1: \documentclass[twocolumn, showpacs]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphics}

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{mathrsfs}

5: \usepackage{amsfonts}

6: \usepackage{overpic}

7: \usepackage{hyperref}

8: \usepackage{rotating}

9: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}

10: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1|}

11: \newcommand{\inp}[2]{\langle #1 | #2\rangle}

12: 

13: \begin{document}

14: \title{Multiparticle Entanglement in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick Model}

15: \author{H. T. Cui }

16: \email{cuiht@aynu.edu.cn} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Anyang

17: Normal University, Anyang 455000, China}

18: \begin{abstract}

19: The multiparticle entanglement in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model has

20: been discussed extensively in this paper. Measured by the global

21: entanglement and its generalization, our calculation shows that the

22: multiparticle entanglement can faithfully detect quantum phase

23: transitions. For an antiferromagnetic case the multiparticle

24: entanglement reaches the maximum at the transition point, whereas

25: for ferromagnetic coupling, two different behaviors of multiparticle

26: entanglement can be identified, dependent on the anisotropic

27: parameter in the coupling.

28: \end{abstract}

29: \pacs{03.65.Ud, 64.60.-i, 05.70.Fh, 75.10.-b} \maketitle

30: 

31: \section{introduction}

32: The exploration of the connection between statistical mechanics and

33: quantum information has been extensive in recent years since the

34: work \cite{preskill}. Especially the research of entanglement in

35: many-body systems has contributed to the comprehensive crossover

36: between the two hot areas \cite{afov07}. Furthermore, the finding of

37: integer or fractional quantum Hall effect in two-dimensional

38: many-body systems imposes a challenge on the universal understanding

39: of phase transitions, since the traditional theory for phase

40: transition cannot incorporate these novel phenomena \cite{senthil}.

41: Recently the research of quantum entanglement in two-dimensional

42: many-body systems provides the clear characterization for different

43: quantum orders \cite{kitaev}. These facts suggest that quantum

44: entanglement would play a vital role in the understanding of

45: many-body effects.

46: 

47: Bipartite entanglement was first studied, and focused on the

48: connection to the criticality in spin-chain systems\cite{oaff02,

49: on02}. This interest comes from the fact that quantum phase

50: transition is related to the construction of the long-range

51: correlations in many-body systems. Hence it is a natural conjecture

52: that quantum entanglement, as a depiction of the non-local

53: correlation, could detect the appearance of long-range correlation.

54: Great progress has been made for the block entanglement in many-body

55: systems; the area law of block entanglement entropy has been

56: generally constructed by the conformal field theory. Furthermore the

57: violation of the area law has been identified as a reliable

58: detection of quantum phase transitions in one-dimensional

59: systems(see Ref. \cite{afov07} for a comprehensive review). However

60: the situation becomes complex for high-dimensional systems: the

61: violation of the area law in one-dimensional case when the system is

62: critical, does not seem to hold in higher dimensions\cite{afov07}.

63: Even for pairwise entanglement in many-body systems the results are

64: not satisfying . For example, the cutoff in the definition of

65: concurrence may lead to unphysical results when one focuses on the

66: connection of entanglement and phase transition in many-body systems

67: \cite{yang}.

68: 

69: The situation becomes more complex for multiparticle

70: entanglement(ME) because of the absence of unified measurement for

71: ME\cite{pv07}. However, it is a natural speculation that ME should

72: play a more fundamental role than a bipartite one for the

73: understanding of many-body effects with consideration of the

74: universal interaction in many-body systems. Recently the discussions

75: of ME in many-body systems have been given more attention because of

76: the availability of some special entangled states, e.g., cluster

77: states for one-way quantum computation\cite{br01}, $n$-party

78: Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger(GHZ) state and $W$-state\cite{dvc00}.

79: Although great effort has been devoted to the measurement of ME, the

80: analytical or operational measurements exist only for some special

81: cases\cite{pv07}. The connection of quantum phase transition and ME

82: has also been discussed extensively in \cite{wei05,cffp07,

83: oliveira06}. However these discussions are mainly on the

84: one-dimensional spin-1/2 $XY$ model, and the difficulty of

85: calculating ME obstructs further exploration.

86: 

87: Recently, the global entanglement has been constructed for the

88: quantification of ME by Meyer and Wallach\cite{mw02}, which

89: possesses the virtues of the availability of analytical expression

90: and operability. Moreover global entanglement is measurable

91: experimentally since it is directly related to the mixedness of

92: single party\cite{brennen03}. Another important character of global

93: entanglement is the monotonicity under local operations and

94: classical communication (LOCC), if one notes that global

95: entanglement is intimately related to the linear

96: entropy\cite{horodecki07}. Consequently, Oliveira and his

97: collaborators improved this definition for measuring some special

98: entangled states, e.g. $n$-party $W$ state or GHZ

99: state\cite{oliveira06}. Moreover the connection of the generalized

100: global entanglement and quantum phase transition has also been

101: explored in the one-dimensional spin-1/2 $XY$ model, in which

102: entanglement reaches the maximum near to the transition

103: point\cite{oliveira06}.

104: 

105: It is interesting to note that the nearest neighbor coupling is

106: beneficial to the formation of ME in the one-dimensional spin-1/2

107: $XY$ model. Since the particle correlation is short-ranged in this

108: model\cite{on02}, one should note that the maximum of global

109: entanglement maybe come from the distribution of pairwise

110: entanglement\cite{cffp07, facchi}. Hence it is tempting to present a

111: discussion about ME  when the correlation is long range and the

112: coupling is beyond the nearest neighbor case. Fortunately the

113: Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick(LMG) model\cite{lmg} provides us the benchmark

114: for exploring this point since the collective interaction in this

115: model. Then it is expected that ME would play a critical role.

116: 

117: Recently the entanglement in the LMG model has been extensively

118: studied, such as concurrence \cite{vidal, dv04, vmd04},

119: one-tangle\cite{vpa04}, entanglement entropy\cite{uv, lp05,vdb07}

120: and generalized entanglement\cite{somma}. The concurrence in the LMG

121: model displays sensitivity to the appearance of quantum phase

122: transition\cite{vidal, vmd04}, except for some special

123: cases\cite{vmd04}. A possible explanation of this discrepancy is

124: that the trace operation performed in the calculation of concurrence

125: inevitably kills some correlations between spins\cite{vmd04}. With

126: respect to this point, Barnum and his collaborators constructed a

127: subsystem-independent measure of entanglement, based on a

128: distinguished subspace of observables for the system\cite{bkosv04}.

129: The named \emph{generalized entanglement} introduced by Barnum,

130: \textit{et.al.} has also been discussed in the LMG model, which

131: displayed the ability of detecting the phase

132: transitions\cite{somma}. Moreover the authors show the equivalency

133: between generalized entanglement and the global entanglement defined

134: by Meyer and Wallach\cite{mw02}. However, as shown in \cite{somma},

135: it is indispensable for the construction of the distinguished

136: subspace of observables to obtain the knowledge of the ground state

137: in many-body systems, that in most cases is very difficult. The

138: research of entanglement entropy in the LMG model shows that the

139: entropy was divergent under thermodynamic limit near the phase

140: transition point, and moreover shows a discontinuity at the critical

141: point for the isotropic coupling case\cite{vdb07}.

142: 

143: The generalized global entanglement (gGE), defined by Oliveira,

144: \textit{et. al.}\cite{oliveira06}, is a generalization of the global

145: entanglement (GE). With respect to the equivalence between Barnum's

146: generalized entanglement and GE, gGE provides a universal

147: characterization of ME in many-body systems. Hence, it is

148: interesting to present a comprehensive research of gGE and GE in the

149: LMG model. Our discussion also presents  detailed research for

150: antiferromagnetic coupling and some interesting results can be

151: obtained, which is rarely touched on in the previous works. I should

152: point out that the goal for this paper focuses on the connection

153: between ME, measured by gGE and GE respectively, and quantum phase

154: transition in the LMG model. For this purpose, the paper is

155: organized as following. In Sec.II the Hamiltonian is presented, and

156: ground states are determined analytically. The phase diagram will be

157: identified by introducing the proper parameter. In Sec.III the

158: analytical expressions for gGE and GE are presented. Based on these

159: formulas the multiparticle entanglements for ferro-magnetic and

160: antiferro-magnetic couplings are discussed respectively. The

161: conclusions and discussions are given in Sec. IV.

162: 

163: \section{Hamiltonian and ground state}

164: The LMG model describes a set of spin-half particles coupled to all

165: others with an interaction independent of the position and the

166: nature of the elements. The Hamiltonian can be written as

167: \begin{equation}\label{h}

168: H= - \frac{\lambda}{N}(S^2_x + \gamma S^2_y) - h_z S_z,

169: \end{equation}

170: in which $S_{\alpha}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sigma^i_{\alpha}/2 (\alpha=x, y,

171: z)$ and the $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is the Pauli operator, and $N$ is the

172: total particle number in this system. The prefactor $1/N$ is

173: essential to ensure the convergence of the free energy per spin in

174: the thermodynamic limit. Anti-ferromagnetic or ferromagnetic

175: interaction can be obtained dependent on $\lambda<0$ or

176: not($\lambda\neq0$). The Hamiltonian preserves the total spin and

177: does not couple the state having spin pointing in the direction

178: perpendicular to the field, i.e.

179: \begin{equation}\label{s}

180: [H, \textbf{S}^2]=0,   [H, \prod_{i=1}^{N}\sigma_z^i]=0.

181: \end{equation}

182: For isotropic coupling $\gamma=1$, $[H, S_z]=0$ and the spectrum of

183: Eq.\eqref{h} can be determined exactly. However for $\gamma\neq 1$,

184: the spectrum can be determined in principle by Bethe-type

185: equations\cite{plo} and the analytical expressions are difficult to

186: obtain.

