1: \documentstyle[aps,prl,epsf]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \title{Edge critical behaviour of the 2-dimensional
4: tri-critical Ising model}
5: \author{Ian Affleck}
6: \address{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of
7: California, Santa Barbara, CA93106-4030, U.S.A. and
8: Canadian Institute for Advanced
9: Research and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
10: British
11: Columbia,
12: Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z1}
13: \maketitle
14: \begin{abstract}
15: Using previous results from boundary conformal field theory
16: and integrability, a phase diagram is derived for the 2 dimensional
17: Ising model at its bulk tri-critical point as a function of boundary
18: magnetic field and boundary spin-coupling constant. A boundary
19: tri-critical point separates phases where the spins on the boundary
20: are ordered or disordered. In the latter
21: range of coupling constant, there is a non-zero critical field
22: where the magnetization is singular. In the former range, as the
23: temperature is lowered, the boundary undergoes a first order
24: transition while the bulk simultaneously undergoes a second order transition.
25: \end{abstract}
26: Conformal field theory has led to many exact results on 2-dimensional
27: dimensional critical pheomena both with regard to bulk behaviour
28: and edge or boundary behaviour. (For a review see \onlinecite{DiF}.)
29: Assuming the bulk system is at a critical point, one can consider
30: critical behaviour at the boundary as a function of various fields
31: and interactions applied near the boundary. In general, various
32: boundary phases and critical points exist for a given bulk
33: critical point. These models can be used to describe either
34: 2-dimensional classical systems at bulk critical points or
35: else semi-infinite quantum chains at zero temperature. Some of
36: these latter systems find experimental application to strongly
37: correlated electron impurity problems. While the boundary
38: phase diagram of the critical Ising model is well understood,\cite{Cardy}
39: surprisingly, this is not so for the next simplest case,
40: the tri-critical Ising model.
41: Six conformally invariant boundary conditions
42: have been constructed using the fusion method by Cardy\cite{Cardy} which
43: should correspond to boundary critical points. Certain integrable
44: renormalization group (RG) flows between these critical points have
45: been constructed by Chim \cite{Chim}. The purpose of this note is simply
46: to connect the points with a phase diagram written in terms of
47: microscopic parameters. This is shown schematically in
48: Fig. 1. The most surprising conclusion is perhaps the
49: existence of a phase, in zero magnetic field,
50: where the spins on the boundary exhibit long range
51: order while those in the bulk do not. This is the
52: physical interpretation of a boundary
53: condition for which the corresponding boundary state is
54: a sum of boundary states corresponding to a spin up
55: or spin down boundary condition.
56: \begin{figure}
57: \epsfxsize=8 cm
58: \centerline{\epsffile{pd.eps}}
59: \caption{Schematic phase diagram of the boundary tri-critical
60: Ising model. Arrows
61: indicate direction
62: of RG flows as the length scale is increased. Along the thick
63: line the spins on the boundary are ordered.}
64: \label{fig:pd}
65: \end{figure}
66:
67: We first briefly review the simpler case of the ordinary
68: critical Ising model. In that case, Cardy identified only
69: 3 conformally invariant boundary conditions corresponding
70: to spin up, spin down and free. There are no relevant
71: boundary operators at the spin up/down critical points,
72: indicating that they are stable against the addition to the Hamiltonian
73: of arbitrary perturbations located near the boundary.
74: On the other hand, the free boundary condition has one
75: relevant operator, of dimension $x=1/2$. (Boundary operators are
76: relevant if they have scaling dimension $x<1$.) The corresponding
77: relevant coupling constant is naturally interpreted as a boundary
78: magnetic field. By standard scaling arguments we expect the
79: boundary magnetization, to scale with boundary field as:
80: \begin{equation} |m| \propto |H|^{x/(1-x)}\propto |H|.\label{ordis}
81: \end{equation}
82: This behaviour is expected to be independent of the details of
83: the spin coupling constants near the boundary. (Only the
84: constant of proportionality in Eq. (\ref{ordis}) will depend on
85: these coupling constants, not the exponent.) No additional
86: critical points are expected at any finite field.
87: The renormalization
88: group flow between free and fixed b.c.'s (boundary conditions)
89: was shown to be integrable by Ghoshal and Zamalodchikov in a
90: pioneering paper \cite{Ghoshal}.
91:
92: The phase diagram for the tri-critical Ising
93: model is more interesting. This model can be defined as a
94: spin-1 Ising model with a crystal field term which favours
95: the $S=0$ state over $S=\pm 1$ or equivalently a diluted
96: spin-1/2 Ising model. The (classical) Hamiltonian is:
97: \begin{equation}
98: H=-J\sum_{<i,j>}S_iS_j +\mu\sum_iS_i^2,\ \ (S_i=-1,0,1).
99: \label{bulkHam}\end{equation}
100: The schematic (bulk) phase diagram is drawn in Fig. 2. There
101: is a second order phase transition line in the Ising
102: universality class and also a first order phase
103: transition line separating phases with unbroken and broken symmetry. These
104: lines join at a tri-critical point. By an approximate
105: transfer matrix mapping, one can show that this classical
106: model exhibits the same critical behaviour as a quantum
107: chain at T=0. This model has the Hamiltonian:
108: \begin{equation}
109: H=-\sum_i[S^z_iS^z_{i+1}-D(S^z_i)^2+H_TS^x_i].\end{equation}
110: $S^a_j$ now label quantum S=1 operators. The transverse field
111: $H_T$ now controls the temperature in
112: the classical model.
113: While the ordinary Ising critical point corresponds to the
114: simplest conformal field theory with central charge, c=1/2,
115: the tri-critical point corresponds to the next unitary
116: minimal model with c=7/10.
117:
118: \begin{figure}
119: \epsfxsize=10 cm
120: \centerline{\epsffile{bulk.eps}}
121: \caption{Schematic bulk phase diagram of the spin-1 Ising model of Eq.
122: (\protect\ref{bulkHam}).}
123: \label{fig:bulk}
124: \end{figure}
125:
126: We now wish to consider the classical model on a semi-infinite half-plane
127: with a boundary as shown in Fig. 3.
128: Although various microscopic boundary
129: interactions could be considered, for our purposes it is
130: enough to consider a boundary field, $H$ and a modified interaction,
131: $J_b$ along the boundary. These couplings are indicated in
132: Figure 3. In the corresponding quantum chain, the Hamiltonian is:
133: \begin{equation}
134: H=-\sum_{i=0}^\infty S^z_iS^z_{i+1}+
135: \sum_{i=1}^\infty [-H_TS^x_i+D(S^z_i)^2]-H_{Tb}S^x_0
136: +D_b(S^z_0)^2-HS^z_0.
137: \end{equation}
138: Roughly speaking, increasing the boundary interaction, $J_b$, in
139: the classical model corresponds to decreasing $|H_{Tb}|$
140: and $D_b$ in the
141: quantum model thus enhancing the tendency for the spins
142: to order at the boundary.
143:
144: \begin{figure}
145: \epsfxsize=10 cm
146: \centerline{\epsffile{couplings.eps}}
147: \caption{Couplings and field for the boundary tri-critical Ising model.
148: The bulk parameters, $J$ and $\mu$ are adjusted to the tri-critical point.
149: The magnetic field is applied only at the boundary.}
150: \label{fig:couplings}
151: \end{figure}
152:
153: The phase diagram in Figure 1 can be deduced rather straightforwardly
154: from the properties of the 6 conformally invariant boundary
155: states found by Cardy and discussed by Chim, and from the
156: integrable RG flows discussed by Chim. We first review these
157: boundary states. Using the fusion approach, one finds
158: 6 boundary states corresponding to the 6 primary fields in
159: the (bulk) tri-critical Ising model. Their physical properties
160: have been elucidated, to some extent, by Chim, and we use
161: his notation for them. There are 2 states corresponding
162: to spin up and spin down boundary conditions, $(\pm )$. There are
163: 2 more boundary conditions, $(0\pm )$ which also break the $Z_2$ symmetry
164: but appear to have the spins at the boundary only partially
165: polarized. [Chim actually labelled the negative polarization
166: b.c. $(-0)$ rather than $(0-)$ but we prefer the latter
167: notation.] $(0)$ is the free boundary condition \cite{Saleur}.
168: Finally there is
169: one more b.c. which does not break the $Z_2$ symmetry and is
170: labelled $(d)$ (for degenerate). The correspondance between
171: the fusion label and the physical label for the corresponding
172: boundary states is:
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: |\tilde 0>&=&|(-)>\nonumber \\
175: |\tilde {3\over 2}>&=&|(+)>\nonumber \\
176: |\tilde {1\over 10}>&=&|(0-)>\nonumber \\
177: |\tilde {3\over 5}>&=&|(0+)>\nonumber \\
178: |\tilde {7\over 16}>&=&|(0)>\nonumber \\
179: |\tilde {3\over 80}>&=&|(d)>.
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: By the standard fusion rules, the (primary) boundary operator content
182: with the boundary condition corresponding to the state
183: $|\tilde a>$ is the set of operators appearing in the (bulk)
184: operator product expansion (OPE) of ${\cal O}_a\times {\cal O}_a$.
185: It thus follows that the $(\pm )$ b.c.'s admit no relevant
186: operators; they are completely stable. (The only operator appearing
187: in the OPE is the identity operator which just corresponds to
188: the possibility of adding a c-number to the quantum Hamiltonian,
189: having no effect on the critical behaviour.)
190: The only primary
191: operator at the free b.c. $(0)$ has dimension 3/2. This follows
192: from the OPE
193: \begin{equation}\sigma '\times \sigma '=I + \epsilon '',\end{equation}
194: where $\sigma '$ and $\epsilon ''$ are the primary fields of
195: dimension 7/16 and 3/2 respectively. Thus the free b.c. is
196: also a stable fixed point! This is a somewhat surprising result
197: since it implies that adding a boundary magnetic field does not
198: destabilize the free fixed point in the tri-critical Ising model, unlike
199: what happens in the ordinary Ising model. The partially polarized
200: boundary conditions $(0\pm )$ have one relevant boundary operator
201: with $x=3/5$. Thus, there should be one unstable direction and
202: one stable direction in the RG flow in the $(J_b,H)$ plane at the
203: corresponding fixed points. The
204: $(d)$ b.c. has two relevant boundary operators of dimension
205: $x=1/10$ and $3/5$, so both directions should be unstable
206: at this fixed point. Finally, it is important to consider the
207: boundary condition labelled $(+) \& (-)$ by Chim. The corresponding
208: boundary state is
209: \begin{equation}
210: |(+) \& (-)>= |(+)>+|(-)>=|\tilde 0>+|\tilde {3\over 2}>.\end{equation}
211: The corresponding OPE is:
212: \begin{equation}
213: [I+\epsilon '']\times [I+\epsilon '']=2[I+\epsilon ''].\end{equation}
214: Thus there should be only one relevant boundary operator, of dimension
215: $x=0$, at this critical point (disgarding the identity operator
216: which is always present and has no effect). The presence of a
217: non-trivial boundary operator with dimension 0 is the hallmark
218: of an ordered phase, or equivalently
219: a first order phase transition with magnetic field. It is natural to associate
220: this operator with a boundary magnetic field. The usual scaling
221: law,
222: \begin{equation}
223: |m|\propto |H|^{x/(1-x)},\end{equation}
224: implies $|m|\propto |H|^0$, i.e. a discontinuous jump in $m$ as
225: $H$ passes through 0. This in turn implies long range order
226: in zero field. It is also noteworthy that there are no
227: additional relevant operators with the $ (+) \& (-)$ b.c. Thus
228: we expect it is stable against small variations of $J_b$ at $H=0$.
229: This is different than the other combination
230: $(0+)\& (0-)$ which has, in addition to an $x=0$ boundary operator,
231: 2 other relevant boundary operators with $x=2/5$. It is
232: also different than the situation in the ordinary Ising
233: model where the combination of spin up and down gives 3 relevant
234: boundary operators. The identification of a boundary state
235: which is a sum of two or more other boundary states with long range
236: order was also made in the context of a critical line separating
237: two semi-infinite Ising planes \cite{Oshikawa} and in the boundary
238: 3-state Potts model \cite{Affleck}. However, in both those cases
239: it is an unstable fixed point, even in zero field. The somewhat
240: unusual feature of the tri-critical Ising model is that the broken
241: symmetry phase is stable. Related phenomena also occur in
242: quantum Brownian motion on a triangular lattice \cite{tri}.
243:
244: It is now a relatively straightforward matter to connect the points
245: to obtain the schematic phas diagram of Fig. 1.
246: Several comments
247: about this phase diagram are in order. The flows from $(d)$ to
248: $(0)$ and $(+)\&(-)$ and from $(0+)$ to $(0)$ and $(+)$
249: are integrable. Since there is only one relevant operator at
250: the $(0\pm )$ fixed points there must be lines in the $(J_b,H)$
251: plane which flow towards them. These lines must end at the
252: tri-critical point $(d)$ since it is the only fixed point
253: with two relevant operators.
254: The values
255: of $J_b$ at the fixed points are in general unknown
256: (and are presumably {\it not} equal at 5 of the fixed
257: points as drawn in Fig. 1.). However, we do expect that
258: $J_b$ is smaller at $(0)$ than at $(d)$. It is natural to
259: place the $(+)\&(-)$ fixed point at $J_b=\infty$ since there
260: the spins along the boundary are perfectly ordered. The values of
261: $J_b$ at the $(\pm )$ and $(0\pm )$ fixed points are relatively
262: insignificant and simply correspond to points where the leading
263: irrelevant coupling constant vanishes. Although a boundary
264: field is irrelevant in the central phase of the phase diagram
265: this {\it does not} imply that the boundary magnetization is
266: zero in the presence of a non-zero field. Irrelevant operators
267: will still lead to a non-zero magnetization which should be
268: an {\it analytic} function of $H$, thus being linear at small
269: $H$.
270: At the $(0\pm )$ fixed points, we expect $m(H)$ to be
271: singular, behaving as:
272: \begin{equation}
273: m-m_c- a(H-H_c)\to b_{\pm}|H-H_c|^{x/(1-x)}=b_{\pm}|H-H_c|^{3/2},
274: \end{equation}
275: since $x=3/5$. Here the amplitudes, $b_{\pm}$ are presumably
276: different for $H>H_c$ and $H<H_c$. The linear term, $\propto a$,
277: is non-singular.
278: This is a relatively mild singularity since
279: both $m$ and its first derivative remain finite and continuous,
280: while the second derivative diverges.
281: The shape
282: of the phase boundary near $(d)$ is determined from the scaling
283: dimension of $H$ and $J_b-J_c$ to be:
284: \begin{equation}
285: J_c-J_b(H)\propto |H|^{4/9}.\end{equation}
286: At the tri-critical point $(d)$,
287: \begin{equation}
288: |m|\propto |H|^{1/9},\end{equation}
289: and for $J_b>J_c$, $m$ has a first order jump at $H=0$.
290:
291: These results are all consistent with the ``g-theorem''\cite{Affleck1}
292: that states
293: that the groundstate degeneracy, $g$, always decreases during
294: a boundary RG flow. The $g$ values are given by:
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: g_{(\pm)}&=&C \nonumber \\
297: g_{(0\pm )}&=&C\eta^2 \nonumber \\
298: g_{(0)}&=&\sqrt{2}C \nonumber \\
299: g_{(d)}&=&\sqrt{2}\eta^2C\nonumber \\
300: g_{(+)\&(-)}&=&2C,\end{eqnarray}
301: where:
302: \begin{equation}
303: C=\sqrt{\sin {\pi \over 5}\over \sqrt{5}},\ \ \eta =
304: \sqrt{\sin {2\pi \over 5}\over \sin {\pi \over 5}}.
305: \end{equation}
306: Noting that $\eta^2\approx 1.61803>\sqrt{2}$
307: we see that all
308: RG flows in Fig. 1 are consistent with the $g$ theorem. This was
309: already observed by Chim in the special cases of the integrable flows.
310:
311: The existence of the ordered line may seem somewhat surprising since
312: there is long range order at finite temperature along the
313: (one dimensional) boundary,
314: for $J_b>J_c$, even though the (two dimensional) bulk is disordered (or,
315: more accurately, is sitting at a critical point separating
316: ordered and disordered phases). This is
317: surely reasonable at $J_b\to \infty$
318: but may be harder to swallow for finite $J_b$.
319: In the quantum chain context this behaviour is not so unfamiliar.
320: We may think of the $(+)\& (-)$ fixed point as corresponding
321: to $H_{Tb}=0$. In this limit $S^z_0$ commutes with the
322: Hamiltonian
323: and there are 2 degenerate groundstates, with $S^z_0=\pm 1$.
324: (We assume that $D_b$ is sufficiently large and negative that
325: these states have lower energy than the one with $S^z_0=0$.)
326: These groundstates have non-zero, equal
327: and opposite values of the magnetization, localized near the boundary.
328: Applying an
329: infinitesimal boundary field picks out one of these two groundstates,
330: leading to the discontinuity.
331: The above RG analysis
332: implies that a small transverse boundary field is {\it irrelevant}
333: so the jump in the magnetization at $H=0$ should persist for a range
334: of non-zero $H_{Tb}$. A somewhat related phenomena occurs in the
335: {\it ferromagnetic} Kondo problem. The Kondo coupling constant
336: is irrelevant in this case so that the impurity spin decouples
337: from the conduction electrons at the stable fixed point. Since
338: the impurity spin operator then commutes with the Hamiltonian,
339: there are degenerate groundstates and a discontinuous magnetization
340: in an applied field.
341:
342: It is interesting to consider varying $T$ through the bulk phase transition
343: (with the Hamiltonian held fixed) . Referring to Fig. 2, we see that for
344: large $\mu$ the bulk transition is continuous and in the usual Ising
345: universality class. In this case the boundary also orders continuously.
346: (This follows from the fact that the $(+)\&(-)$ fixed point is unstable, even
347: in zero field, in the ordinary Ising model.) On the other hand, for smaller
348: $\mu$ the bulk transition is first order. We then expect the boundary
349: transition to also be first order since critical behaviour of the boundary
350: at a non-zero $T$ is presumably impossible unless the bulk is also critical.
351: Now consider what happens if $\mu$ is adjusted to its critical value so that
352: the bulk transition is in the tri-critical universality class. In this case
353: there are two possibilities for the boundary transition, depending on $J_b$.
354: When $J_b<J_c$, the boundary transition is also second order. However, when
355: $J_b>J_c$, the boundary undergoes a type of first order transition while the
356: bulk undergoes a second order transition. This follows from observing that,
357: infinitesimally below the critical temperature, the boundary magnetization
358: is finite whereas the bulk magnetization is infinitesmal. On the other hand,
359: infinitisimally above $T_c$, the correlation lengths in both bulk and
360: boundary are presumably diverging together. We may understand the
361: possibility of the boundary having a first order transition at the bulk
362: tri-critical point as being connected with the fact that the bulk system is
363: at the end of a first order transition line. When the bulk transition is
364: ``almost first order'' it becomes possible for the boundary transition to be
365: truly first order.
366:
367: It was recently observed \cite{Recknagel} that the integrable RG flow from
368: $(d)$ to $(+)\&(-)$
369: has a generalization to all the minimal models
370: with diagonal partition functions, which may be thought of as
371: increasingly multi-critical Ising models and that, in all cases, the
372: $(+)\&(-)$ fixed point is stable except for a dimension 0 operator.
373: This implies that all these models have an ordered phase at zero field, as
374: discussed here for the tri-critical case.
375:
376: I would like to thank M. Oshikawa and H. Saleur for numerous
377: useful discussions on related subjects and H. Saleur for
378: drawing my attention to Ref. \onlinecite{Recknagel}.
379: This research was supported by NSF grant PHY-94-07194 and
380: by NSERC of Canada.
381:
382: \begin{references}
383: \bibitem{DiF} P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and C. S\'en\'echal,
384: {\it Conformal Field Theory}, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
385: \bibitem{Cardy} J.L. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B324}, 481 (1989).
386: \bibitem{Chim} L. Chim, J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A11}, 4491 (1996).
387: \bibitem{Ghoshal} S. Ghoshal and A. B. Zamolodchikov,
388: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A9}, 3841 (1994).
389: \bibitem{Saleur} H. Saleur and M. Bauer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B320}, 591 (1989).
390: \bibitem{Oshikawa} M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys.
391: {\bf B352}, 849 (1997).
392: \bibitem{Affleck} I. Affleck, M. Oshikawa and H. Saleur,
393: J. Phys. {\bf A31}, 5287 (1998).
394: \bibitem{tri} H. Yi and C.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. {\bf B57}, R5597 (1998);
395: I. Affleck, M. Oshikawa and H. Saleur, in preparation.
396: \bibitem{Affleck1} I. Affleck and A.W.W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.
397: {\bf 67}, 161 (1991).
398: \bibitem{Recknagel} A. Recknagel, D. Roggenkamp and V. Schomerus,
399: hep-th/0003110.
400: \end{references}
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406:
407:
408:
409:
410:
411:
412:
413:
414: \end{document}
415: