys. Rev. B 6, 33 (3). A. A. Ovcinnikov, D. V. Dmitriev, V. Ya. Krivnov and

5 5 O. O. Ceranovskii, Pys. Rev. B 6, 6 (3). 3 D. V. Dmitriev and V. Ya. Krivnov, condmat/335. M. Kenzelmann, R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, D. Visser, M. Hofmann, P. Smeibidl and Z. Tylczynski, Pys. Rev. B 65, 3 (). 5 P. PfeutyP., R. Jullien andk. L. Penson, Real space renormalization, Cap. 5, Ed. T. W. Burkardt and J. M. J. van Leeuwen (Springer, Berlin, 9). 6 M. A. Martin-Delgado and G. Sierra, Int. J. Mod. Pys. A, 35 (996). 7 P. Pfeuty, Ann. Pys. 57, 79 (97). A. Langari, Pys. Rev. B 5, 67 (99).