187: 

188: A distinguished character of Eq. \eqref{h} is the collective

189: interaction, which is the same for any particle and independent of

190: the space configuration of the system. Because of long-range

191: correlation between particles, the mean-field analysis is adaptive

192: for this model\cite{botet}. The research of phase transition in the

193: LMG model has shown that there is a second-order transition at

194: $h=h_z/|\lambda|=1$ for the ferromagnetic case and a first-order one

195: at $h=0$ for the antiferromagnetic case\cite{botet, vidal}.

196: 

197: A proper parameter for characterizing the phase diagram is the total

198: spin in the direction $z$ for the ground state. For ferromagnetic

199: coupling, one has

200: \begin{eqnarray}

201: 1-2\langle S_z\rangle/N=\begin{cases}0, &h>1\\1-h, &h\in[0,

202: 1),\end{cases}

203: \end{eqnarray}

204: which corresponds to the disorder-order transition, and obviously

205: the point $h=1$ is a second-order phase transition point. This phase

206: transition could be attributed to the disappearance of the energy

207: gap; at the symmetric phase $h>1$ the energy gap above the ground

208: state is finite, whereas at the broken phase $0\leq h<1$ the energy

209: gap vanishes under thermodynamic limit\cite{dv04}. For

210: antiferromagnetic coupling,

211: \begin{eqnarray} 2\langle

212: S_z\rangle/N=\begin{cases}1, &h>0\\-1, &h<0;\end{cases}

213: \end{eqnarray}

214: Obviously there is a first-order phase transition at the point

215: $h=0$. For this case the energy gap above ground state vanishes only

216: at the transition point $h=0$ under thermodynamic limit,  and no

217: level crossing happens when $h\neq0$\cite{vmd04}.

218: 

219: The ground state for $\gamma\neq1$ can be determined analytically

220: with the help of Holstein-Primakoff(HP) transformation and

221: low-energy approximation\cite{dv04}. In Ref. \cite{cui06}, the

222: ground state has been obtained with the consideration of the finite

223: number effect. The general expression reads

224: \begin{eqnarray}

225: \label{g}

226: \ket{g}&=&\frac{1}{c}\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}(-1)^n\sqrt{\frac{(2n-1)!!}{2n!!}}\tanh^nx\ket{2n}\nonumber\\

227: c^2&=&\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}(-1)^n\frac{(2n-1)!!}{2n!!}\tanh^{2n}x

228: \end{eqnarray}

229: in which $\ket{2n}$ is the Fock state of the boson operator

230: introduced by Holstein-Primakoff transformation and $[N/2]$ denotes

231: the integer part not more than $N/2$. One should note that the

232: determination of the ground state Eq. \eqref{g} is based on HP

233: transformation, which preserves the symmetry Eq. \eqref{s}, and the

234: following discussion is heavily based on this ground state.

235: Dependent on the style of interaction, $\tanh \_ x$ has different

236: expressions. For ferromagnetic case $\lambda>0$, it satisfies the

237: relation\cite{vidal}

238: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ft}

239: \label{ferro} \tanh 2x=\begin{cases}-\frac{1-\gamma}{2h-1-\gamma},&

240: h>1\\-\frac{h^2-\gamma}{2-h^2-\gamma}, & 0\leq h<1\end{cases}.

241: \end{eqnarray}

242: For antiferromagnetic coupling $\lambda<0$, it is determined by

243: \begin{eqnarray}\label{aft}

244: \tanh\_2x=\frac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma+2|h|}.

245: \end{eqnarray}

246: 

247: For isotropic case $\gamma=1$, the calculation is exact. The ground

248: state can be formulated generally as $\ket{g}=\ket{S=\frac{N}{2},

249: S_z=M}$. For ferromagnetic coupling,

250: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gf}

251: M=\begin{cases}I[h N/2],& 0\leq h<1\\ \frac{N}{2}, & h\geq1.

252: \end{cases}

253: \end{eqnarray}

254: in which $I[n]$ expresses the integer not more than $n$. For

255: antiferromagnetic coupling ,

256: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ga}

257: M=\begin{cases}\frac{N}{2},& h>0\\ -\frac{N}{2}, & h<0.

258: \end{cases}

259: \end{eqnarray}

260: 

261: \section{Multiparticle Entanglement}

262: Recently, Meyer and Wallach have constructed the global entanglement

263: for measuring ME in spin systems. The main procedure is to first

264: measure the entanglement between any party and the others, and then

265: calculate the average of all possible bipartition\cite{mw02}.

266: Although the criticism that it is not a genuine ME measure because

267: of the intimate connection to bipartite entanglement

268: \cite{horodecki07}, it has been proven that the global entanglement

269: is operational and more importantly,  monotonic under LOCC. A

270: simplified expressions for global entanglement is provided by

271: Brennen \cite{brennen03}

272: \begin{equation}

273: Q(\ket{\phi})=2(1-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\text{Tr}[\rho_k^2]).

274: \end{equation}

275: For the LMG model, one can obtain

276: $Q(\ket{g})=2(1-\text{Tr}\rho_1^2)$, in which $\rho_1$ stands for

277: the single-particle reduced density operator. Furthermore, Oliveira

278: and his collaborators have improved this definition in order that it

279: can measure some special entangle states, e.g. $\otimes_n

280: \ket{EPR}_n$ or $n$-party GHZ state. The main procedure is to

281: measure the entanglement between any two parties and the others, and

282: then average all possible bipartition\cite{oliveira06}. In the LMG

283: model, for the symmetry of particle permutation, the generalized

284: global entanglement can be written as

285: \begin{equation}

286: E_g=\frac{4}{3}(1- \text{Tr}[\rho^2_{2}]).

287: \end{equation}

288: in which $\rho_{2}$ denotes the reduced density operator for any two

289: particles.  $\rho_1,\rho_{2}$ can be determined through the

290: correlation functions\cite{wm02}

291: \begin{eqnarray}\label{c}

292: \langle\sigma_{\alpha}\rangle&=&\frac{2}{N}\langle

293: S_{\alpha}\rangle,

294: \nonumber\\

295: \langle\sigma_{1\alpha}\sigma_{2\alpha}\rangle&=&\frac{4\langle

296: S^2_{\alpha}\rangle-N}{N(N-1)}\nonumber\\

297: \langle\sigma_{1\alpha}\sigma_{2\beta}\rangle&=&\frac{2\langle

298: [S_{\alpha}, S_{\beta}]_+\rangle-N}{N(N-1)}(\alpha\neq\beta)

299: \end{eqnarray}

300: in which $\alpha, \beta = x, y, z$.

301: 

302: With respect to  the symmetry Eq. \eqref{s} and the ground state Eq.

303: \eqref{g}, one can obtain GE and gGE respectively

304: \begin{eqnarray}\label{me}

305: &Q(\ket{g})=1 - \langle\sigma_z\rangle^2\nonumber \\ &E_g=1 -

306: \frac{1}{3}(2\langle\sigma_z\rangle^2+\langle\sigma_{1x}\sigma_{2x}\rangle^2

307: +\langle\sigma_{1y}\sigma_{2y}\rangle^2+\langle\sigma_{1z}\sigma_{2z}\rangle^2).

308: \end{eqnarray}

309: Based on Eqs. \eqref{g} and \eqref{c}, ME in the  LMG model can be

310: decided analytically, and some interesting properties can be found.

311: The discussion below is divided into two cases: one focuses on the

312: anisotropic coupling, and the other is for isotropic coupling for

313: which the exact results can be obtained.

314: 

315: \subsection{anisotropic coupling}

316: The analytical results can be obtained under large $N$ limit with

317: the hypothesis that the excitation would only happen for the low

318: energy states\cite{vidal}. Based on Eqs. \eqref{g} and \eqref{c},

319: one obtains

320: \begin{widetext}

321: \begin{eqnarray}

322: \langle\sigma_z\rangle&=&1-\frac{4}{Nc^2}\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}nc_{2n}^2\nonumber\\

323: \langle\sigma_{1x}\sigma_{2x}\rangle&=&\frac{2}{N(N-1)c^2}\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}

324: [\sqrt{(N-2n+2)(N-2n+1)2n(2n-1)}c_{2n-2}c_{2n}+2n(N-2n)c^2_{2n}]\nonumber\\

325: \langle\sigma_{1y}\sigma_{2y}\rangle&=&\frac{-

326: 2}{N(N-1)c^2}\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}

327: [\sqrt{(N-2n+2)(N-2n+1)2n(2n-1)}c_{2n-2}c_{2n}-2n(N-2n)c^2_{2n}]\nonumber\\

328: \langle\sigma_{1z}\sigma_{2z}\rangle&=&1-\frac{4}{N(N-1)c^2}\sum_{n=0}^{[N/2]}2n(n-2n)c^2_{2n}

329: \end{eqnarray}

330: \end{widetext}

331: in which $c_{2n}=(-1)^n\sqrt{\frac{(2n-1)!!}{2n!!}}\tanh^n\_x$ and

332: $\tanh x$ is decided by Eqs.\eqref{ft} and \eqref{aft}. From Eq.

333: \eqref{me}, ME can be determined analytically.

334: 

335: \begin{figure}[tb]

336: \includegraphics{1a}

337: \includegraphics{1b}

338: \caption{\label{f1}(Color online) The multiparticle entanglement for

339: ferromagnetic coupling, measured by gGE (denoted by $E_g$ and solid

340: lines) and GE (denoted by $Q(\ket{g})$ and dashed lines) vs the

341: rescaled magnetic field $h$. We have chosen $\gamma=0.5$(a) and

342: $\gamma=0$(b) for this plot. The green and black solid lines

343: correspond to $N=50, 500$ respectively. }

344: \end{figure}

345: 

346: \begin{figure}[tb]

347: \includegraphics[bbllx=14, bblly=15, bburx=265, bbury=218, width=7cm]{2}

348: \caption{\label{f2} (Color online) $E_g$ (black triangles) and

349: $Q(\ket{g})$ (green triangles) for ferromagnetic coupling vs. the

350: particle number $N$ at the phase transition point $h=1$. One should

351: note that $\tanh 2x$ for any $\gamma\in[0, 1)$ is identical in this

352: case. }

353: \end{figure}

354: 

355: \emph{-Ferromagnetic case-} gGE and GE have both been plotted for

356: different $\gamma$ in Fig.\ref{f1}. It is obvious that ME reaches

357: the maximum closed to phase transition point $h=1$ and the slope of

358: curves tends to be infinite. In  recent papers\cite{oliveira06}, the

359: authors have shown that the singularity of gGE is directly connected

360: to the degeneracy of the ground-state energy at the phase transition

361: point. Since the energy gap above ground state vanishes at critical

362: point $h=1$, the singularity of GE and gGE can be attributed to the

363: degeneracy of ground-state energy, and could be used as a reliable

364: detector for the phase transition in this case. Furthermore the

365: finite-size scaling at the phase transition point $h=1$ displays the

366: non-sensitivity both of gGE and GE to the particle number $N$, as

367: shown in Fig.\ref{f2}.

368: 

369: \begin{figure}[tb]

370: \includegraphics{3a}

371: \\[0.5cm]

372: \includegraphics{3b}

373: \caption{\label{f3}(Color online) $E_g$ (solid lines) and

374: $Q(\ket{g})$ (dashed lines) for antiferromagnetic coupling vs. the

375: rescaled magnetic field $h$. The parameter $\gamma=0.5$(a) and

376: $\gamma=0$(b) have been chosen for this plot. Since the system is

377: invariant under the changing of $h\leftrightarrow -h$, these

378: plottings are only for $h\ge0$ with N=50 (green lines) and N=200

379: (black lines) respectively.}

380: \end{figure}

381: 

382: \begin{figure}[tb]

383: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{4}

384: \caption{\label{f4} (Color online) $E_g$ and $Q(\ket{g})$ for

385: antiferromagnetic coupling vs. the particle number $N$ at

386: first-order phase transition point $h=0$. We have choosen three

387: representative values of $\gamma$ for this plot.}

388: \end{figure}

389: 

390: \emph{-Antiferromagnetic case-} The situation is intricate. We have

391: plotted GE and gGE vs. $h$ by choosing $\gamma=0$ (a) and

392: $\gamma=1/2$ (b) respectively,  in Fig.\ref{f3}. Since there is a

393: first-order quantum phase transition, the figures show that GE and

394: gGE both are maximum at transition point $h=0$. However a further

395: calculation shows two different behaviors for ME; For

396: $\gamma\in(0,1)$ GE and gGE show a cusp at phase transition point

397: $h=0$, which means that the first derivation of gGE and GE with

398: respect to $h$ is discontinued but finite at $h=0$. Since the

399: degeneracy of ground-state energy happens only at $h=0$, this

400: discontinuity of gGE and GE is attributed to the degeneracy of

401: ground-state energy, whereas for $\gamma=0$, the figure shows that

402: gGE and GE both have a drastic increase closed to the phase

403: transition point, and the first derivations of gGE and GE with $h$

404: tend to be divergent. Furthermore our calculation shows that with

405: the increasing of particle number, gGE and GE decrease for

406: $\gamma\in(0,1)$ at the transition point, as shown in Fig. \ref{f4}.

407: Moreover, GE and gGE have similar behaviors and the difference

408: between them is slight.

409: 

410: 

411: \subsection{isotropic coupling}

412: When $\gamma=1$, the exact results can be obtained. With respect to

413: Eqs. \eqref{gf}, \eqref{ga} and \eqref{c}, one has in this case

414: \begin{eqnarray}\label{me2}

415: E_g&=&1-

416: \frac{8M^2}{3N^2}-\frac{2(4M^2-N)^2+(4M^2-N^2)^2}{6N^2(N-1)^2}\nonumber\\

417: Q(\ket{g})&=&1- (\frac{2M}{N})^2.

418: \end{eqnarray}

419: 

420: \begin{figure}[tb]

421: \includegraphics{5}

422: \caption{\label{f5} $E_g$ (solid line) and $Q(\ket{g})$ (dashed

423: line) vs $h$ for isotropic ferromagnetic coupling with $N\rightarrow

424: \infty$.}

425: \end{figure}

426: 

427: \emph{-Ferromagnetic case-}  With respect to Eqs. \eqref{gf} and

428: \eqref{me2}, both gGE and GE are zero for $h\ge1$, independent of

429: the particle number $N$ since the ground state is a direct-product

430: state of $N$ particles with the same spin orientation from Eq.

431: \eqref{gf}. As shown in Fig. \ref{f5}, gGE and GE both are continued

432: under thermodynamic limit at the phase transition $h=1$. This

433: behavior is different from the conclusion made in Refs. \cite{lp05,

434: vdb07, dv04}, in which entanglement entropy and concurrence both are

435: discontinued at $h=1$ under thermodynamic limit. The main reason for

436: this discrepancy is stated below.  One notes that Eqs.\eqref{me2}

437: are a function of $M/N$. It is obvious from Eq. \eqref{gf} that

438: $M/N$ is continuous at the transition point $h=1$ under

439: thermodynamic limit. Hence, it is not strange that gGE and GE are

440: also continuous. Comparably the concurrence in \cite{dv04} is

441: redefined by adding a prefactor $N-1$ to keep finite under

442: thermodynamic limit. Similarly for the calculation of entanglement

443: entropy, all possible bipartition has to be considered in the

444: calculation to keep the entropy finite under thermodynamic

445: limit\cite{lp05}, which I point out plays the same function of the

446: prefactor $N-1$ for the calculation of concurrence. Under the

447: thermodynamic limit, the prefactor would play a nontrivial role.

448: Since the calculation for entanglement has been implemented

449: respectively in different regions because of Eq. \eqref{gf}, the

450: difference, which should disappear under thermodynamic limit, may

451: become finite because of this prefactor. While, since our definition

452: of ground state Eq.\eqref{g} has naturally considered the

453: finite-number effect and GE and gGE are the functions of the

454: correlations, one does not need this prefactor to keep the

455: measurements of entanglement finite under thermodynamic limit.

456: Together with respect that the equivalency between generalized

457: entanglement and GE have been proved\cite{somma}, the measure gGE

458: may also has the great virtue of independence on the concept of

459: subsystem.

460: 

461: \emph{-Antiferromagnetic case-} With respect to Eqs. \eqref{ga} and

462: \eqref{me2}, gGE and GE both vanish independently on $N$. Since the

463: states for $M=\pm N/2$ are degenerate at phase transition point

464: $h=0$, the ground state is undoubtedly the superposition of states

465: $\ket{N/2, N/2}$ and $\ket{N/2, -N/2}$, written on the basis of

466: $\{S^2, S_z\}$, with equal weight,

467: \begin{equation}

468: \ket{g}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{N/2, N/2}+\ket{N/2, -N/2}).

469: \end{equation}

470: Then in this case, a genuine maximally multiparticle entangled

471: state, so called n-party GHZ state\cite{dvc00}, can be obtained at

472: the point $h=0$ for a finite particle number, and under

473: thermodynamic limit, it corresponds to the celebrated (

474: Schr\"odinger cat ) macroscopic quantum superposition state.

475: Obviously, the measurement of entanglement is discontinued at $h=0$,

476: where a first-order phase transition happens under thermodynamic

477: limit\cite{footnote1}.

478: 

479: \section{discussions and conclusions}

480: Some comments and discussions should be presented. In this paper an

481: extensive discussion of multiparticle entanglement, measured by GE

482: \cite{mw02} and gGE \cite{oliveira06}, is presented in the

483: Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model. Our discussion focuses on two different

484: situations: for ferromagnetic coupling $\lambda>0$, when the

485: anisotropic parameter $0<\gamma<1$ gGE and GE both reach the maximum

486: at the second-order phase transition point $h=1$, as shown in Figs.

487: \ref{f1}. Moreover they are nonsensitive to the variation of

488: particle number $N$, as shown in Fig.\ref{f2}. Whereas for the

489: isotropic case $\gamma=1$ gGE and GE are zero at the phase

490: transition point, shown in Fig. \ref{f5}.

491: 

492: Another important situation is the appearance of antiferromagnetic

493: coupling $\lambda<0$, for which there is a first-order phase

494: transition at transition point $h=0$. gGE and GE both are

495: calculated, as shown in Fig. \ref{f3}. It is interesting that some

496: different behaviors can be found in this case; one is that gGE and

497: GE have a cusp at phase transition point when $\gamma\in(0,1)$,

498: which means that the first derivation of gGE and GE with external

499: magnetic field is discontinued but finite at $h=0$, shown in Fig.

500: \ref{f3}(a). Another case happens when $\gamma=0$, in which both gGE

501: and GE have a drastic changing closed to $h=0$, shown in Fig.

502: \ref{f3}(b). Moreover our calculations show that gGE and GE for

503: $\gamma\in(0,1)$ decrease with the increment of $N$ as shown in

504: Fig.\ref{f4}, whereas for $\gamma=0$ they are non-sensitive to the

505: particle number $N$. It is more interesting for the isotropic case

506: that the entanglement is vanishing for $h\neq0$ and has a sudden

507: changing at $h=0$, where a genuine maximally multiparticle

508: entanglement state, $n$-party GHZ state for finite particle number,

509: can be obtained. With connection of a scheme of the realization of

510: the LMG model in optical cavity QED\cite{mp07}, this result provides

511: a powerful method to create ME experimentally.

512: 

513: It was naturally expected that ME should be maximum at the phase

514: transition point since the correlation between particles would be

515: long-range because of the appearance of critical quantum fluctuation

516: at the phase transition point. However an exceptional case appears

517: in our discussion, which happens for ferromagnetic and isotropic

518: coupling. In my own opinion, a reason for the difficulty in

519: constructing the connection between entanglement and quantum phase

520: transition is that the up-to-date measurements for entanglement are

521: generally a nonlinear function of correlation functions in many-body

522: systems. Hence the singularity of correlation functions may be

523: canceled\cite{footnote2}. As a concrete illustration one notes that

524: for antiferromagnetic coupling, $M$ has a discontinued change at

525: $h=0$ for $\gamma=1$, as shown in Eq.\eqref{ga}. However from

526: Eq.\eqref{me2} it is obvious that the discontinuity of $M$ for $h>0$

527: and $h<0$ has no effect on ME since gGE and GE are the functions of

528: $M^2$.

529: 

530: Regardless of this defect, some interesting information can be

531: obtained from the research of ME. An interesting speculation from

532: our discussion is that the different finite-size scales may show the

533: different state structures for the entanglement at the phase

534: transition point. As shown previously in Ref. \cite{oliveira06},

535: with the increment of particle number the measures for entanglement

536: for some states are decreasing, whereas for other states tend to be

537: steady values. Since the increment of particle number, or more

538: generally the degree of freedom, means the stronger correlation

539: between the particles in many-body systems, one can conclude that

540: some entangled states are immune to the effect imposed by the

541: increment of correlation between particles, whereas others are

542: sensitive to the changing of correlation. With respect to the

543: pursuit of decoherence-free space\cite{dfs}, our discussion may

544: provide some useful information.

545: 

546: With connection to the researches of the bipartite entanglement in

547: many-body systems, one could note that it is difficult to construct

548: a universal classification of phase transition based on the

549: entanglement and its derivation. The main obstacle, in my own

550: opinion, is the absence of physical definition of entanglement,

551: i.e., how and what to define an "entanglement operator". Since

552: quantum entanglement is an important physical resource and can be

553: measured experimentally, I believe in the existence of this

554: operator. Fortunately a few works have attributed to this

555: direction\cite{somma, cv06}. I hope our discussion will help in the

556: understanding of entanglement in many-body systems.

557: 

558: \emph{Acknowledgement} The author acknowledges the support of

559: Special Foundation of Theoretical Physics of NSF in China, Grant No.

560: 10747159.

561: 

562: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

563: 

564: \bibitem{preskill} J. Preskill, J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 47}, 127 (2000).

565: 

566: \bibitem{afov07}L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, V. Vedral,

567: submitted to Rev. Mod. Phys. and available at e-print arXiv:

568: quant-ph/0703044(2007).

569: 

570: \bibitem{senthil} T. Senthil, \textit{Proceedings of conference on `Recent Progress in Many-Body Theories', Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), Aug 23-27 (2004)},

571: also availible at e-print arXiv: cond-mat/0411275 (2004).

572: 

573: \bibitem{kitaev}A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics {\bf 303}, 2 (2003);

574: R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1881

575: (2001);  M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 045110

576: (2005); P. Fendley and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72},

577: 024412(2005); A. Yu Kitaev, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96},

578: 110404(2006); M.A. Levin, X-G Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96},

579: 110405(2006).

580: 

581: \bibitem{oaff02} A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, R. Fazio, Nature, {\bf 416}, 608(2002)

582: 

583: \bibitem{on02}T. J. Osborne, M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 032110(2002).

584: 

585: \bibitem{yang} M. F. Yang, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 030302(2005).

586: 

587: \bibitem{pv07} Martin B. Plenio, Shashank Virmani, Quantum Inf.

588: Comp. {\bf 7}, 1(2007).

589: 

590: \bibitem{br01}H.J. Briegel, R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

591: 86}, 910(2001).

592: 

593: \bibitem{dvc00}W. D\"Ur, G. Vidal, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A {\bf

594: 62}, 062314(2000).

595: 

596: \bibitem{wei05}T-C Wei, D. Das, S. Mukhopadyay, S. Vishveshwara,

597: P.M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 060305(2005); S.J. Gu, G.S.

598: Tian, H.Q. Lin, New J. Phys {\bf 8}, 61(2006).

599: 

600: \bibitem{cffp07}G. Costantini1, P. Facchi, G. Florio, S. Pascazio, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. {\bf 40}, 8009(2007).

601: 

602: \bibitem{oliveira06}de Oliveira, T. R., G. Rigolin, and M. C. de Oliveira,

603: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 73}, 010305(2006); de Oliveira, T. R., G. Rigolin,

604: M. C. de Oliveira, and E. Miranda,  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97},

605: 170401(2006).

606: 

607: 

608: \bibitem{mw02}D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 43},

609: 4273(2002).

610: 

611: \bibitem{brennen03}G. K. Brennen, Quant. Inf. Comp. {\bf 3}, 619 (2003).

612: 

613: \bibitem{horodecki07}R. Horodecki,  P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K.

614: Horodecki, arXiv: quant-ph/0702225(2007).

615: 

616: \bibitem{facchi}P. Facchi, G. Florio, S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74}, 042331 (2006).

617: 

618: \bibitem{lmg} H. J. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, A. J. Glick, Nucl. Phys. {\bf

619: 62}, 188 (1965); {\bf 62}, 199 (1965); {\bf 62}, 211(1965).

620: 

621: \bibitem{vidal} J. Vidal. G. Palacios, R. Mosseri, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 69

622: }, 022107(2004); J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 73}, 062318(2006).

623: 

624: \bibitem{dv04}S. Dusuel, J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93},

625: 237204 (2004); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 224420 (2005).

626: 

627: \bibitem{vmd04}J. Vidal, R. Mosseri, J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. A

628: {\bf 69}, 054101(2004).

629: 

630: 

631: \bibitem{vpa04} J. Vidal, G. Palacios, C. Aslangul, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 062304 (2004)

632: 

633: \bibitem{uv}R. G. Unanyan, C. Ionescu, M. Fleischhauer,

634: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 72}, 022326 (2005).

635: 

636: \bibitem{lp05}J. I. Latorre, R. Orus, E.

637: Rico, J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 71}, 064101 (2005);V. Popkov, M.

638: Salerno, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 012301(2005).

639: 

640: \bibitem{vdb07} J. Vidal, S.

641: Dusuel, T. Barthel, J. Stat. Mech. P01015(2007).

642: 

643: \bibitem{somma} R. Somma, G. Ortiz, H. Barnum, E. Knill, L. Viodal,

644: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 042311 (2004).

645: 

646: \bibitem{bkosv04}H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, L. Viola,

647: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 107902(2004).

648: 

649: \bibitem{plo}F. Pan, J.P. Draayer, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 451},

650: 1(1999); J. Links, H-Q. Zhou, R.H. McKenzie, M.D. Gould, J. Phys. A

651: {\bf 36}, R63(2003); G. Ortiz, R. Somma, J. Dukelsky, S. Rombouts,

652: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 707}, 421(2005).

653: 

654: \bibitem{botet} R. Botet, R. Jullien. P. Pfeuty, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

655: 49}, 478 (1982); R. Botet, R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 28}, 3955

656: (1983).

657: 

658: \bibitem{cui06}H.T. Cui, K. Li, X.X. Yi, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 360},

659: 243(2006).

660: 

661: \bibitem{wm02}Xiaoguang Wang, K. M{\o}lmer, Eur. Phys. J. D {\bf

662: 18}, 385(2002).

663: 

664: \bibitem{footnote1} Eq. \ref{me2} is obviously failed to measure the

665: n-party GHZ state since its dependence on $M^2$ and the

666: discontinuity of $M$ has no effect on ME.

667: 

668: \bibitem{mp07}S. Morrison, A. S. Parkins, e-print arXiv:

669: quant-phy/0711.2325(2007).

670: 

671: \bibitem{footnote2}The continuity of function $f(x)$ is defined as

672: \begin{equation*}

673: \lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}f(x)-f(x_0)=0.

674: \end{equation*}

675: First suppose that $f(x)$ is a linear function of the subfunctions

676: $g_k(x)(k=1, 2, \dots, n)$, i.e. $f(x)=\sum_{k=1}^n c_k g_k(x)$ in

677: which $c_k$ is the coefficient. Without lost of generality any

678: $g_k(x)$ is supposed not to be the linear combination of the other

679: $g_k(x)$. Then the continuity of $f(x)$ requires

680: \begin{eqnarray*}

681: &\sum_{k=0}^n&c_k \lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}g_k(x)-g_k(x_0)=0, \\

682: &\Rightarrow& \lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}g_k(x)-g_k(x_0)=0

683: \end{eqnarray*}

684: The conclusion above means that the continuity of $g_k(x)$ is

685: sufficient and necessary condition for the continuity of $f(x)$.

686: 

687: With respect of nonlinear case, let consider the function $f[g(x)]$

688: for simplicity. From the definition of the continuity and suppose

689: $\delta x=x-x_0$, it requires

690: \begin{eqnarray*}

691: &\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}&f[g(x)]-f[g(x_0)]=0\\

692: &\Rightarrow& \lim_{\delta x\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial

693: f[g(x)]}{\partial x}|_{x=x_0}\delta x=0\\

694: &\Rightarrow& \lim_{\delta x\rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial

695: f[g(x)]}{\partial g(x)}|_{x=x_0}[g(x)-g(x_0)]=0.

696: \end{eqnarray*}

697: The prefactor $\frac{\partial f[g(x)]}{\partial g(x)}|_{x=x_0}$ has

698: a nontrivial effect; Even if $\lim_{\delta x\rightarrow

699: 0}g(x)-g(x_0)\neq 0$, the condition of continuity may still be

700: satisfied only if this prefactor vanishes and $\lim_{\delta

701: x\rightarrow 0}g(x)-g(x_0)$ keeps finite.

702: 

703: 

704: \bibitem{dfs}I. L. Chuang and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76},

705: 4281 (1996); L.-M. Duan and G. C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},

706: 1953 (1997)

707: 

708: \bibitem{cv06} Clare Hewitt-Horsman, Vlatko Vedral, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 76}, 062319 (2007);  New J. Phys {\bf 9}, 135 (2007).

709: 

710: \end{thebibliography}

711: \end{document}

712: