1: \documentclass[floatfix,preprintnumbers,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

3: 

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: 

6: \usepackage{epsfig,psfrag,amsmath,amssymb,float,psfrag}

7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}} 

8: 

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}} 

12: 

13: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

14: 

15: 

16: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}} 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}} 

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \title{Critical phenomena and quantum phase transition in long range

23:   Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chains} 

24: 

25: \author{Nicolas Laflorencie, Ian Affleck and Mona Berciu}

26: 

27: \affiliation{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of British

28: Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z1}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: Antiferromagnetic Hamiltonians with short-range, non-frustrating

32: interactions are well-known to exhibit long range magnetic order in

33: dimensions, $d\geq 2$ but exhibit only quasi long range order, with

34: power law decay of correlations, in $d=1$ (for half-integer spin).  On

35: the other hand, non-frustrating long range interactions can induce

36: long range order in $d=1$. We study Hamiltonians in which the long

37: range interactions have an adjustable amplitude $\lambda$, as well as

38: an adjustable power-law $1/|x|^\alpha$, using a combination of quantum

39: Monte Carlo and analytic methods: spin-wave, large-$N$ non-linear

40: $\sigma$ model, and renormalization group methods.  We map out the

41: phase diagram in the $\lambda$-$\alpha$ plane and study the nature of

42: the critical line separating the phases with long range and quasi long

43: range order. We find that this corresponds to a novel line of critical

44: points with continuously varying critical exponents and a dynamical

45: exponent, $z<1$.

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: \maketitle

49: 

50: \section{Introduction}

51: 

52: The ground-state (GS) of the nearest neighbor antiferromagnetic (AF)

53: Heisenberg model on a bipartite lattice:

54: \begin{equation} 

55: {\cal{H}}=\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\vec S_i\cdot \vec S_j,

56: \end{equation}

57: is generally expected to have long range order (LRO):

58: \begin{equation} 

59: \label{Neel}

60: \langle \vec S_{0}\cdot \vec S_r\rangle \to \pm m^{2}_{\rm{AF}},\ \

61:   (r\to \infty),

62: \end{equation} 

63: for any spin magnitude, $S$ and any dimension $d\geq

64:  2$~\cite{Ian94}. On the other hand, in dimension $d=1$, the behavior

65:  depends on whether $S$ is integer or

66:  half-integer~\cite{Haldane83-87}.  In the half-integer case the

67:  spin-spin correlation function

68: \begin{equation} 

69: \langle\vec S_0\cdot \vec S_r\rangle\propto \frac{(-1)^{r}{\sqrt{\ln

70: r}}}{r},

71:  \label{corr}

72: \end{equation}

73:  is expected~\cite{Giamarchi89}, characteristic of a {\it quasi}-long

74:  range order (QLRO).  (In the integer spin, Haldane gap case,

75:  correlations decay exponentially.)  This behavior in $d=1$ for

76:  half-integer $S$ is believed to be universal, not depending on the

77:  magnitude of $S$ nor on the details of the Hamiltonian as long as it

78:  is short range and not too frustrating. Long range interactions

79:  (i.e. power-law decaying with the relative distance between

80:  interacting moments) can be introduced in spin models either for some

81:  experimental reasons like dipolar or RKKY interactions or simply

82:  because of some theoretical relevance. For instance a famous example

83:  is the Haldane-Shastry model~\cite{HS88} with AF frustrating $1/r^2$

84:  interaction which exhibits an exact RVB GS. Another

85:  theoretical interest comes from the possibility to interpolate

86:  between discrete dimensions by tuning continuously the exponent that

87:  governs the decay of the interaction with the distance.  Indeed, the

88:  possibility for true LRO to occur in $d=1$ with long range

89:  interactions has motivated many studies during the last

90:  decades~\cite{MW66,68-69,Fisher72,Kosterlitz76,Brezin76,Cardy81,Frolich82,Luijten01,Bruno01,Yusuf04} 

91:  and is the subject of the present paper. While a long standing debate

92:  about the critical behavior of the Ising model in $d$ dimensions with

93:  long range ferromagnetic interaction decaying like $r^{-d-\sigma}$

94:  has been quite intense during the last thirty

95:  years~\cite{68-69,Frolich82,Luijten01}, the N-vector model

96:  has also been a subject of interest for many

97:  authors~\cite{Fisher72,Kosterlitz76,Brezin76,Cardy81}.  Concerning

98:  the Heisenberg model with long range interaction $\sim r^{-\alpha}$,

99:  the seminal paper of Mermin and Wagner~\cite{MW66} proving the

100:  absence of LRO at finite temperature $T$ in $d\le 2$ for $\alpha>d+2$

101:  has been recently reconsidered by Bruno~\cite{Bruno01} who gave

102:  stronger conditions for the absence of spontaneous magnetic order at

103:  $T>0$ in $d\le 2$. For instance, he proved that the AF non

104:  frustrating one dimensional model \be {\cal{H}} = \sum_i\left[ \vec

105:  S_i\cdot \vec S_{i+1} -\lambda \sum_{j=2}^\infty (-1)^{j}{\vec

106:  S_i\cdot \vec S_{i+j} \over j^{\alpha}}\right].

107: \label{QLRO}

108: \ee does not have N\'eel order for any temperature $T>0$ if $\alpha

109: \geq 2$.

110: Actually, much less

111: is known about the $T=0$ case, except the work of Parreira {\it et

112: al.}~\cite{Parreira97} where the authors signaled the existence of the

113: bound $\alpha=3$ over which $T=0$ LRO is ruled out~\cite{note1}. A

114: particular case, the model (\ref{QLRO}) with $\lambda=1$ was recently

115: analyzed at both $T=0$ and $T>0$ in Ref.~\cite{Yusuf04}, using the

116: lowest order spin-wave (SW) approximation, expected to be valid for

117: large enough $S$ and small enough $\alpha$. There it was shown that

118: the SW dispersion relation takes the {\it sublinear} form, at low

119: $k$:

120: \be

121: \label{SL}

122: \omega (k) \propto |k|^{(\alpha -1)/2}, \ee for $\alpha

123: <3$. Consequently the quantum $1/S$ reduction of the order parameter:

124: \be \Delta m_q \propto \int {dk\over \omega (k)},\ee is finite for any

125: $\alpha <3$. By requiring that $\Delta m_q < S$, a consistency

126: condition on the SW approximation, it is concluded that LRO occurs for

127: any $S$ at sufficiently small $\alpha$.  (However, such an estimate is

128: presumably only reliable for $S\gg1$.) After correcting a numerical

129: error in Ref.~\cite{Yusuf04}, the SW

130: prediction for the $S=1/2$, $\lambda =1$ case is existence of N\'eel

131: order at $T=0$ for $\alpha < \alpha^{sw}_c= 2.46$.

132: 

133: In this work, we extend the results of Yusuf {\it et al.} in several

134: ways, focusing on the zero temperature behavior of the non frustrating

135: spin $1/2$ Hamiltonian (\ref{QLRO}) with long range interaction of

136: adjustable strength $\lambda$ and exponent $\alpha$. In Sec. II, we

137: consider the relevance of the long range term as a

138: perturbation  to the

139: nearest neighbor interaction,  using a simple heuristic

140: argument of mean-field type as well as the power-counting of the

141: scaling dimension of the perturbation.  For

142: $\lambda\ll 1$, we find that the long range perturbation is marginal

143: if $\alpha=2$ and relevant (irrelevant) for $\alpha<2$ ($\alpha>2$).  We then

144: investigate the  $\alpha$- and $\lambda$-dependence of 

145: the critical behavior using various techniques. We begin, in Sec. III, with

146: semi-classical calculations: the SW expansion and a large-N

147: approximation based on the non-linear $\sigma$ model. Both

148: approximations give qualitatively similar phase boundaries, 

149: and sublinear dispersion like in Eq.~(\ref{SL}) in the ordered

150: phase. Some of the critical exponents can also be estimated within

151: these approximations.  However, the results obtained in the SW or

152: large-N approximations are not 

153: quantitatively correct. We therefore use large scale numerical

154: simulations to investigate more precisely the phase diagram of this

155: model in Secs. IV and V. We study  systems of up to

156: $L=4000$ sites using quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods, based on a

157: stochastic series expansion (SSE) of the partition

158: function~\cite{Sandvik02,Sandvik03}. We verify that for $S=1/2$, there

159: are indeed stable phases with both QLRO given by Eq. (\ref{corr}) and

160: with true N\'eel LRO [Eq.~(\ref{Neel})]. We accurately

161: determine the  phase boundary, as well as some of the

162: critical exponents which are found to vary continuously along the

163: critical line.  In Sec. VI, we also apply analytic renormalization

164: group (RG) methods to

165: investigate the case $\lambda \ll 1$.  Sec. VII contains 

166: conclusions. In two appendices we 

167: gives further details on the spin-wave theory and large-N calculations. 

168: 

169: \section{Relevance of the perturbation: mean field and scaling

170:   arguments}

171: \label{sec:heur}

172: Let us consider a short range spin $1/2$ chain with an

173: additional long range perturbation of the form

174: \be

175: \label{pert}

176: \sum_{r,r'}J(r,r'){\vec S}_{r}\cdot {\vec S}_{r'},

177: \ee

178: with

179: \be 

180: \label{jex}

181: J(r,r')=-\frac{(-1)^{|r-r'|}}{|r-r'|^{\alpha}}.

182: \ee

183: Following an argument given by Cardy~\cite{CardyBook} for the

184: relevance of a long range perturbation, we can in first approximation

185: look at the mean field correction to the free energy coming

186: from this long range term (\ref{pert}):

187: \be

188: \delta F =\sum_{r,r'}J(r,r')\langle {\vec S}_{r}\cdot {\vec

189:   S}_{r'}\rangle,

190: \ee

191: where $\langle ... \rangle$ is evaluated in the unperturbed system

192: where we know the behavior of the correlation function

193: \be

194: \langle {\vec S}_{r}\cdot {\vec S}_{r'}\rangle \sim

195: \frac{(-1)^{|r-r'|}}{|r-r'|^{z+\eta-1}}.

196: \ee

197: In a finite system of length $L$, the change

198: in the free energy per site $\delta f$ thus scales like

199: \be

200: \delta f  \sim \int_{1}^{L}\frac{dr}{r^{\alpha+z+\eta-1}}.

201: \ee

202: The integral above will give a constant term and a size dependent term

203: \be

204: \delta f(L)\sim  L^{2-\alpha-z-\eta}\sim L^{-\alpha},

205: \ee

206: where we have used the fact that $z=\eta=1$ in the short range QLRO

207: regime of the spin $1/2$ chain. Then, we

208:   can compare this with the usual 

209: finite size corrections to the free energy of the conformally

210: invariant short range $S=1/2$ chain which are known to scale like $L^{-2}$ 

211: to lowest order~\cite{Ian86}.  This tells us that (to first order

212: perturbation) if $\alpha<2$ the long range perturbation creates a

213: correction which dominates the $L^{-2}$ correction of the unperturbed

214: fixed point and is probably a relevant perturbation for the short

215: range model.

216: 

217: Another way of deriving this result is to compute the scaling

218: dimension of the perturbation, based on the usual continuum

219: formulation  of the short range model in which uniform and staggered

220: magnetization density operators, $(\vec J_L +\vec J_R)$ and $\vec n $

221: are introduced:

222: \be

223: \vec S(x) \approx (\vec J_L+\vec J_R)+(-1)^x\vec

224: n(x).\label{cont_lim}

225: \ee

226: Only slowly varying Fourier modes of the fields $\vec

227: J_{L/R}(x)$ and $\vec n(x)$ are present in the low energy effective

228: Hamiltonian. $\vec J_{L/R}$ are the conserved left/right-moving spin

229: densities. Ignoring a marginally irrelevant interaction, the staggered

230: magnetization field, $\vec n$, has the Green's function:

231: \be

232: \langle n^a(z)n^b(0)\rangle = {\delta^{ab}\over |z|},

233: \label{ncorr}

234: \ee

235: with $z\equiv \tau + ix$.

236: The long range perturbation adds to the low energy, continuum

237: limit of the imaginary

238: time action, a term of the form:

239: \be

240: \delta S[\vec n]\sim -\lambda\int {d\tau dx dy\over

241: |x-y|^{\alpha}}\vec n(\tau ,x)\cdot \vec n(\tau ,y).

242: \label{Seff}

243: \ee

244: Utilizing the fact that, from Eq. (\ref{ncorr}),

245: $\vec n$ has a scaling dimension of 1/2, a simple power counting tells

246: us that the perturbation is irrelevant for $\alpha >2$, relevant for

247: $\alpha <2$, and

248: marginal for $\alpha =2$.

249: Also note that $\lambda >0$ corresponds to

250: non-frustrating interactions which favor the N\'eel state with

251: $\langle n^z\rangle\neq 0$.

252: \section{Spin-wave expansion and Large-N approximation}

253: \label{sec:SW}

254: \subsection{Spin-wave expansion}

255: This calculation simply generalizes  that of Yusuf {\em et al.} in

256: Ref. \cite{Yusuf04}, to $\lambda \ne 1$. We summarize here the main

257: steps. Some further results are  given in Appendix A. On the LRO side of

258: the transition, we use the 

259: Holstein-Primakoff approximation~\cite{Holstein}: 

260: $$

261: S_{i}^z = S-a^{\dagger}_{i}a_{i}, S_{i}^{+}\approx

262: \sqrt{2S} a_{i}, S_{i}^{-}\approx

263: \sqrt{2S} a^{\dagger}_{i}, 

264: $$ 

265: for $i$ odd and 

266: $$

267: S_{j}^z = b^{\dagger}_{j}b_{j}-S, S_{j}^{+}\approx

268: \sqrt{2S} b^{\dagger}_{j}, S_{j}^{-}\approx

269: \sqrt{2S} b_{j}, 

270: $$ 

271: for $j$ even, and  retain only the quadratic terms in the Hamiltonian (\ref{QLRO}). 

272: After a Fourier transform over the reduced Brillouin

273: zone $k\in (-{\pi\over 2a}, {\pi\over 2a})$, we find:

274: \begin{equation}

275: {\cal{H}}_{SW} \approx S \sum_{k}^{}\Bigl[ \left(\gamma - f(k)

276:   \right)\left(a_k^{\dagger} a_k + b_k^{\dagger} b_k  \right)

277: + g(k) \left(a_k^{\dagger} b_{-k}^{\dagger} +b_{-k} a_k\right)\Bigr]+\dots

278: \ee

279: where, for an infinite chain \cite{note2}:

280: $$

281: \gamma = 2 + 2 \lambda \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2n-1)^{\alpha}}

282: $$

283: $$

284: f(k) = 2  \lambda \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ \cos(2kna)-1}{(2n)^{\alpha}}

285: $$

286: $$

287: g(k) = 2 \cos(ka) + 2  \lambda \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}

288: \frac{\cos[k(2n-1)a]}{(2n-1)^\alpha} 

289: $$

290: This quadratic Hamiltonian can be diagonalized with a 

291: Bogoliubov transformation to:

292: \be

293: {\cal H}_{SW} \approx S \sum_{k}^{} \omega_k

294: \left(\chi_{k,1}^{\dagger}\chi_{k,1}+\chi_{k,2}^{\dagger}\chi_{k,2}

295: \right) 

296: \label{hsw}

297: \ee

298: with a SW spectrum 

299: \be

300:  \omega_k = \sqrt{\left[\gamma - f(k)

301:   \right]^2 + [g(k)]^2 }\stackrel{k\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow}

302: k^{\alpha-1\over 2} , 

303: \ee

304: as discussed above. At $T=0$, the correction

305: to the staggered magnetization at any site is

306: $$

307: \Delta m_q = \langle a^{\dagger}_{i} a_{i}\rangle = \langle

308: b^{\dagger}_{j} b_{j}\rangle = {a\over 2\pi} \int_{-{\pi\over

309: 	2a}}^{\pi\over 2a} dk \left[\frac{\gamma - f(k)}{\omega_k} -1\right]

310: $$

311: The consistency condition  $\Delta m_q

312: < S$ then allows us to find the SW approximation for the value

313: of $\alpha_{c}^{sw}$ below which long range N\'eel order is established. As

314: already stated, for  $S=1/2$ and $\lambda =1$, we find $\alpha_{c}^{sw} =

315: 2.46$. A plot of $\alpha_{c}^{sw}$ vs. $\lambda$, for $S=1/2$, is shown in

316: Fig.~\ref{fig:SW}. 

317: 

318: \begin{figure}[!ht]

319: \bc

320: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/PhDgSW.eps}

321: \caption{Spin-wave approximation prediction for the value

322:   $\alpha_{c}^{sw}$ below which long range N\'eel order is expected at

323:   $T=0$, as a function of $\lambda$ and for $S=1/2$. The critical

324:   curve saturates at $\alpha \simeq 2.9032$ when $\lambda\to\infty$.}

325: \label{fig:SW}

326: \ec

327: \end{figure}

328: This phase boundary given by the lowest order SW approximation turns

329: out not to be quantitatively correct, as we are going to see with the QMC

330: results presented in section~\ref{sec:QMC1}. In particular it happens that SW

331: predictions miss the fact that the critical line goes to $\alpha=2$

332: when $\lambda \to 0$. Nevertheless SW predictions are, to some

333: extent, shared by large-$N$ calculations as we are going to see

334: below.

335:     

336: \subsection{Large-$N$ approximation}

337: The details of this calculation are given in

338: Appendix~\ref{app:LN}. Here we present the main steps and discuss the

339: results which come from this approximation. We generalize the 

340: N\'eel order parameter field, $\vec n(\tau,x)$ appearing in Eq. (\ref{cont_lim}), 

341: to an $N$-component field and take the limit of large $N$. In this 

342: approximation 2 phases occur in the $\lambda$ -$\alpha$ plane. 

343: The critical line terminates at $\alpha =1$, as in spin-wave approximation. 

344: These two phases  are 

345: a phase with N\'eel order and a disordered phase with a finite correlation length. 

346: (The unusual quasi long range ordered phase is special to the case $N=3$ 

347: and is not captured by the large-$N$ approximation.) Along the critical line 

348: separating these two phases the mean field result, $\eta =3-\alpha$ is obtained. 

349: The dynamical exponent takes the value $z=(\alpha -1)/2$, corresponding 

350: to the dispersion relation $\omega \propto |k|^{(\alpha -1)/2}$ also 

351: obtained in spin-wave theory. The correlation length diverges with an exponent, $\nu$ 

352: defined by:

353: \be \xi \propto |\lambda_c-\lambda|^{-\nu},\ee

354: with 

355: \bea \nu &=& 1/(\alpha -1),\ \ (1<\alpha <5/3) \nonumber \\

356: \nu &=& 2/(3-\alpha ),\ \  (5/3<\alpha <3).\eea

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

361: \section{Quantum Monte Carlo results I: Finite size effects}

362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

363: \label{sec:QMC1}

364: In this section, we present results obtained using the QMC SSE method

365: based on directed loop

366: updates~\cite{Sandvik02}. This algorithm, used here to investigate the

367: model (\ref{QLRO}), has been proposed recently by Sandvik~\cite{Sandvik03}

368: to study spin Hamiltonians with non-frustrating long range interactions.

369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

370: \subsection{Finite size corrections}

371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

372: 

373: We first focus on the $\lambda=1$ case, studied by SW in Ref.~\cite{Yusuf04}, governed by the following

374: Hamiltonian

375: \be

376: {\cal H}=-\sum_{i,j\geq 1}\frac{(-1)^j}{j^{\alpha}}{\vec S}_{i}\cdot{\vec S}_{i+j}.

377: \label{eq:iso}

378: \ee

379: %

380: In order to detect a N\'eel instability at the thermodynamic limit, 

381: we compute the staggered structure factor, normalized per site, on finite length

382: spin $S=1/2$ chains, defined by

383: \be

384: S_{\pi}(L)=\frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{i,j}(-1)^{i-j}\langle{{\vec S}}_{i}\cdot{{\vec S}}_{j}\rangle=\frac{3}{L^2}\langle (\sum_{i=1}^{L}(-1)^i S_{i}^{z})^2\rangle.

385: \ee

386: We have performed SSE simulations for different system sizes, up to

387: $L_{\rm{max}}=4096$, at temperatures $\beta^{-1}=1/2L$

388: low enough to get the GS properties.

389: Results for $S_{\pi}(L)$ are shown  vs $1/L$ in the left panel of

390: Fig.~\ref{fig:spi} for

391: different values of the power-law exponent $\alpha$. The staggered

392: structure factor displays two types of behavior: for small values of

393: $\alpha$ it saturates to a finite non-zero number whereas for large

394: enough $\alpha$, $S_{\pi}(L)$ vanishes when $L\to\infty$.

395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

396: \begin{figure}[!ht]

397: \bc

398: \psfrag{B}{\Huge{N\'eel}}

399: \psfrag{K}{\Large QLRO}

400: \begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}

401: \includegraphics[width=0.46\columnwidth,clip]{Figures/Spi_Lambda1_QMC.eps}

402: \includegraphics[width=0.44\columnwidth,clip]{Figures/mAF_Lambda1_QMC.eps}

403: \end{minipage}

404: \caption{Left panel: $T=0$ QMC results for the staggered structure factor per

405:   site $S_{\pi}(L)$ computed in the GS for the Hamiltonian

406:   (\ref{eq:iso}) and plotted vs the inverse system size

407:   $L^{-1}$ in a log-log scale.

408:   Different symbols are used for different values of the

409:   power-law exponent $\alpha$, as indicated on the plot. The case

410:   with only nearest neighbor interactions is also shown (N.N green crosses) for

411:   comparison. Right panel: Infinite size AF order

412:   parameter $m_{\rm{AF}}$ plotted vs $\alpha$, obtained using finite size scaling of

413:   $S_{\pi}(L)$ (shown on the left panel). The quantum

414:   phase transition between the N\'eel

415:   phase ($m_{\rm{AF}}\ne 0$) and the QLRO phase ($m_{\rm{AF}}=0$)

416:   occurs at $\alpha_c=2.225\pm 0.025$. The SW estimate

417:   ($\alpha_{c}^{\rm{sw}}\simeq 2.46$) is indicated by the arrow.}

418: \label{fig:spi}

419: \ec

420: \end{figure}

421: %

422: Then, in order to extract the thermodynamic limit behavior of

423: $S_{\pi}$, we perform a finite size analysis in order to get the AF

424: order parameter, given by

425: \be

426: \sqrt{S_{\pi}(L)}\to m_{\rm{AF}},\  \ (L\to \infty).

427: \label{maf1}

428: \ee

429: Utilizing the fact that in the QLRO regime the spin-spin correlation

430: functions decay as stated in Eq.~(\ref{corr}), we therefore expect in

431: this regime the following behavior for the staggered structure factor

432: per site

433: \be

434: S_{\pi}(L)= \frac{1}{L}\int_{1}^{L}(-1)^r\langle {\vec{S}}_0 \cdot

435: {\vec{S}}_r \rangle dr\sim \frac{\left(\ln L\right)^{3/2}}{L},\  \ (L\to \infty).

436: \ee

437: On the other hand, in the N\'eel phase, the finite size scaling of the

438: order parameter can be evaluated using the small $k$ SW spectrum (see appendix~\ref{app:SW}), leading to  

439: \be

440: S_{\pi}(L)-m_{\rm{AF}}^2\sim L^{\frac{\alpha-3}{2}}+O(L^{{\alpha-3}}).

441: \label{eq:fss}

442: \ee 

443: We used second order polynomial fits in $L^{\frac{\alpha-3}{2}}$ to

444:   extrapolate the finite size data to their thermodynamic limit

445:   values, shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:spi}.

446: The quantum phase transition between the AF N\'eel order and the

447: QLRO phase is clearly visible for a critical value

448: $2.2<\alpha_c<2.25$. It is also interesting to compare this estimate

449: with the one from SW approximation giving $\alpha_{c}^{\rm{sw}}\simeq 2.46$.

450: 

451: 

452: Let us now concentrate on the $\alpha-$ and $\lambda-$dependent

453: Hamiltonian (\ref{QLRO}) by keeping a fixed value for  $\alpha$ while

454: varying $\lambda$. We first focus

455: on the case with $\alpha=2.1$ which is expected to display a

456: transition for a non-zero value of $\lambda$.

457: As pointed out by Reger and Young studying finite size AF clusters in

458: $d=2$~\cite{Reger88}, the sublattice (infinite size) magnetization can be obtained

459: either from the staggered structure factor [Eq.~(\ref{maf1})] or from

460: the correlation functions at the largest separation

461: \be

462: \label{maf2}

463: C(L)=\langle \vec{S}_i\cdot\vec{S}_{i+L/2}\rangle \to

464: \pm m_{\rm{AF}}^{2},\  \ (L\to \infty).

465: \ee

466: In the N\'eel phase, both estimators $S_{\pi}(L)$ and $C(L)$ are

467: expected to converge to $m_{\rm{AF}}^2$ with a similar 

468: power-law behavior but with different pre-factors. This feature is

469: illustrated by the computation of $C(L)$ and $S_{\pi}(L)$ for

470: $\alpha=2.1$ and four different value of the long range term strength

471: $\lambda=3,~2~,0.9,~0.6$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2.1}.

472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

473: \begin{figure}[!ht]

474: \bc

475: \psfrag{Z}{\tiny{\bf{(a) $\lambda=3$}}}

476: \psfrag{Y}{\tiny{\bf{(b) $\lambda=2$}}}

477: \psfrag{X}{\tiny{\bf{(c) $\lambda=0.9$}}}

478: \psfrag{W}{\tiny{\bf{(d) $\lambda=0.6$}}}

479: \includegraphics[width=10cm,clip]{Figures/Extrapolation_alpha2.1_QMC.eps}

480: \caption{Staggered structure factor per site

481:   $S_{\pi}(L)$ [Eq.~(\ref{maf1})] and mid-chain correlation function

482:   $C(L)$ [Eq.~(\ref{maf2})] computed at $T=0$ with QMC for $\alpha=2.1$

483:   and 4 different

484:   values of $\lambda$, as shown on the plot (a)-(d). Finite size

485:   scaling has been performed on finite systems up to

486:   $L_{\rm{max}}=128$ for the largest values of $\lambda$ ((a) and

487:   (b)) and up to $L_{\rm{max}}=256$ for the smallest ((c) and

488:   (d)). The dashed lines are polynomial fits of the form

489:   $m_{\rm{AF}}^2+a_1 L^{\frac{\alpha-3}{2}}+a_2 L^{\alpha-3}$.}

490: 

491: \label{fig:2.1}

492: \ec

493: \end{figure}

494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

495: Using second order polynomial fits in $L^{\frac{\alpha-3}{2}}$, we can

496: obtain infinite size extrapolated values for $m_{\rm{AF}}(\lambda)$

497: from $S_{\pi}(L)$ or $C(L)$, as reported in table~\ref{table1}.

498: Finite size effects are more pronounced for the staggered structure

499: factor than for the mid-chain correlation function because

500: $S_{\pi}(L)$ is the result of the integration of the staggered

501: correlation function along the entire chain and therefore is sensitive

502: to short distance terms.  However, the estimates for the sublattice

503: magnetization obtained from $C(L)$ and $S_{\pi}(L)$ (see

504: table~\ref{table1}) are both in good agreement, especially when the

505: system is deeply in the N\'eel regime (large values of $\lambda$). On

506: the other hand, when the system is approaching the quantum critical

507: point (QCP) where $m_{\rm{AF}}\to 0$, the finite size effects are

508: significant enough to prevent us from obtaining a very precise

509: estimate of the critical coupling $\lambda_c$ where the AF LRO

510: vanishes.

511: 

512: \begin{table}

513: \label{table1}

514: \begin{tabular}{r|r|r|}

515: $\lambda$&$m_{\rm{AF}}$ from $S_{\pi}(L)$&$m_{\rm{AF}}$ from $C(L)$\\

516: \hline

517: 3&0.353&0.356\\

518: 2&0.295&0.301\\

519: 0.9&0.106&0.091\\

520: 0.6&0&0.02\\

521: \end{tabular}

522: \caption{Infinite size extrapolated values of the

523: sublattice magnetization $m_{\rm{AF}}$ obtained for $\alpha=2.1$ and

524: $\lambda=3,~2,~0.9,~0.6$ from power-law fits of the staggered

525: structure factor $S_{\pi}(L)$ and the mid-chain correlation function $C(L)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2.1}).}

526: \end{table}

527: %

528: %\begin{table}

529: %\begin{indented}

530: %\item[]\begin{tabular}{@{}lll}

531: %\br

532: %$\lambda$&$m_{\rm{AF}}$ from $S_{\pi}(L)$&$m_{\rm{AF}}$ from $C(L)$\\

533: %\mr

534: %3&0.353&0.356\\

535: %2&0.295&0.301\\

536: %0.9&0.106&0.091\\

537: %0.6&0&0.02\\

538: %\br

539: %\end{tabular}

540: %\caption{\label{table1}Infinite size extrapolated values of the

541: %sublattice magnetization $m_{\rm{AF}}$ obtained for $\alpha=2.1$ and

542: %$\lambda=3,~2,~0.9,~0.6$ from power-law fits of the staggered

543: %structure factor $S_{\pi}(L)$ and the mid-chain correlation function $C(L)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2.1}).}

544: %\end{indented}

545: %\end{table}

546: %

547: Of course, in principle it is  possible to perform

548: very large scale numerical SSE simulations on the largest reachable system

549: sizes, as we did for the $\lambda=1$ case with

550: $L_{\rm{max}}=4096$. However, since our goal here is to investigate

551: the quantum critical phenomena in the $\lambda-\alpha$ plane, we need

552: a good sampling of this parameter space and we therefore restrict

553: the simulations over systems of maximum size $L_{\rm{max}}\le 1024$.

554: We then  use another strategy, based on scaling

555: arguments, to perform a better data analysis

556: close to criticality. This is described next.

557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

558: \subsection{Scaling analysis}

559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

560: As previously discussed, the finite size effects are bigger for the

561: staggered structure factor than for the mid-chain correlation

562: function. Therefore, we now focus on $C(L)$ which is

563: expected to saturate to a constant value in the N\'eel phase, whereas in the

564: QLRO regime, the  behavior $C(L)\to \sqrt{\ln (L/a)}/L$ is

565: expected, $a$ being a non-universal constant.

566: 

567: 

568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

569: \begin{figure}[!ht]

570: \bc

571: \psfrag{W}{$C(L)$}

572: \psfrag{X}{$L$}

573: \psfrag{Y}{$\Psi_{\lambda}C(L)$}

574: \psfrag{Z}{$L/\xi_{\lambda}$}

575: \begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}

576: {\hskip -0.2cm{\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth,clip]{Figures/Corr_alpha2.1_QMC.eps}}}

577: {\hskip 0.2cm{\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth,clip]{Figures/Collapse_Corr_alpha2.1_QMC.eps}}}

578: \end{minipage}

579: \caption{$T=0$ QMC results for the mid-chain correlation function $C(L)$

580:   computed for $\alpha=2.1$ and different values of $\lambda$, as

581:   indicated on the plot. (a) $C(L)$ is plotted vs the system size $L$ for

582:   $0\le \lambda\le 1.15$. (b)

583:   Both x- and y-axis are rescaled using two parameters:

584:   the crossover

585:   length scale $\xi_{\lambda}$ and $\Psi_{\lambda}$. The data collapse results in two

586:   universal curves: one for the N\'eel ordered phase (top one) and

587:   one for the QLRO regime (lower one).  Note that for clarity, the

588:   QLRO universal curve has been shifted downwards. The red dashed-line

589:   materializes the critical separatrix between the two regimes, decaying with

590:   an exponent $\simeq 0.63$. Inset: Crossover

591:   length scale $\xi_{\lambda}$ extracted from the data collapse in the

592:   QLRO (full circles) and N\'eel regime (open squares). The dashed lines

593:   are power-law fits of the form $|\lambda-\lambda_c|^{-\nu}$

594:   with $\lambda_c\simeq 0.45$ (indicated by vertical

595:   dotted line) and $\nu\sim 15$.}

596: \label{fig:cL}

597: \ec

598: \end{figure}

599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

600: In order to illustrate the scaling analysis, let us continue to study

601: the case with $\alpha=2.1$, as in the previous 

602: subsection. We have computed $C(L)$ for several values of the long range coupling

603: strength $\lambda$ in the range $[0,1.15]$, for sizes up to $L=256$. The results,

604: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL} (a), clearly show the existence of a

605: finite critical value

606: $\lambda_c$ which separates the QLRO and the N\'eel regimes. In order to

607: locate precisely this QCP, let us assume that

608: a typical length 

609: scale $\xi_{\lambda}$ governs a crossover from the QCP to the N\'eel

610: phase if $\lambda > \lambda_c$ and from the QCP to the QLRO regime if

611: $\lambda < \lambda_c$. Precisely at the critical point, the spin-spin

612: correlation function decay like a power-law

613: %

614: \be

615: C_{\rm{QCP}}(L)\sim L^{1-z-\eta},

616: \label{eq:QCP}

617: \ee

618: %

619: thus defining the critical exponents $\eta$ and $z$, the critical

620: dynamical exponent. Without making any 

621: assumption about the values of the aforementioned critical exponents,

622: let us now define  scaling 

623: functions $f_{\pm}(x)$, with $x=L/\xi_{\lambda}$,

624: for $\lambda>\lambda_c$ and $\lambda<\lambda_c$, respectively, by

625: %

626: \be

627: f_{\pm}(x)=\frac{C(L)}{C_{\rm{QCP}}(L)}

628: \ee

629: %

630: Hence, the scaling functions obey

631: %

632: \bea

633: \label{eq:scaling}

634: f_-(x)&\propto&

635: x^{-2+z+\eta}{\sqrt{\ln x}}{\rm{~if~}} x\gg 1 {\rm{~and~}}   \lambda

636: < \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(QLRO)}}\nonumber \\ 

637: f_+(x)&\propto&x^{-1+z+\eta}{\rm{~if~}} x\gg 1 {\rm~{and~}} \lambda > \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(NEEL)}}\nonumber \\

638: f_{\pm}(0)&=&1  {\rm{~if~}} \lambda \simeq \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(QCP)}}

639: \eea

640: %

641: It is convenient to also rescale the y-axis with the unknown function

642: $\Psi_{\lambda}$ in order to get 

643: $C(L)\times

644: \Psi_{\lambda}=f(x)\times x^{1-z-\eta}$.

645: We then expect $\Psi_{\lambda}$ to be proportional to $\xi_{\lambda}^{z+\eta-1}$.

646: Using such scaling forms, we have obtained the collapse of the data

647: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(a) into two universal curves shown in

648: Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b). The parameters $\xi_{\lambda}$ and

649: $\Psi_{\lambda}$ have been chosen to give the best data collapses.

650: Using such a scaling analysis, we find a critical coupling

651: $\lambda_c=0.45\pm 0.05$ that we can compare to the overestimated value

652: $\lambda_c=0.6$ previously found using the more simple finite size

653: scaling Eq.~(\ref{eq:fss}). The critical correlation (given by the separatrix between the two

654: regimes in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b)) is characterized here by a power-law

655: decay with an exponent $(z+\eta-1)_{\rm{QCP}}\simeq 0.63$.

656: Note also that the crossover length scale $\xi_{\lambda}$, plotted in the inset of

657: Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b), diverges on both sides of the

658: transition with

659: a large exponent $\nu\sim 15$~\cite{notexi}.

660: These and other issues related to the critical exponents will be discussed in

661: detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:crit}.

662: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

663: \section{Quantum Monte Carlo II: Phase diagram and Critical behavior}

664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

665: The scaling analysis described above has been repeated for several values

666: of $\alpha$ in order to explore and construct the phase diagram of the

667: model (\ref{QLRO}) in the $\lambda-\alpha$ plane. 

668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

669: \subsection{$\alpha=2$: Marginal case}

670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

671: Let us first focus on the marginal case with

672: $\alpha=2$ for which a similar data collapse analysis is performed and

673: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL1} for the mid-chain correlation

674: function. 

675: 

676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

677: \begin{figure}[!ht]

678: \bc

679: \psfrag{Y}{$\Psi_{\lambda}C(L)$}

680: \psfrag{Z}{$L/\xi_{\lambda}$}

681: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/Collapse_Corr_alpha2_QMC.eps}

682: \ec

683: \caption{$T=0$ QMC results at $\alpha=2$ for the mid-chain correlation

684:   functions $C(L)$. As in

685:   Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}, both x- and y-axis have been rescaled in order

686:   to get the best data collapse. For the different values of $\lambda$

687:   indicated on the plot, the data collapse on a unique crossover

688:   curve towards the N\'eel ordered phase. Inset: Crossover

689:   length scale $\xi_{\lambda}$ plotted in a linear-log scale vs

690:   $\lambda^{-0.4}$. The dashed line is a fit of the form

691:   Eq.~(\ref{eq:expfit}) with $\sigma=0.4$.}

692: \label{fig:cL1}

693: \end{figure}

694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

695: Using QMC simulations results for chains up to $L=512$ sites, with

696: $\lambda \in [0,3]$, we have been able to get an universal curve (see

697: Fig.~\ref{fig:cL1}) which shows a crossover towards a N\'eel order

698: phase (i.e. $C(L)\to{\rm{constant}}$ if $L\gg \xi_{\lambda}$). 

699: Note that for $\lambda < 0.1$, the typical

700: length scale necessary to get a good collapse becomes very large 

701: so that there is no overlap between our different curves and the 

702: data collapse analysis is impossible to achieve.

703: Nevertheless, the crossover length scale

704: $\xi_{\lambda}$, plotted in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:cL1}, displays

705: an exponential divergence when $\lambda\to 0$. Guided by the RG calculations presented in

706: section~\ref{sec:RG}, we can fit the $\lambda$-dependence of the crossover length scale by

707: \be\label{eq:expfit}

708: \xi_{\lambda}\sim \exp(C/\lambda^{\sigma}),

709: \ee

710: with $\sigma=0.4$ and $C$ being a free parameter.

711: It is however important to note

712: that since $\xi_{\lambda}$ suffers from large error bars, and so does the

713: fitting parameter, we have

714: forced $\sigma$ to its value found in Eq.~(\ref{eq:exp}). 

715: 

716: Unambiguously, $\xi_{\lambda}$ is found to diverge when $\lambda\to 0$

717: which means that at the marginal point

718: $\alpha=2$, any $\lambda >0$ will drive the system towards the N\'eel

719: phase. In other words, the

720: long range interaction perturbation of strength $\lambda$ is

721: {\it{marginally relevant}} at $\alpha=2$. This result agrees 

722: with the RG calculations presented

723: in section~\ref{sec:RG}.

724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

725: \subsection{Phase Diagram}

726: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

727: As previously stated, when $\alpha\le 2$ the long range interaction is a

728: relevant perturbation and any $\lambda>0$ will drive the QLRO

729: phase towards a AF ordered N\'eel phase with

730: $m_{\rm{AF}}\ne 0$. On the other hand, when $\alpha> 2$ a simple

731: power-counting tells us that the perturbation is irrelevant which

732: should imply that the QLRO is stable against a small perturbation

733: $\lambda>0$. 

734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

735: \begin{figure}[!ht]

736: \bc

737: \psfrag{NEEL}{\Huge N\'eel}

738: \psfrag{QLRO}{\Huge QLRO}

739: \includegraphics[width=10cm,clip]{Figures/PhaseDiag_QMC.eps}

740: \caption{$T=0$ phase diagram of the long range $S=1/2$ model

741:   [Eq.~(\ref{QLRO})] computed by large scale QMC

742:   simulations and plotted in the $\lambda-\alpha$ plane. A line of

743:   critical points (circles) separates a long range ordered phase

744:   (N\'eel) and a quasi long range ordered phase (QLRO). The error

745:   bars, due to some uncertainties in the finite size scaling analysis of

746:   the numerical data, are explicitly show on the plot. The dashed line

747:   is a guide for the eyes.}

748: \label{fig:phasediag}

749: \ec

750: \end{figure}

751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

752: It turns out that such a simple argument is not sufficient to provide

753: a correct description of the quantum critical behavior of the

754: system (see the next section for a more advanced field theoretical

755: description). Based on large scale numerical simulations, we

756: provide  hereafter a picture which is consistent with the existence of a

757: non-trivial line of fixed points in the 

758: $\lambda-\alpha$ plane.

759: 

760: Using QMC simulations on systems of up to $L=1000$, we 

761: performed the scaling analysis for the mid-chain correlation

762: function $C(L)$ as well as for the staggered susceptibility (see

763: below) and computed the phase diagram for $2\le \alpha\le

764: 2.7$. For each value of $\alpha$, the QCP $\lambda_c$ is found

765: by the separatrix between the two crossover functions (see

766: Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b)) with some error bars due to the discrete

767: sampling in the $\lambda$ space as well as the strong divergence of

768: the crossover length scale close to the critical point which makes

769: the data collapse delicate.

770: We present in Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediag} the QMC phase diagram in the

771: $\lambda-\alpha$ plane. 

772: As discussed, $\lambda$ is marginally relevant at $\alpha =2$, driving 

773: the system towards a N\'eel phase with LRO. At small $\lambda$, the critical line

774: increases sharply from $\alpha=2$ and displays a

775: negative curvature. By contrast, spin-wave theory (see

776: Fig.~\ref{fig:SW}) and large-$N$

777:  approximation predict 

778: that $\alpha_c(\lambda\rightarrow 0 )=1$. In the range of $\lambda$ considered here

779: ($\lambda<8$), the critical line stays well below the value

780: $\alpha=3$ and  we expect this feature to remain true for all

781: $\lambda$. This behavior  is

782: consistent with the proof of absence of LRO at $T=0$ for $\alpha >3$

783: \cite{Parreira97,note1}.

784: 

785: %

786: %Let us give a few words about this computed phase boundary in the

787: %$\lambda-\alpha$ plane which is quantitatively different from the one

788: %computed with SW (see Fig.~\ref{fig:SW}). 

789: %First of all, $\lambda$ is marginally relevant at $\alpha =2$, driving 

790: %the system towards a N\'eel phase with LRO. At small $\lambda$, the critical line

791: %increases sharply from $\alpha=2$ and displays a

792: %negative curvature. By contrast, spin-wave theory and large-$N$

793: % approximation predict 

794: %that $\alpha_c(\lambda )$ hits the $\alpha$ axis 

795: %at $\alpha =1$. In the range of $\lambda$ considered here

796: %($\lambda<8$), the critical line stays well below the upper bound

797: %$\alpha=3$ and regarding the shape of

798: %the curve, we expect this feature to remain true.

799: %Also, we

800: %could perhaps expect the critical line to eventually saturate asymptotically

801: %towards a value $\alpha^{*}<3$. This issue is of course only

802: %speculative and not conclusive at all.

803: 

804: 

805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

806: \subsection{Critical exponents}

807: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

808: \label{sec:crit}

809: The transition line between N\'eel LRO and QLRO is a

810: non trivial line which displays continuously varying critical

811: exponents, as we show now.

812: 

813: \subsubsection{Divergence of the crossover length scale}

814: \label{sec:nu}

815: The standard theory of quantum phase transitions involves a set of

816: critical exponents which govern the universal behavior of various

817: quantities close to or at the QCP. One of them is 

818: $\nu$ which tells us how does the correlation length diverge in the

819: real space direction close to the critical point. Usually this

820: correlation length is defined in the disordered phase by the

821: exponential decay $\sim

822: \exp(-r/\xi)$ of the correlation function associated with the order

823: parameter. In our case,  the non ordered regime $\lambda<\lambda_c$ is already

824: critical and thus the correlation length is intrinsically

825: infinite. Nevertheless, the typical length scale $\xi_\lambda$ which

826: governs the crossover phenomenon, diverges at the QCP (on both sides) with an exponent which we call $\nu$ by analogy:

827: %

828: \be

829: \xi_{\lambda} \propto |\lambda -\lambda_c|^{-\nu}.

830: \ee

831: %

832: As already discussed, an accurate numerical evaluation of the

833: exponent $\nu$ is difficult, because of some intrinsic

834: uncertainties in the data collapse procedure.

835: Nevertheless, at our

836: level of precision we observe this crossover

837: length scale exponent increasing when $\alpha\to 2^+$. 

838: In particular,

839: at the marginal point $\alpha=2$, we find an exponential divergence

840: of $\xi_{\lambda}$ near $\lambda=0$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:expfit})], formally

841: corresponding to $\nu=\infty$. This divergence of $\nu$ when

842: $\alpha$ approaches 2 is actually in good agreement with the results of

843:  field theory and RG calculations presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:RG}. 

844: 

845: 

846: \subsubsection{Staggered magnetization exponent and hyperscaling relation}

847: The other scaling parameter $\Psi_{\lambda}$,  used for the collapse of

848: the correlation functions data, also contains some

849: information. First, if the scaling hypothesis used above with the help

850: of the crossover functions is correct, we expect $\Psi_{\lambda}\sim

851: \xi_{\lambda}^{z+\eta-1}$ which gives another estimate for the critical

852: exponent of the decay of the

853: correlation function [Eq.~({\ref{eq:QCP})].  This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:PsiXi}

854: where $\Psi_{\lambda}$ is plotted vs $\xi_{\lambda}$ for

855: $\alpha=2.1$. Data, presented for both sides of the transition in

856: Fig.~\ref{fig:PsiXi}, clearly display power-law dependences with an

857: exponent $\eta+z-1$ in very good agreement with the value of $0.63$

858: previously found along the separatrix in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b). Note

859: also that the agreement is even better when getting closer to the QCP.

860: %

861: \begin{figure}[!ht]

862: \bc

863: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/Psi-Xi.alpha2.1.eps}

864: \caption{Log-log plot of the scaling parameters $\Psi_{\lambda}$ and $\xi_{\lambda}$

865:   obtained from the collapses shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cL}(b) for

866:   $\alpha=2.1$ in both phases: N\'eel ({\Large$\circ$}) and QLRO

867:   ($\square$). Within error bars (explicitly shown on the plot), data

868:   are fitted by power-laws (dotted lines) of the form

869:   $\xi_{\lambda}^{0.617}$ for the N\'eel regime and

870:   $\xi_{\lambda}^{0.636}$ for the QLRO.}

871: \label{fig:PsiXi}

872: \ec

873: \end{figure}

874: %

875: 

876: In the ordered phase, according to Eq.~(\ref{maf2}), we expect for the

877: AF order parameter

878: %

879: \be

880: m_{\rm{AF}}\propto \xi_{\lambda}^{\frac{1-z-\eta}{2}}\propto

881: (\lambda-\lambda_c)^{\frac{\nu(1-z-\eta)}{2}}.

882: \ee

883: %

884: This implies the usual {\it hyperscaling} relation involving the critical

885: exponent $\beta$ governing the onset of the order parameter

886: %

887: \be

888: m_{\rm{AF}}\propto (\lambda-\lambda_c)^{\beta},

889: \ee

890: which must therefore satisfy:

891: \be

892: 2\beta=\nu(z+\eta-1),

893: \ee

894: {\em i.e.} the usual hyperscaling relation in $d=1$.

895: %

896: 

897: \subsubsection{Analytical estimate of the exponent $\eta$}

898: Following the same philosophy as in  the mean field argument given in

899: section~\ref{sec:heur}, we can calculate the expectation value of

900: the long range perturbation

901: \be

902: J(r,r')\langle {\vec S}_{r}\cdot {\vec

903:   S}_{r'}\rangle\sim \frac{1}{|r-r'|^{\alpha+z+\eta-1}},

904: \ee

905: at the QCP, with some unknown critical exponents

906: $z$ and $\eta$. The finite size correction to the free energy density

907: now scales like $L^{2-\alpha-z-\eta}$. The

908: singular part of the free energy at some non 

909: trivial QCP is expected to scale like $L^{-1-z}$ for a finite

910: size system. Thus the two corrections will scale in a similar way if 

911: %

912: \be

913: \label{MFeta}

914: \eta=3-\alpha.

915: \ee

916: %

917: The same condition is also obtained by 

918: demanding that the long range interaction be invariant under the RG

919: transformation involving a scale factor $s$: 

920: \be

921: \vec n(\tau ,x) \to s^{-(z-1+\eta )/2}\vec n(\tau /s^z,x/s).

922: \ee

923: (The rescaling factor of $s^{-(z-1+\eta )/2}$ for $\vec n$ implies the equal

924: time correlation exponent of $z-1+\eta$.)  

925: Rescaling $x$ and $\tau$ inside the integral Eq.~(\ref{Seff}) (which

926: represents the contribution of the long range term in the action), the

927: condition for invariance under this RG

928: transformation leads to $2+z-\alpha-(z-1+\eta)=0$, which gives the

929: expression (\ref{MFeta}) for $\eta$.

930:  As already shown in section~\ref{sec:SW},

931: Large-$N$ calculations also give  the same value for $\eta$~\cite{noteta}. 

932: Let us mention that the RG analysis, presented below in section~\ref{sec:RG}, also agree

933: with such an estimate, up to  order $(\alpha-2)^2$. 

934: 

935: \subsubsection{Numerical determination of the exponent $\eta$: scaling of

936:   the staggered susceptibility}

937: %

938: \begin{figure}[!ht]

939: \bc

940: \includegraphics[width=10cm,clip]{Figures/ChiStag.alpha2.2.eps}

941: \caption{QMC results for the $T=0$ staggered susceptibility

942:   $\chi(\pi)$ [Eq.~(\ref{def:stachi})] computed for $\alpha=2.2$ on

943:   systems up to $L=1024$ spins. The upper inset shows $\chi(\pi)$ vs $L$ for

944:   various $\lambda\in[0.1,1.9]$. The main plot shows the results of a

945:   data collapse onto two universal curves, after a rescaling of both

946:   $x$- and $y$-axis using two parameters $\xi_{\lambda}$ and

947:   $\Theta_{\lambda}$. 

948: Asymptotically, the LRO curve (top one with data

949:   for $0.95\le \lambda\le 1.9$) saturates

950:   towards a constant whereas the QLRO one (lower one with data for

951:   $0.1\le\lambda\le 0.85$) displays a

952:   $L^{-1}$ behavior, characteristic of $\eta=1$. Between them the

953:   separatrix shows the critical behavior around the transition at

954:   $\lambda_c\simeq 0.9$, decaying like $L^{-0.8\pm 0.01}$. The lower

955:   inset shows a log-log plot of the scaling parametrs $\Theta_{\lambda}$ and

956:   $\xi_{\lambda}$  used to achieve the collapses in both phases,

957:   N\'eel ({\Large$\circ$}) and QLRO ($\square$).

958:   Within error bars, data

959:   can be fitted for the entire range by power-laws (dotted lines) of

960:   the form $\xi_{\lambda}^{0.785}$ for the N\'eel regime and

961:   $\xi_{\lambda}^{0.815}$ for the QLRO.}

962: \label{fig:chi}

963: \ec

964: \end{figure}

965: %

966: 

967: The $T=0$ staggered susceptibility, defined on a finite ring of size

968: $L$ by

969: %

970: \be

971: \label{def:stachi}

972: \chi(\pi)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{ij}(-1)^{|i-j|}\int_{0}^{\infty}\langle{\vec{S}}_{i}(0)\cdot{\vec{S}}_{j}(\tau)\rangle

973: d\tau,

974: \ee

975: %

976: obeys the standard finite size scaling at the QCP:

977: %

978: \be

979: \chi(\pi)\propto L^{2-\eta}.

980: \ee

981: %

982: Also we know, for instance from SW calculation (see

983: appendix~\ref{app:SW}), that in a N\'eel ordered state the staggered

984: susceptibility will scale quadratically with the size

985: $L$. On the other hand, in the QLRO characterized by $\eta=1$, we rather expect a linear

986: scaling of $\chi(\pi)$ with $L$. Consequently, there are

987: three distinct regimes for the staggered susceptibility:

988: %

989: \be

990: \label{eq:chi}

991: \chi(\pi)\times L^{-2}\sim\left\{

992: \begin{array}{lr}

993: {\rm{constant}}&{\rm{~if~}} \lambda > \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(NEEL)}}\\

994: L^{-1} &{\rm{~if~}} \lambda < \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(QLRO)}}\\

995: L^{-\eta} &{\rm{~if~}} \lambda = \lambda_c {\rm{~~~~(QCP).}}

996: \end{array}

997: \right.

998: \ee

999: %

1000: We  use the same scaling procedure as  for the

1001: correlation functions, to obtain data collapses onto two different

1002: curves, as  illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi} for 

1003: $\alpha=2.2$.  

1004: Indeed $\chi(\pi)$,

1005:   computed with QMC on chains of up to $L=1000$  

1006: sites, displays clearly a crossover phenomenon on both sides of the

1007: transition, also characterized by a crossover length scale which is

1008: directly proportional to the one previously extracted in the analysis

1009: of the correlation functions. Note also that such an analysis provides

1010: a second physical observable way to locate the QCP: in fact, the analysis of $C(L)$

1011: and $\chi(\pi)$ both agree (within the error bars) on the value of

1012: $\lambda_c$.

1013: Moreover, we expect the scaling hypothesis to be

1014: valid if $\Theta_{\lambda}\sim \xi_{\lambda}^{\eta}$.

1015: This is actually the case, as illustrated in the lower inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi}

1016: where we find $\eta=0.8\pm 0.015$.

1017: %

1018: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1019: \bc

1020: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/eta.eps}

1021: \caption{Numerical estimate for the critical exponent $\eta$ along the

1022:   critical line obtained using the critical behavior of $\chi(\pi)$

1023:   computed with QMC (red

1024:   symbols). The red dashed line is a guide to the eyes. The blue full

1025:   line is the analytical estimate $\eta=3-\alpha$.}

1026: \label{fig:eta}

1027: \ec

1028: \end{figure}

1029: %

1030: We can also obtain the quantum critical exponent

1031: $\eta$ from the separatrix between the N\'eel and QLRO

1032: regimes (see Fig.~\ref{fig:chi}), which is expected to decay as 

1033: $L^{-\eta}$. For $\alpha=2.2$, we find $\eta=0.8\pm 0.01$.

1034: We have repeated this computation of $\chi(\pi)$ for several other values of $\alpha

1035: \in [2.1, 2.7]$ to calculate the corresponding $\eta(\alpha)$. The results are

1036: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:eta}, and compared to the  previously

1037: discussed estimate

1038: $\eta=3-\alpha$. It is very remarkable to see 

1039: how this rough estimate reproduces quite well the actual value. Only

1040: for $\alpha>2.3$ a deviation starts to appear.}

1041: %

1042: \subsubsection{Dynamical exponent $z<1$}

1043: %

1044: The dynamical critical exponent $z$, involved for instance in the

1045: critical decay of the correlation function Eq.~(\ref{eq:QCP}),

1046: can be evaluated from the spin-spin correlation function at

1047: the QCP. From the fit of the separatrix between the two data

1048: collapses (see for instance Fig.~\ref{fig:cL} where for $\alpha=2.1$

1049: we estimated $\eta+z-1=0.63\pm 0.03$) we obtain an estimate for

1050: $\eta+z-1$. Then, using the estimates of $\eta$, determined separately with the

1051: staggered susceptibility, we obtain a numerical evaluation of $z$.

1052: Results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:z} for $2\le\alpha\le2.7$. For

1053: $\alpha=2$, the QCP at $\lambda=0$ displays the critical behavior of

1054: the short range model, with $\eta=z=1$. Surprisingly, when moving

1055: from $\alpha=2$ along the transition line, $z$ becomes very rapidly

1056: $<1$ and, within the error bars, seems to saturate around a value

1057: $\sim 0.75$. It is actually natural to expect $z\neq 1$ since the long

1058: range interaction breaks Lorentz invariance. However, unlike for the

1059: estimate of $\eta$, the dynamical

1060: exponent obtained within the large-$N$ expansion $z=(\alpha-1)/2$ does

1061: not agree with the QMC results. As we discuss in the next section,

1062: using a ``RG improved'' perturbation theory,  $z$ is

1063: found to be $<1$ but does not display such a big reduction.

1064: %

1065: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1066: \bc

1067: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/z.eps}

1068: \caption{Numerical estimates for the dynamical critical exponent $z$

1069:   along the critical line obtained using the critical behavior of the

1070:   correlation function [Eq.~(\ref{eq:QCP})] computed with QMC,

1071:   and the numerical estimate of $\eta$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:eta}). The

1072:   numerical results (open circles) suffer from large error bars, as

1073:   shown on the plot. The green dashed line is a guide to the eyes.}

1074: \label{fig:z}

1075: \ec

1076: \end{figure}

1077: %

1078: %

1079: \section{Field Theory/Renormalization Group Results}

1080: \label{sec:RG}

1081: The low energy, continuum limit, imaginary

1082: time action takes the form: \be S[\vec n]=S_0[\vec n]-g\int d\tau

1083: dx \phi (\tau ,x) -\lambda a^{\alpha -2}\int {d\tau dx dy\over

1084: |x-y|^{\alpha}}\vec n(\tau ,x)\cdot \vec n(\tau ,y).

1085: \label{Seff2}\ee

1086: $\vec n(\tau ,x)$ is the antiferromagnetic order parameter field 

1087: defined by the continuum limit expression of Eq. (\ref{cont_lim}).  

1088: Here $S_0$ is the action for a free massless relativistic boson, in

1089: terms of which $\vec n$ may be represented in a non-linear way.

1090: Equivalently, we may regard it as the action of the $k=1$

1091: Wess-Zumino-Witten non-linear $\sigma$ model. The field $\phi$ is

1092: defined as: \be \phi = 2\pi\vec J_L\cdot \vec

1093: J_R,\ee and is normalized so: \be <\phi (z)\phi (0)>={3\over

1094: 16\pi^2|z|^4}.\ee The corresponding coupling constant, $g$ has a bare value

1095: of order 1 for the short range AF chain and is

1096: marginally irrelevant. It is responsible for various logarithmic

1097: corrections such as the one in the correlation function of

1098: Eq. (\ref{corr}). Note that the

1099: dimensionless coupling constant for the long range interaction

1100: $\lambda$ is only proportional to the one used before for the lattice

1101: microscopic model in Eq.~(\ref{QLRO}), and $a$

1102: is a short distance cut-off with dimensions of length. As already

1103: noted in  section~\ref{sec:heur},

1104: since $\vec n$ has a scaling dimension of 1/2 from Eq. (\ref{ncorr}),

1105: $\lambda$ is irrelevant for $\alpha >2$, relevant for $\alpha <2$, and

1106: marginal for $\alpha =2$. Also note that $\lambda >0$ corresponds to

1107: non-frustrating interactions which favor the N\'eel state where

1108: $\langle n^z\rangle\neq 0$. Our strategy is to study this model when $0<\alpha -

1109: 2\ll 1$ and $0<\lambda \ll 1$ using perturbation theory in $g$ and

1110: $\lambda$. Since $g$ renormalizes to $0$ at large length scales, when

1111: $\lambda =0$ (i.e. in the short range model) this can give useful

1112: results, for small bare $\lambda$, 

1113: even when the bare value of $g$ is O(1).

1114:  We will find that an interplay between the local marginal

1115: coupling constant $g$ and the irrelevant non-local coupling constant

1116: $\lambda$ governs the critical behavior in this regime.

1117: 

1118: We now consider the low energy effective field theory for the long

1119: range model in Eq. (\ref{Seff2}), in the limit of small $g$ and

1120: $\lambda$, using RG methods. When $\lambda =0$, the

1121: RG equations reduce to the standard ones for

1122: the short range model.  These take the form: \be {dg\over d\ln a}

1123: =-g^2 -(1/2)g^3+\ldots .\label{RGg}\ee Here we define our RG

1124: transformation by increasing the short distance cut-off $a$.  The bare

1125: value of $g$ is positive for any 

1126: non-frustrated 

1127: short range model and is typically O(1).  The basin of

1128: attraction of the $g=0$ fixed point is known to extend to such large

1129: bare values of $g$ so that $g=0$ is the universal stable fixed point

1130: for short range models. The flow of $g$ towards zero at long length

1131: scales is controlled by the quadratic term in the $\beta$-function of

1132: Eq. (\ref{RGg}), giving: \be g(a)\to {1\over \ln

1133: (a/a_0)},\ee where $a_0$ is the original cut-off and $a$ is a larger

1134: value obtained from integrating out modes with wave-lengths between

1135: $a_0$ and $a$. This logarithmically slow flow of $g(a)$ to zero is

1136: responsible for logarithmic corrections to the correlation function

1137: and other properties of the short-range models.  A linear term in the

1138: $\beta$-function for $\lambda$ follows immediately from the factor of

1139: $a^{\alpha -2}$ in Eq. (\ref{Seff2}) which in turn is a consequence of

1140: the fact that $n$ has scaling dimension $1/2$: \be {d\lambda \over

1141: d\ln a}= (2-\alpha )\lambda +\ldots \label{RGl0}\ee So, ignoring the

1142: effects of $g$, $\lambda$ grows larger at long length scales for

1143: $\alpha <2$ but smaller for $\alpha >2$.  Long range interactions are

1144: irrelevant for $\alpha >2$. However, it is necessary to consider

1145: higher order terms in the $\beta$-functions for both $g$ and $\lambda$

1146: to understand the phase diagram, even at $\alpha \approx 2$.

1147: 

1148: To calculate additional terms in the $\beta$-functions, we define our

1149: ultra-violet cut-off by forbidding any 2 points in space-imaginary

1150: time from getting closer than $a$, in a perturbative calculation of

1151: the partition function (or long distance Green's functions). In

1152: particular, this means that the long range term in the action is

1153: cut-off as: \be S_{\lambda}=-\lambda a^{\alpha -2}\int_{|x-y|>a}

1154: {d\tau dx dy\over |x-y|^{\alpha}}\vec n(\tau ,x)\cdot \vec n(\tau ,y).

1155: \label{Sl}\ee

1156: When the cut-off is increased from $a_0$ to $a=a_0+\delta a$, there is

1157: an additional change in $S$ of first order in $\delta a$, which comes

1158: from the change in the integration region: \be \delta S = -\lambda

1159: a_0^{\alpha -2}\int dx d\tau \left[\int_{-a}^{-a_0} + \int_{a_0}^{a}

1160: \right] {du\over |u|^{\alpha}}\vec n(\tau ,x)\cdot \vec n(\tau ,x+u)

1161: .\label{deltaS}\ee Since both factors of $\vec n$ are very close

1162: together, we may use the operator product expansion.  This follows

1163: from the 3-point Green's function: \be <n^a(z_1)\phi

1164: (z_2)n^b(z_3)>={1\over 8\pi}{|z_{13}|\over

1165: |z_{12}|^2|z_{23}|^2}.\ee This implies the operator product expansion

1166: (OPE): \be n^a(z)n^b(0)\to {\delta^{ab}2\pi \over 3}|z|\phi (0) +

1167: \ldots \label{OPEnn}\ee 

1168: Using this in Eq. (\ref{deltaS}), gives: \be \delta S =

1169: -\lambda a_0^{\alpha -2}\int d\tau dx \phi (\tau ,x)

1170: 4\pi \int_{a_0}^a{du\over |u|^{\alpha -1}} \approx -{\delta a\over

1171: a}4\pi \lambda \int d\tau dx \phi (\tau ,x).\ee This corresponds to

1172: a renormalization of $g$: \be \delta g = 4\pi {\delta a\over

1173: a}\lambda \ee and hence to another term in the $\beta$-function for

1174: $g$: \be {dg\over d\ln a} = 4\pi \lambda -g^2

1175: +\ldots \label{RGp}\ee There is one more term in the RG equations that

1176: is important at small $\alpha -2$, corresponding to a correction to

1177: $\lambda$ of order $\lambda g$. This can be calculated from the OPE:

1178: \be \phi (z)n^a(0)\to {1\over 8\pi |z|^2}n^a(0) + \ldots ,\ee

1179: giving: \be d\lambda /d\ln a =-(\alpha -2)\lambda +(1/2)\lambda g + \ldots

1180: \label{RGl}\ee

1181: The RG equations, Eq. (\ref{RGp}) and (\ref{RGl}) have an unstable

1182: fixed point for $\alpha >2$, at: \bea g_c&\approx&2

1183: (\alpha -2)\nonumber \\ \lambda_c &\approx& {1\over \pi}(\alpha

1184: -2)^2.\eea For $\alpha <2$, a positive $\lambda$ always runs away to

1185: large values as we lower the cut off (i.e. increase $a$),

1186: corresponding to LRO.  On the other hand, for $\alpha

1187: >2$, a small enough positive bare $\lambda$ flows to zero while a

1188: larger bare value flows to large values (see Fig.~\ref{fig:RGflow}).

1189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1190: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1191: \bc

1192: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/RGflow.eps}

1193: \caption{Renormalization group flow of Eqs. (\ref{RGp}) and (\ref{RGl})

1194:  in the case $\alpha=2.3$.

1195:  The dotted line represents, schematically, the values of the bare

1196:  couplings in the field theory as the parameter lambda in the lattice model

1197:  is varied.  The unstable fixed point at $\lambda_c=0.0286$, $g_c=0.6$

1198: separate the flow to the stable fixed point at $\lambda=g=0$ which

1199: represents the quasi-long-range ordered phase and the flow to infinite

1200: $\lambda$, $g$, which represents the long range ordered phase. The black

1201: lines with double arrows denote the separatrixes between these two phases.

1202: (The corrections to the flow equations are presumably significant for this

1203: large a value of $\alpha -2$, but we graph this case for ease of

1204: visualization.}

1205: \label{fig:RGflow}

1206: \ec

1207: \end{figure}

1208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1209: These statements remain true

1210: even when the bare value of $g$ is O(1) as we expect it to be in

1211: general for a short range spin chain. For a small bare $\lambda$, $g$

1212: initially renormalizes towards small values as it would in the short

1213: range chain until eventually Eqs. (\ref{RGp}), (\ref{RGl}) becomes

1214: valid. The stable $\lambda =g =0$ fixed points corresponds to the

1215: standard QLRO phase of the short range spin chain.

1216: The non-trivial unstable fixed point separates the ordered and quasi

1217: long range ordered phases. 

1218: Of course there are higher order terms in

1219: both RG equations, but they do not invalidate our conclusions on the

1220: location of the fixed point, for small enough $\alpha -2$. Both terms

1221: on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{RGp}) are $O[(\alpha -2)^2]$ at

1222: the fixed point; any possible higher order terms such as $g^3$ or

1223: $\lambda^4$ are at least of $O[(\alpha -2)^3]$.  Similarly, both

1224: terms on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{RGl}) are $O[(\alpha

1225: -2)^3]$ at the fixed point; higher order terms are at least of

1226: $O[(\alpha -2)^4]$.  To reach this conclusion it is important to

1227: realize that there cannot be any terms in $d\lambda /d\ln a$ which

1228: contain no factors of $\lambda$; a purely short range interaction

1229: cannot generate a long range one although the reverse is not true.

1230: 

1231: Thus we appear to 

1232: have a rare example of a non-trivial fixed point which can be

1233: accessed perturbatively. (But see the discussion 

1234: below of potential problems with this approach.) 

1235:  We note that a similar expansion 

1236: for long range classical spin models was introduced in \cite{Fisher72}. 

1237: See also \cite{Sak,Bhatt}. 

1238: Our quantum spin model, in the continuum limit, non-linear $\sigma$ 

1239: model approximation, appears rather similar, in the 

1240: imaginary time path integral formulation.  An important 

1241: difference, however, is that our model has an action which 

1242: is long range in the space direction but short-range in the time 

1243: direction. Thus it corresponds to a classical model in 

1244: 2 space dimensions with short range interactions in one 

1245: direction and long range interactions in the other. It is 

1246: this asymmetry which leads to a dynamical critical exponent $z<1$.

1247: Another important difference from a 2-dimensional Heisenberg 

1248: model is the topological term in the short-range part of 

1249: the action which is responsible for the quasi-long-range order.  

1250: We remark that an integer-spin quantum Heisenberg chain 

1251: with long range interactions could be expected to have 

1252: identical critical behavior to a classical Heisenberg model 

1253: in two dimensions with interactions which are long range in one dimension.  

1254: We also remark that an xxz quantum spin chain with long 

1255: range interactions could be expected to have the 

1256: same critical behavior as a two-dimensional classical xy 

1257: model with interactions which are long range in one dimension.

1258: 

1259: The phase boundary (or separatrix) can be found by determining the

1260: line in the $g-\lambda$ plane which renormalizes to the critical

1261: point.  Combining Eqs. (\ref{RGp}) and (\ref{RGl}) gives: \be

1262: \int_{\lambda_0}^{\lambda_c}{d\lambda \over

1263: \lambda}=(1/2)\int_{g_c}^{g_0}{dg(g-g_c)\over g^2-g_c^2(\lambda

1264: /\lambda_c)},

1265: \label{flow}\ee

1266: where $\lambda = \lambda (g)$ is a function of $g$ along the RG flow

1267: in the integral on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{flow}). $g_0$ and

1268: $\lambda_0$ are the values at arbitrary points on the separatrix.

1269: Since $\lambda$ increases monotonically to the value $\lambda_c$ with

1270: increasing $a$, we may obtain an upper and lower bound on the right

1271: hand side by replacing $\lambda (g)$ by $\lambda_c$ and $0$

1272: respectively inside the integral on the right hand side of

1273: Eq. (\ref{flow}): \be (1/2)\ln (g_0/eg_c)+g_c/2g_0<\ln

1274: (\lambda_c/\lambda_0)<(1/2)\ln [(g_0+g_c)/2g_c].\ee Now using the fact

1275: that $g_c<<g_0$, this becomes: \be \sqrt{g_0/eg_c}<\lambda_c/\lambda_0

1276: <\sqrt{g_0/2g_c},\ee that is: \be .637 (\alpha

1277: -2)^{5/2}/\sqrt{g_0}<\lambda_0<.743 (\alpha

1278: -2)^{5/2}/\sqrt{g_0}.\label{bound}\ee Thus on the separatrix

1279: $\lambda_0$ is $O[(\alpha -2)^{5/2}]$.  [A numerical solution of the

1280: RG equations indicates that $\lambda_0$ is very close to the lower

1281: bound in Eq. (\ref{bound}).]  Assuming a bare $g$ of O(1), it is then

1282: possible to predict the shape of the phase boundary in the $\lambda -

1283: \alpha $ plane close to $\alpha =2$. There is an unknown

1284: multiplicative factor relating the lattice coupling $\lambda$

1285: to the continuum coupling $\lambda$. However, we can predict that \be

1286: \label{eq:alphac}

1287: \alpha_c(\lambda )\to 2+C\lambda^{2/5},

1288: \ee for some unknown constant

1289: factor, $C$, as $\alpha \to 2$. As mentioned above, we expect that

1290: $2<\alpha _c(\lambda )<3$ for all $\lambda$ and all $S$.

1291: 

1292: While our QMC results also predict 

1293: that $\alpha_c\to 2$ when $\lambda \to 0$, 

1294: but otherwise Eq.~(\ref{eq:alphac}) does not agree well 

1295: with the QMC result as shown in fig.~\ref{fig:zoom}.  

1296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1297: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1298: \bc

1299: \psfrag{A}{\tiny{$2+0.14\lambda^{2/5}$}}

1300: \psfrag{B}{\tiny{$2+0.11\lambda^{2/5}$}}

1301: \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Figures/ZoomPhDg.eps}

1302: \caption{QMC phase diagram at small $\lambda$ compared 

1303: to the RG prediction of Eq. (\ref{eq:alphac}) with $C=0.14$ and $C=0.11$.}

1304: \label{fig:zoom}

1305: \ec

1306: \end{figure}

1307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1308: It is interesting to note that lowest order SW theory and the large-$N$ approximation 

1309: make the mean-field prediction 

1310: that $\alpha_c \to 1$ as $\lambda \to 0$, in clear disagreement with

1311: our RG and QMC results.

1312: 

1313: Linearizing the $\beta$-functions at the critical point gives: \be

1314: {d\over d\ln a}\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda -\lambda_c\\

1315: g-g_c\end{array}\right)\approx \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1316: 0&(\alpha -2)^2/(2\pi)\\ 4\pi&-4(\alpha -2)\end{array}\right)

1317: \left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda -\lambda_c\\ g-g_c\end{array}\right) \ee

1318: This matrix has one positive (unstable) right eigenvalue,

1319: $(\sqrt{6}-2)(\alpha -2)$, implying a crossover length scale: \be

1320: \xi \propto |\lambda -\lambda_c|^{-\nu},\ee with a critical exponent:

1321: \be \nu = {1\over (\sqrt{6}-2)(\alpha -2)},\ee which diverges as

1322: $\alpha \to 2$.  The corresponding unstable direction is: \be

1323: \lambda -\lambda_c={(\alpha -2)\over 2\pi(\sqrt{6}-2)}(g -g_c).\ee

1324: For $\alpha =2$ exactly, LRO occurs for any $\lambda >0$ 

1325: but behavior characteristic of the quasi long range ordered 

1326: fixed point occurs out to a cross over length scale:

1327: \be 

1328: \xi \propto \exp [C/\lambda_0^{2/5}],

1329: \label{eq:exp}

1330: \ee

1331: for a constant factor $C$. 

1332: 

1333: We may also determine the critical exponent, $\eta +z-1$, controlling

1334: the equal-time correlation function at the non-trivial critical

1335: exponent: \be <S_0^aS_j^b>\propto {\delta^{ab}\over |j|^{\eta

1336: +z-1}},\label{eta}\ee when $\alpha -2<<1$.  Since $\lambda$ and $g$ are

1337: both small at the critical point, for $\alpha -2<<1$, we may simply do

1338: ``RG improved'' perturbation theory.  That is we

1339: calculate the correlation function to first order perturbation theory

1340: in $g$, replace $g$ by $g_c$, and interpret the result as the

1341: expression Eq. (\ref{eta}) with \be \eta + z = 2+ O(g_c).\ee [To

1342: lowest order in $(\alpha -2)$ we only need consider $g$, not

1343: $\lambda$, since $\lambda_c \propto g_c^2$.]  The Green's function, up

1344: to first order in perturbation theory in $g$, the bare coupling, is:

1345: \bea <n^a(z)n^b(0)>&=&{\delta^{ab}\over |z|}+g\int

1346: d^2z'<n^a(z)n^b(0)\phi (z')>\nonumber \\ &=&{\delta^{ab}\over

1347: |z|}+{g\over 2\sqrt{3}}\delta^{ab}\int d^2z'{|z|\over

1348: |z'|^2|z-z'|^2}+\ldots \label{corr2}\eea The integral in

1349: Eq. (\ref{corr2}) must be restricted to the region $|z'|>a$,

1350: $|z-z'|>a$. For $|z|>>a$, the integral is dominated by the two

1351: regions, $|z'|<<|z|$ and $|z'-z|<<|z|$, giving \bea

1352: <n^a(z)n^b(0)>&\approx &{\delta^{ab}\over |z|}\left[1+{g\over

1353: 2\sqrt{3}}2\int {d^2z'\over |z'|^2}\right] \nonumber \\ &\approx

1354: &{\delta^{ab}\over |z|}\left[ 1+{g\over 2\sqrt{3}}4\pi \ln

1355: (|z|/a)\right] .\eea Now replacing $g$ by $g_c$, its fixed point value

1356: we obtain: \be <n^a(z)n^b(0)>={\delta^{ab}\over |z|}\left\{1+(\alpha

1357: -2)\ln (|z|/a)+O[(\alpha -2)^2]\right\} \ee Now, using the fact that

1358: the correlation function should have a pure power-law form at the

1359: fixed point, we may interpret this result as the leading term in the

1360: expansion of: \be <n^a(z)n^b(0)>={\delta^{ab} A\over |z|^{1-(\alpha

1361: -2)}}.\ee To this order in $(\alpha -2)$ we obtain the same exponent

1362: for $z=ix$ or $z=\tau$, implying that the corrections to the dynamical

1363: exponent, $z=1$, are higher order in $(\alpha -2)$.  Thus: \be \eta =

1364: 1-(\alpha -2) + O[(\alpha -2)^2].\ee 

1365: This is the same value of $\eta$ found in the large $N$ approximation 

1366: and by a simple scaling argument in sub-section (V-C-3). It 

1367: agrees well with QMC results for $\alpha <2.3$ as shown in 

1368: fig.~\ref{fig:eta}.

1369: It is natural to expect that

1370: $z\neq 1$ since the long range interaction breaks Lorentz invariance.

1371: Since $\omega \propto |k|^{(\alpha -1)/2}$ in the ordered phase it is

1372: natural to expect that $z<1$ at the critical point, as 

1373: is found in the large $N$ approximation. However, clearly

1374: $1-z$ must be at least of $O[(\alpha -2)^2]$ since the long range

1375: coupling constant, $\lambda$ is of that order.  In fact, we suspect that

1376: $1-z$ is even higher order than quadratic in $(\alpha -2)$.

1377: This conclusion does not fit well with the QMC results 

1378: for $z$, presented in fig.~\ref{fig:z}. There it was found 

1379: (although with large error bars) that $z$ appears to have 

1380: a nearly constant value, $z\approx .75$, for $\alpha \geq 2.1$. 

1381: As $\alpha$ is further decreased $z$ appears to rise very rapidly 

1382: towards $1$.  

1383: 

1384: So far, we have ignored another possible interaction:

1385: \be S \to S -(g'\pi /3)\int d\tau dx (\vec J_L^2+\vec J_R^2).

1386: \label{g'def}\ee

1387: This interaction is, in fact, present for the short-range spin-chain 

1388: with a large coefficient. Since the Hamiltonian for the 

1389: $k=1$ WZW model can be written quadratic in currents, this 

1390: ``interaction'' term can be regarded as simply shifting the 

1391: velocity, which we have so far set equal to $1$, to:

1392: \be v \to 1-g'/2.\ee

1393: The RG equations, for the short range model, including $g'$ take

1394: the form, to cubic order:

1395: \bea

1396: {dg\over d\ln a}&=& -g^2-(1/2)g(g^2+g'^2)\label{RGg'1} \\

1397: {dg'\over d\ln a}&=& (3/4)g^3.\label{RGg'2}\eea

1398: Starting with $g$, $g'>0$ and O(1), these equations 

1399: predict that $g\to 0$ and $g'$ flows to a value of O(1). 

1400: The large value of $g'$ at the fixed point can simply 

1401: be interpreted as a large renormalization of the velocity, 

1402: provided that $g'<2$. In fact, this is what happens, 

1403: for example in the Hubbard model at half-filling.  The 

1404: spin velocity is reduced by the Hubbard interactions. 

1405: An alternative approach is to adjust $v$ to the 

1406: correct value and drop $g'$ completely from the RG 

1407: equations. In fact, Eq. (\ref{RGg'2}) depends strongly 

1408: on the renormalization and cut-off scheme. With 

1409: a Lorentz invariant cut-off and renormalization procedure, 

1410: the non Lorentz-invariant term, proportional to $g'$ will 

1411: not be generated under the RG if it is initially absent. 

1412: Breaking of Lorentz invariance in this problem at

1413: low energies, just means shifting the velocity.  If 

1414: we work directly with the exact velocity, then it is 

1415: apparently permissible to set $g'=0$ and use 

1416: a Lorentz invariant renormalization procedure so that 

1417: $g'$ remains zero under renormalization. In fact, 

1418: using this procedure in Eq. (\ref{RGg'1}) 

1419: leads to various predictions of 

1420: logarithmic corrections which are in good agreement 

1421: with Bethe ansatz and numerical results for the S=1/2 chain. 

1422: If we set $g'$ equal to some arbitrary non-zero value 

1423: in Eq. (\ref{RGg'1}) the coefficients and powers of 

1424: log corrections would change, resulting in worse 

1425: agreements with numerical results. Thus, this 

1426: procedure of ignoring $g'$ seems to be a valid and 

1427: useful one. 

1428: 

1429: We now consider the interplay of the long range coupling 

1430: constant, $\lambda$, with the non-Lorentz invariant 

1431: local coupling, $g'$. The needed OPE's can be 

1432: obtained from the general conformal field theory 

1433: result for the 3-point Green's function of 

1434: the energy momentum operator with a primary field of left-dimension $1/4$:

1435: \be <T(z)n^a(z_1)n^b(z_2)>={1\over 2\pi}

1436: \sum_{i=1}^2

1437:  \left[{1/4\over (z-z_i)^2}+{1\over z-z_i}{\partial \over \partial z_i}

1438: \right]{\delta^{ab}\over |z_1-z_2|}.\ee

1439: Here $T=(2\pi /3)\vec J_L^2$, is the left-moving part of 

1440: the Hamiltonian. This gives:

1441: \be 

1442: <T(z)n^a(z_1)n^b(z_2)>={1\over8\pi}{\delta^{ab}(z_1-z_2)^2 

1443: \over |z_1-z_2|(z-z_1)^2(z-z_2)^2}.\ee

1444: Also using the 2-point function of $T$:

1445: \be <T(z_1)T(z_2))>={1\over 2(2\pi)^2(z_1-z_2)^4},\ee

1446: we can deduce the OPE:

1447: \be n^a(z)n^b(0)\to {\delta^{ab}\pi z^2\over |z|}T(0).\ee

1448: Now consider the case where the separation is in the space direction, 

1449: $z=ix$

1450: \be n^a(x)n^b(0)\to  \delta^{ab}\pi |x|[(2/3)\phi (0)

1451: -T(0)-\bar T(0)]+\ldots .\ee

1452: Here we have included the identical OPE coefficient for 

1453: $\bar T \equiv (2\pi /3)\vec J_R^2$ and also the coefficient 

1454: deduced earlier, in Eq. (\ref{OPEnn}).

1455: Using the same cut-off and RG transformation procedure as above, 

1456: this implies a term in the $\beta$-function:

1457: \be {dg'\over d\ln a}=-6\pi \lambda .\ee

1458: This drives $g'$ towards negative values, corresponding to 

1459: increasing the velocity. If we continue to use 

1460: our previous RG transformation, we find that the 

1461: $d\lambda /d\ln a$ {\it does not} pick up an term 

1462: $\propto \lambda g'$.  The difference from the 

1463: non-zero $\lambda g$ term in Eq. (\ref{RG3}) arises from 

1464: the fact that the OPE is now:

1465: \be   T(z)n^a(0)\to {1\over 8\pi z^2}n^a(0).\ee

1466: The RG transformation gives:

1467: \be \delta \lambda \propto \int {d^2z\over z^2},\ee

1468: where, as before, the integral is over a circular shell 

1469: with radius between $a$ and $a+\delta a$. This integral 

1470: vanishes by rotational invariance. Thus the 

1471: complete set of RG equations to low order is:

1472: \bea {d\lambda \over d\ln a}&=&-(\alpha -2)\lambda +\lambda g/2\nonumber \\

1473: {dg\over d\ln a}&=& 4\pi \lambda -g^2-(g+g')g^2/2\nonumber \\

1474: {dg'\over d\ln a}&=&-6\pi \lambda .\label{RG3}\eea

1475: These equations have an unstable fixed point at:

1476: \bea \lambda_c&=&0\nonumber \\

1477: g_c&=&2(\alpha -2)\nonumber \\

1478: g'_c&=&-2-2(\alpha -2)\approx -2.\eea

1479: In this approximation, we obtain the same prediction for $\eta 

1480: \approx 1-(\alpha -2)$, as before and still get $z\approx 1$. 

1481: There is a shift in the velocity of O(1). 

1482: 

1483: The large value of $g'$ at the fixed point makes the predictions 

1484: of this RG analysis intrinsically suspect. As in the short-range 

1485: case, we might agree to set $v$ equal to its renormalized 

1486: value and then drop $g'$ from the RG equations. This leads 

1487: to the same predictions about the value of $\lambda$ on 

1488: the separatrix, and $\nu$ as obtained above. 

1489: 

1490: However, there are some worrisome features of this RG analysis 

1491: which arise from the long range interaction. We expect 

1492: a dynamical exponent $z<1$ 

1493: at the critical point. It then does not make sense to use 

1494: a rotationally invariant (i.e. Lorentz invariant) RG 

1495: transformation.  We would then get back a $g^3$ term 

1496: in $dg'/d\ln a$ and, very importantly, a $\lambda g'$ term 

1497: in $d\lambda /d\ln a$. We would then generally find that 

1498: $g$ is not small, O($\alpha -2$), at the fixed point. 

1499: $\lambda$ would also not be small at the fixed point. 

1500: In this case we would lose all perturbative control 

1501: over the critical behavior even for $\alpha$ only 

1502: slightly larger than $2$. In this case, the unstable critical 

1503: point would not be close to the QLRO fixed point, for 

1504: $\alpha$ close to $2$. One possibility is that the 

1505: effects associated with $z<1$ can be ignored 

1506: to lowest non-trivial order  $\alpha -2$. Then our 

1507: use of a Lorentz invariant RG transformation 

1508: may be justified.  In this case, 

1509: the fixed point really is close to the QLRO critical point 

1510: for $\alpha$ sightly larger than 2 and our predictions 

1511: for $\eta$ and $\nu$ are correct in this limit. 

1512: 

1513: The QMC results seem to give at least 

1514: partial confirmation of the validity of an RG 

1515: approach based on the  $\alpha -2$ expansion.  Most 

1516: importantly, $\alpha_c\to 2$ as $\lambda \to 0$ and 

1517: the critical exponents $\eta$ and $z$ appear to approach their values 

1518: in the quasi long range ordered phase ($\eta =z=1$) in this limit, 

1519: with $\nu$ diverging. Furthermore, 

1520: excellent agreement with the prediction for $\eta$ was obtained, 

1521: over a rather large range of $\alpha$ (up to $2.2$), as shown 

1522: in fig.~\ref{fig:eta}. We were not 

1523: able to obtain accurate estimates of $\nu$ from QMC to 

1524: test the RG prediction. On 

1525: the other hand, $z$ showed rather surprising behavior, in fig.~\ref{fig:z}, 

1526: dropping rapidly from $1$ to about $.75$ as $\alpha$ is increased 

1527: from $2$ to $2.1$.  This suggests that the asympotic, small 

1528: $\alpha -2$ behavior may only occur for very small values of 

1529: $\alpha -2<<.1$. Numerical difficulties preclude obtaining 

1530: QMC data in this region. Furthermore, the phase boundary

1531: as determined by QMC, $\alpha_c(\lambda )$ 

1532: could not be fit well to the RG prediction of Eq.~(\ref{eq:alphac}), 

1533: except possibly at very small $\alpha_c$ (where we have no data) 

1534: as seen in fig.~\ref{fig:zoom}. This could be interpreted 

1535: as meaning that our RG approach based on an $\alpha -2$ expansion 

1536: is correct in principle but is only valid in practice for 

1537: extremely small values of $\alpha -2$.  (The good agreement 

1538: for $\eta$ then appears fortuitous.) Alternatively, 

1539: the discrepancies may indicate a problem with our RG approach, 

1540: perhaps resulting from our cavalier treatment of the 

1541: non-Lorentz invariant interaction in Eq.~(\ref{g'def}).

1542: 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: \section{Conclusions}

1546: We have studied long range non-frustrating $S=1/2$ antiferromagnetic chains

1547: using spin-wave theory, large-$N$ approximation, quantum Monte Carlo and 

1548: analytic renormalization group methods based on an expansion 

1549: in $\alpha -2$. All methods predict to a line of critical 

1550: points in the $\lambda$-$\alpha$ plane with continuously varying 

1551: critical exponents. This critical line separates phases with true

1552: N\'eel long range order and quasi long range order. 

1553: Quantum Monte Carlo and renormalization group methods 

1554: indicate that this critical line terminates at $\lambda =0$, $\alpha

1555: =2$ and suggest that, 

1556: along the critical line as $\alpha \to 2^+$, 

1557:  $\eta \approx 3-\alpha$, while $\nu$ diverges and $z\to 1^-$. 

1558: \begin{acknowledgements}

1559: We would like to thank J. Cardy for very helpful discussions.  

1560: The research of N.L., I.A. and M.B. was supported by NSERC of Canada. 

1561: The research of I.A. was supported by the Canadian Institute for 

1562: Advanced Research. The numerical simulations were carried out on the

1563: WestGrid network, funded in part by the Canada Foundation for

1564: Innovation. 

1565: 

1566:  

1567: \end{acknowledgements}

1568: \appendix

1569: \section{Calculation of finite size corrections from SW:

1570:   contributions from the $k=0$ and finite $k$ modes.}

1571: \label{app:SW}

1572: 

1573: \subsection{General method}

1574: 

1575: Let ${\cal H}(h)={\cal H}-h\hat{O}$, 

1576: where $\hat{O}$ is an operator  and $h$ is a  field. If we denote

1577: by $|h\rangle$ the GS of ${\cal H}(h)$, it follows that the

1578: GS energy is $E_{GS}(h) = \langle h | {\cal H}-h {\hat O}|

1579: h\rangle$. Since $\langle h 

1580: | h\rangle =1$, it is straightforward to show (in direct analogy to

1581: Feynman's theorem) that:

1582: \begin{equation}

1583: \label{M1}

1584: \langle \hat{O} \rangle= \langle h | {\hat O} |h\rangle = -

1585: \frac{\partial E_{GS}(h)}{\partial h}  

1586: \end{equation}

1587: 

1588: In general we need  the expectation values of

1589:  various operators ${\hat O}$ in the

1590:  unperturbed GS, i.e. in the limit $h \rightarrow 0$. It

1591:  follows that all we have to do is to compute the change in the ground-state

1592:  energy, due to the perturbation $-h\hat{O}$, to first order in $h$.

1593: 

1594: In the remainder of this Appendix, the  Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ is that

1595: of Eq. (\ref{QLRO}). We are interested in finite-size chains with an

1596: even number of sites $L$, and periodic boundary conditions.

1597: 

1598: 

1599: \subsection{Staggered susceptibility}

1600: 

1601: Let $\hat{O}=\sum_{i}^{}(-1)^i S^z_i$. Then, according to

1602: Eq. (\ref{M1}),  the staggered magnetization at $T=0$ is:

1603: $$

1604: M_{\pi}= \langle \sum_{i}^{}(-1)^i S^z_i \rangle = -\left.{d

1605:   E_{GS}\over dh}\right|_{h\rightarrow 0}

1606: $$

1607: and therefore the staggered susceptibility is:

1608: $$

1609: \chi(\pi) = {1 \over L} \left.{d M_{\pi} \over

1610:   dh}\right|_{h\rightarrow 0} = - {1\over L} \left. {d^2

1611: 	E_{GS} \over d h^2}\right|_{h\rightarrow 0}.

1612: $$

1613: 

1614: 

1615: \subsubsection{The $k=0$ contribution}

1616: We Fourier transform the spin operators, $\vec{S}_{2n}= 2/L

1617: \sum_{k}^{} \exp{(ik(2na))} 

1618: \vec{S}^{e}_k$, $\vec{S}_{2n+1}= 2/L \sum_{k}^{} \exp{(ik(2n+1)a))}

1619: \vec{S}^{o}_k$,  and collect only the $k=0$

1620: components. Let us denote $\vec{S}_{1} = \vec{S}^{e}_{k=0}=\sum_{n}^{}\vec{S}_{2n}

1621: $ and  $\vec{S}_{2} = \vec{S}^{o}_{k=0}=\sum_{n}^{}\vec{S}_{2n+1}$ the

1622: total spins of the two magnetic sublattices, of $L/2$ spins

1623: each. Since we are in a N\'eel 

1624: ordered state, $\vec{S}_1$ and $\vec{S}_2$ are spins of total

1625: magnitude $S_L=LS/2=L/4$ for spins 

1626: $S=1/2$. Then, up to some constants that do not depend on $h$:

1627: \be

1628: {\cal H}_{k=0}(h) = {\cal H}_{k=0} -{\cal H}_1

1629: \ee

1630: where

1631: \be

1632: {\cal H}_{k=0} = j \vec{S}_1\cdot \vec{S}_2,

1633: \ee

1634: \be

1635: {\cal H}_1=h \left( S_1^z-S_2^z\right)

1636: \ee

1637: and 

1638: \be

1639: j = {2 \over L} \left[1+\lambda  \sum_{n\ge 1} {1 \over

1640: 	(2n+1)^\alpha} \right]= {2J_{eff}\over L} 

1641: \ee

1642: 

1643: We need to do perturbation theory to second order in $h$, to find the

1644: staggered susceptibility. The

1645: ground-state of ${\cal H}_{k=0}$ is the state:

1646: \be

1647: |0\rangle = |S_T=0, M_T=0, S_L, S_L\rangle 

1648: = {1 \over \sqrt{2S_L+1}}

1649: \sum_{m=-S_L}^{S_L}(-1)^m |m, -m\rangle

1650: \ee

1651: where $\vec{S}_T = \vec{S}_1 + \vec{S}_2$. 

1652: The perturbation  links this only to other states with $M_T=0$ (see below). Let

1653: us denote \be

1654: |S_T\rangle = |S_T,0,S_L,S_L\rangle

1655: \ee

1656: where $S_T=0,1,...,2S_L$. With this notation, the

1657: second-order correction to the ground-state energy is:

1658: \be

1659: \Delta E_{\rm GS}^{(2)} = \sum_{n=1}^{2S_L} \frac{|\langle n | {\cal H}_1| 0\rangle|^2}{E_0-E_n}

1660: \ee

1661: 

1662: However,

1663: \be

1664: {\cal H}_1 |0\rangle = {2h\over \sqrt{2S_L+1}} \sum_{m=-S_L}^{S_L} (-1)^m m

1665: |m, -m\rangle

1666: \ee

1667: Interestingly enough, one can show that:

1668: \be

1669: |1\rangle = \alpha_1 \sum_{m=-S_L}^{S_L} (-1)^m m

1670: |m, -m\rangle

1671: \ee

1672: where the normalization constant is:

1673: \be

1674: \alpha_1=\sqrt{3\over S_L(S_L+1)(2S_L+1)}.

1675: \ee

1676: It follows:

1677: \be

1678: \langle 1 |{\cal H}_1|0\rangle = {2h\over \sqrt{2S_L+1}\alpha_1}

1679: \ee

1680: and  $\langle n |{\cal H}_1|0\rangle = 0$, $\forall n \ge 2$. By

1681: direct calculation, we find:

1682: \be

1683: E_0 = -jS_L(S_L+1); E_1 = j - jS_L(S_L+1)

1684: \ee

1685: and therefore:

1686: \be

1687: \Delta E_{\rm GS}^{(2)} = \frac{|\langle 1 | {\cal H}_1|

1688:   0\rangle|^2}{E_0-E_1} = -{4h^2\over (2S_L+1)\alpha_1^2 j}

1689: = -{4h^2\over 3j}S_L(S_L+1)

1690: \ee

1691: Since $j=2J_{eff}/L$, $S_L=LS/2$, we find:

1692: \be

1693: \Delta E_{\rm GS}^{(2)} = -{h^2\over 3J_{eff}}L^2S\left({L\over 2}S+1\right).

1694: \ee

1695: As a result, the contribution of the $k=0$ modes to the staggered susceptibility

1696: is:

1697: \be

1698: \chi_{k=0}(\pi) = - {1\over L} \left.{d^2 E_{GS}\over d h^2}\right|_{h=0}

1699: = {2 \over 3}{LS\over J_{eff}}\left({L\over 2}S+1\right)\sim  L^2

1700: \ee

1701: 

1702: \subsubsection{The contribution of finite $k$ modes}

1703: 

1704: Within the spin-wave approximation, the contribution of the $k\ne 0$

1705:   modes to the ground-state energy of ${\cal H} - h \hat{O}$ is the

1706:   zero-mode energy:

1707: \be

1708: E_{GS} \sim 

1709:   \sum_{k\ne 0 }^{}\omega_k=\sum_{k}^{}\sqrt{(\gamma-f(k)+h)^2-g^2(k)}

1710: \ee

1711: Here, the spin-wave dispersion is changed by the addition of the

1712: perturbation $-h \sum_{i}^{}(-1)^i S^z_i$. The second derivative of

1713: $E_{GS}$ with respect to $h$ can now be calculated trivially, and in

1714: the limit $h\rightarrow 0$ we find:

1715: \be

1716: \chi_{k \ne 0}(\pi)\sim {1\over L}\sum_{k}{g^2(k)\over \omega_k^{3}} 

1717: \ee

1718: where $g(k)$ was defined before Eq. (\ref{hsw}).

1719: As $k \rightarrow 0$, $g(k)\rightarrow \gamma=const$, $\omega_k

1720: \sim k^{\alpha-1\over 2}$, and  therefore

1721: \be

1722: \chi_{k \ne 0}(\pi)\sim{1\over L}^{1-3{\alpha-1\over2}}\sim L^{3\alpha-5\over 2}

1723: \ee

1724: If  $\alpha <3$, this is a smaller power than the $L^2$ contribution obtained from the

1725: $k=0$ mode. It follows that within the N\'eel ordered state, the

1726: staggered susceptibility scales like $L^2$ (at least within the

1727: spin-wave approximation). 

1728: 

1729: 

1730: \subsection{Transverse correlation function}

1731: 

1732: We now choose 

1733: \be

1734: \hat{O} = \sum_{i}^{}S^+_{i+n} S^-_{i}

1735: \ee

1736: so that its expectation values $\langle \hat{O}\rangle$ is the

1737: transverse contribution to C(n). 

1738: For simplicity, we  assume $n$ to be  even (calculations can be done similarly

1739: for odd $n$). Since this is not a Hermitian operator, let:

1740: \be

1741: \hat{O}_A = \sum_{i}^{}\left(S^+_{i+n} S^-_{i}+S^+_{i-n} S^-_{i}\right)

1742: \ee

1743: \be

1744: \hat{O}_B = i\sum_{i}^{}\left(S^+_{i+n} S^-_{i}-S^+_{i-n} S^-_{i}\right)

1745: \ee

1746: Both these operators are hermitian. According to Eq. (\ref{M1}) and

1747: using invariance to translations, we

1748: then have

1749: \be

1750: L \langle S^+_{n} S^-_{0}\rangle = \langle \sum_{i}^{}S^+_{i+n} S^-_{i}\rangle

1751: = \langle \hat{O}_A\rangle - i \langle \hat{O}_B \rangle \rightarrow

1752: \langle S^+_{n} S^-_{0}\rangle = -{1 \over L}

1753: \left[{dE_{GS}^{(A)}\over dh} -i {dE_{GS}^{(B)}\over dh} \right]

1754: \ee

1755: where $E_{GS}^{(A/B)}$ are the ground-states energies in the presence

1756: of perturbations $-h  \hat{O}_{A/B}$. 

1757: 

1758: \subsubsection{The contribution of finite $k$ modes}

1759: 

1760: After a Fourier transform, we use the Holstein-Primakoff

1761: representation 

1762: for all $k \ne 0$ modes. Keeping only quadratic terms, we find:

1763: \be

1764: \hat{O}_A = 4S \sum_{k}^{}\cos(nka) \left(b_k^{\dagger} b_k + a_k^{\dagger} a_k \right)

1765: \ee

1766: \be

1767: \hat{O}_B = 4S \sum_{k}^{}\sin(nka) \left(b_k^{\dagger} b_k - a_k^{\dagger} a_k \right)

1768: \ee

1769: 

1770: After adding this to the unperturbed Hamiltonian (in the SW approximation)

1771: and diagonalizing, we find the ground-state energies to be:

1772: \be

1773: E_{GS}^{(A)} = JS \sum_{k \ne 0 }^{}\omega_{k, A}  +4sh \sum_{k\ne 0}^{} \cos(nka)

1774: \ee

1775: \be

1776: E_{GS}^{(B)} = JS \sum_{k \ne 0 }^{}\omega_{k, B} - 4sh \sum_{k\ne 0}^{} \sin(nka)

1777: \ee

1778: where 

1779: \be

1780: \omega_{k, A} = \sqrt{[\gamma - f(k) -{4h\over J} \cos(nka)]^2-[g(k)]^2}

1781: \ee

1782: \be

1783: \omega_{k, B} = \sqrt{[\gamma - f(k) +{4h\over J} \sin(nka)]^2-[g(k)]^2}

1784: \ee

1785: 

1786: After taking the first derivatives and setting $h=0$, we  find the

1787: $k\ne 0$ modes'

1788: contribution to the transverse correlation to be:

1789: \be

1790: \langle S^+_n S^-_0\rangle = {2S\over L} \sum_{k \ne 0}^{}\frac{(\gamma

1791:   - f(k)) e^{ikna}}{\omega_k} -{2S\over L} \sum_{k \ne 0}^{} e^{ikna}

1792: \ee

1793: In the limit $k \rightarrow 0$, $f(k) \rightarrow 0$,

1794: $\omega_k\rightarrow k^{\alpha-1\over 2}$ and therefore:

1795: \be

1796: \langle S^+_n S^-_0\rangle= a_1 L^{\alpha-3\over 2}( 1 + ...) +2S/L

1797: \ee

1798: The second term is the second sum ( $\sum_{k \ne 0}^{} e^{ikna} = 

1799: \delta_{n,0}L/2 - 1 =-1$, since $n >0$).

1800: For $\alpha > 2$, the $L^{\alpha-3\over 2}$ term is dominant. 

1801: 

1802: \subsubsection{The $k=0$ mode}

1803: 

1804: Keeping  the full $k=0$ contributions, we find

1805: \be

1806: {\cal H}_{k=0}(h) = j \vec{S}_1\cdot \vec{S}_2 - {2h \over L} \left(S_1^+S_1^- +

1807: S_2^+ S_2^-\right)

1808: \ee

1809: The notation has been introduced in the previous section. The

1810: ground-state $|0\rangle$ of ${\cal H}_{k=0}$ is known (see section on

1811: staggered susceptibility), so the first order contribution to $E_{GS}(h)$

1812: can be evaluated directly:

1813: \be

1814: L \langle S^+_{n} S^-_0\rangle = -\left.{d E_{GS} \over

1815:   dh}\right|_{h=0} \rightarrow 

1816: \langle S^+_{n} S^-_0\rangle = {2 \over L^2} \langle 0 | S_1^+S_1^- +

1817: S_2^+ S_2^-|0\rangle

1818: \ee

1819: The calculation is trivial, and we find:

1820: \be

1821: \langle S^+_{n} S^-_0\rangle = {2 S^2\over 3}\left[1 + {2\over LS}

1822:   \dots \right] \sim  {1 \over L}

1823: \ee

1824: It follows that for this correlation function, the finite $k$ modes

1825: give the dominant $L$ dependence, which is $L^{\alpha-3\over 2}$.

1826: 

1827: This calculation can be repeated for the parallel contribution to the

1828: correlation, $\langle S^z_{n} S^z_0\rangle$. The $L$ dependence

1829: remains the same, so we conclude that in the N\'eel state and within

1830: SW approximation, $C(L) \sim L^{\alpha-3\over 2}$.

1831: 

1832: 

1833: 

1834: 

1835: 

1836: \section{Large-$N$ calculation}

1837: \label{app:LN}

1838: Considering the order parameter $\vec \phi$ is a $N$-component unit vector

1839: field

1840: \be |\vec \phi (\tau ,x)|^2=1,\label{constraint}\ee

1841: the action can be written like

1842: \be

1843: S={N\over 2g}\int d\tau dx [(\partial \vec \phi /\partial \tau)^2

1844: +(\partial \vec \phi /\partial x)^2]

1845: -\lambda N

1846: \int d\tau dx dy \vec \phi (\tau ,x)\cdot \vec  \phi (\tau ,y)/|x-y|^{\alpha}.

1847: \ee

1848: We have set $v=1$. $g\propto 1/s$ is a coupling constant, not related to what we 

1849: called $g$ in other sections. $g$ and $\lambda$ are scaled 

1850: by $N$ in order to have a smooth large-$N$ limit. Inside a path integral, we may integrate over all 

1851: fields $\vec \phi (\tau ,x)$, without the constraint of Eq. (\ref{constraint})

1852: provided that we introduce a Lagrange multiplier field, $\sigma (\tau ,x)$:

1853: \be S \to S+{iN\over 2g}\int d\tau dx \sigma (\vec \phi^2-1).\ee

1854: The action is now quadratic in  unconstrained fields, so that we may, in 

1855: principle, do the Gaussian integration over $\vec \phi$. For this purpose 

1856: it is convenient to write the long range term in $\omega$-$k$ space

1857: using:

1858: 

1859: \be 

1860: \int_a^\infty dx{e^{ikx}\over |x|^\alpha}\approx {2\over (\alpha -1)}

1861: \left(a^{-(\alpha -1)}-|k|^{\alpha -1}\Gamma (2-\alpha )\sin [(2-\alpha  )\pi /2]\right).

1862: \label{int} 

1863: \ee

1864: 

1865: Here $a$ is a short distance cut-off and this equation is valid for

1866: $|k|a\ll 1$. 

1867: $\Gamma$ is Euler's Gamma function.  Note that the prefactor blows up, $\propto 1/(\alpha -1)$ 

1868: as $\alpha \to 1$. 

1869: Note also that for $1<\alpha <2$, both $\Gamma (2-\alpha )$ and

1870:  $\sin [\pi (2-\alpha  )/2]$ are $>0$, so that the second term in Eq. (\ref{int}) is $>0$.  

1871: As $\alpha \to 2$, $\Gamma (2-\alpha )\to 1/(2-\alpha)$ so that $\Gamma (2-\alpha )

1872: \sin [\pi (2-\alpha )/2]\to \pi /2$. For $2<\alpha <3$, both $\Gamma (2-\alpha )$ 

1873: and $\sin [\pi (2-\alpha )/2]<0$ so that their product is positive, blowing up as $\alpha \to 3$. 

1874: 

1875: The first term in Eq. (\ref{int}) can be eliminated by shifting $\sigma$ by a (imaginary) constant. 

1876: Thus we may write:

1877: \be 

1878: S={NV\over 2g}\int {d\omega dk\over (2\pi )^2} \vec \phi (\omega ,k)\cdot \vec \phi (-\omega ,-k)

1879: [\omega^2+k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}] +{iN\over 2g}\int d\tau dx \sigma (\vec \phi^2-1).

1880: \ee

1881: Here

1882: \be C\equiv {4\over \alpha -1}\Gamma (2-\alpha )\sin [\pi (2-\alpha )/2]\ee

1883: and $V$ is the space-time volume. 

1884: Now we do the functional integral over $\vec \phi$. This gives an effective action for the

1885:  field $\sigma$, which has an overall factor of $N$ in front of it, and no further dependence on $N$. 

1886: At large $N$ the functional integral over $\sigma$ is dominated by a saddle point corresponding 

1887: to a constant and purely imaginary value of $\sigma $. Assuming $\sigma$ is constant, 

1888: this effective action is:

1889: \be S_{eff}/V = {N\over 2}\left\{ \int {d\omega dk\over (2\pi )^2}\ln [\omega^2+k^2+C|k|^{\alpha -1}+i\sigma]

1890: -{i\sigma \over g}\right\}\ee

1891: The saddle point is found by looking for a stationary point of $S_{eff}$. Setting 

1892: $i\sigma =m^2$ at the saddle point gives the self-consistent equation which 

1893: determines $m^2$:

1894: \bea

1895: {1\over g}&=&\int {d\omega dk\over (2\pi )^2}{1\over \omega^2+k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}+m^2}\nonumber\\

1896: &=&\int^\Lambda_{-\Lambda} {dk\over 4\pi }{1\over \sqrt{k^2+C\lambda

1897:     |k|^{\alpha -1}+m^2}}

1898: \eea

1899: Here we have introduced an ultra-violet cut-off, $\Lambda$ of O($a^{-1}$). 

1900: For any $\alpha$, $\lambda$ and $g$ for which this equation has a solution with $m^2>0$, 

1901: the system is in the disordered phase, with a finite gap, $m$. Note that, for $\alpha >3$, 

1902: the integral diverges as $k\to 0$ when $m=0$.  For small finite $m$ it behaves as

1903: $\ln (\Lambda /m)$. Since this diverges as $m\to 0$, there will always be a solution for $m$, 

1904: no matter how small is $g$. On the other hand, for $1<\alpha <3$, there will be a 

1905: solution for $\lambda <\lambda_c$ only. At the critical value of $\lambda$, $m=0$, so 

1906: $\lambda_c$ is determined by:

1907: \be {1\over g}=\int^\Lambda_{-\Lambda} {dk\over 4\pi }{1\over \sqrt{k^2+C\lambda_c |k|^{\alpha -1}}}\ee

1908: As $\alpha \to 1$, $C\to 4/(\alpha -1)$ and this becomes:

1909: \be {1\over g}=\int^\Lambda_{-\Lambda} {dk\over 4\pi }{1\over \sqrt{k^2+4\lambda_c /(\alpha -1)}}\ee

1910: This we see that $\lambda_c\propto (\alpha -1)$, as $\alpha \to 1$.  $\alpha =1$ is the critical 

1911: value of $\alpha$, for which $\lambda_c\to 0$.  The behavior of $\lambda_c(\alpha )$ 

1912: is qualitatively similar to what is obtained from SW theory, including the 

1913: behavior near $\alpha =1$. Right at the critical point, the AF spin-correlation function

1914: is determined by the effective action with $m=0$, and $\vec \phi$

1915: treated as a 

1916: non-interacting, free field, 

1917: in the large $N$ approximation.  This implies a dispersion relation:

1918: \be \omega =\sqrt{k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}},\ee 

1919: and hence a dynamical exponent:

1920: \be z=(\alpha -1)/2.\ee

1921: This dispersion relation is the same as in SW theory, but there is no long range 

1922: order at the critical point and hence no ambiguity in the value of $z$. The spin correlation function 

1923: is given by:

1924: \be <\phi^a(\tau ,x)\phi^b(0,0)>=\delta^{ab}{g\over N}\int {d\omega dk\over (2\pi )^2}

1925: {e^{i(\omega \tau +kx)}\over \omega^2+k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}}.\ee

1926: In particular, the equal-time correlation function is:

1927: \be <\phi^a(0,x)\phi^b(0,0)>=\delta^{ab}{g\over N}\int {dk\over (4\pi )}

1928: {e^{ikx}\over \sqrt{k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}}}.\ee

1929: At large $x$, we may approximate this by dropping the $k^2$ term. It then follows from 

1930: a rescaling that this decays as:

1931: \be <\phi^a(0,x)\phi^b(0,0)>\propto {\delta^{ab}\over |x|^{(3-\alpha )/2}}.\ee

1932: The standard definition of the critical exponent $\eta$ then implies:

1933: \be z-1+\eta = (3-\alpha )/2,\ee

1934: giving:

1935: \be \eta =3-\alpha .\ee

1936: Note that this is simply the behavior of the transverse correlation function in the 

1937: ordered phase, according to SW theory. 

1938: 

1939: To calculate $\nu$, we need to calculate how $m$ vanishes with $\lambda_c-\lambda$ 

1940: as $\lambda \to \lambda_c$, from below. It turns out that there are two 

1941: different behaviors, depending on whether $1<\alpha \leq 5/3$ or $5/3\leq \alpha <3$.  A small change in $\lambda$ leads to a change in $1/g$ 

1942: which is linear in $\delta \lambda$. 

1943: Consider the effect of a small non-zero $m$ on the gap equation. For $1<\alpha \leq 5/3$, 

1944: we may Taylor expand the gap equation:

1945: \be 

1946: {1\over g}\approx 

1947: \int^\Lambda_{-\Lambda} {dk\over 4\pi }\left[{1\over \sqrt{k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}}}-(m^2/2){1\over [k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}]^{3/2}}\right]

1948: \ee

1949: (Note that this integral is finite at $k\to 0$ for $(3(\alpha -1)/2<1$ 

1950: only, implying $\alpha <5/3$.)

1951: Setting $\lambda =\lambda_c$, we see that:

1952: \be 1/g-1/g_c \propto -m^2.\ee

1953: Thus $m^2\propto -\delta \lambda$ in this case. Now consider 

1954: the equal time correlation function for a small $m^2$.

1955: \be <\phi^a(\tau ,x)\phi^b(0,0)>=\delta^{ab}{g\over N}\int { dk\over (4\pi )}

1956: {e^{ikx}\over \sqrt{k^2+C\lambda |k|^{\alpha -1}+m^2}}.\ee

1957: At large distances and small $m^2$ we should be able to drop the $k^2$ term 

1958: and ignore the ultra-violet cut-off.  A rescaling of the $k$-integration 

1959: variable then implies a correlation length:

1960: \be \xi \propto m^{-2/(\alpha -1)}\propto (\delta \lambda )^{-1/(\alpha -1)}

1961: \ee

1962: and hence an exponent:

1963: \be \nu = 1/(\alpha -1),\ \  (1<\alpha \leq 5/3 ).\ee

1964: 

1965: Now consider the case $5/3\leq \alpha <3$. Keeping a small non-zero 

1966: $m^2$, we find:

1967: \be {d\over dm^2}{\left( 1\over g\right) }={-1\over 2}

1968: \int {dk\over 4\pi}{1\over [\lambda C|k|^{\alpha -1}+m^2]^{3/2}}.\ee

1969: Since the integral is dominated by $|k|$ of $O(m^{2/(\alpha -1)}$, 

1970: we have taken the cut-off to infinity and dropped the $k^2$ term. 

1971: By scaling, we see that:

1972: \be {d\over dm^2}{\left( 1\over g\right) }\propto m^{(5-3\alpha )/(\alpha -1)}

1973: .\ee

1974: Integrating with respect to $m^2$ gives:

1975: \be { 1\over g}\approx {1\over g_c}-Am^{(3-\alpha )/(\alpha -1)},\ee

1976: for a constant, $A$. Thus we see that:

1977: \be m\propto (-\delta \lambda )^{(\alpha -1)/(3-\alpha )}.\ee

1978: This gives:

1979: \be \xi \propto m^{-2/(\alpha -1)}\propto (-\delta \lambda )^{-2/(3-\alpha )}.

1980: \ee

1981: Thus:

1982: \be \nu = {2\over 3-\alpha},\ \  (5/3 \leq \alpha <3).\ee

1983: 

1984: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1985: 

1986: \bibitem{Ian94} I. Affleck, M. P. Gelfand and R. R. P. Singh,

1987:   J. Phys. A {\bf 27}, 7313 (1994).

1988: 

1989: \bibitem{Haldane83-87} F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Let. {\bf 50},

1990:   1153 (1983); I. Affleck and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36},

1991:   5291 (1987).

1992: 

1993: \bibitem{Giamarchi89} I. Affleck, D. Gepner, H. J. Schulz and T. Ziman,

1994:   J. Phys. A {\bf 22}, 511 (1989); T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf

1995:   39}, 4620 (1989).

1996: 

1997: \bibitem{HS88} F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 635 (1988);

1998:   S. Shastry, {\it ibid} {\bf 60}, 639 (1988).

1999: 

2000: \bibitem{MW66} N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 17},

2001:   1133 (1966).

2002: 

2003: \bibitem{68-69} D. Ruelle, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 9}, 267 (1968);

2004:   F. J. Dyson, {\it ibid} {\bf 12}, 212 (1969); D. J. Thouless,

2005:   Phys. Rev. {\bf 187}, 732 (1969).

2006: \bibitem{Fisher72} M. E. Fisher, S-K. Ma and B. G. Nickel,

2007:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 29}, 917 (1972).

2008: 

2009: \bibitem{Kosterlitz76} J. M. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 37},

2010:   1577 (1976).

2011: 

2012: \bibitem{Brezin76} E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin and J-C. Le Guillou,

2013:   J. Phys. A {\bf 9}, L119 (1976).

2014: 

2015: \bibitem{Cardy81} J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. A {\bf 14}, 1407 (1981).

2016: 

2017: \bibitem{Frolich82} J. Fr\"ohlich and T. Spencer,

2018:   Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 84}, 87 (1982).

2019: 

2020: \bibitem{Luijten01} E. Luijten and H. Messingfeld,

2021:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5305 (2001).

2022: 

2023: \bibitem{Bruno01} P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 137203 (2001).

2024: 

2025: \bibitem{Yusuf04}E. Yusuf, A. Joshi and K. Yang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69},

2026: 144412 (2004).

2027: 

2028: \bibitem{Parreira97} J. R. Parreira, O. Bolina and J. F. Perez,

2029:   J. Phys. A {\bf 30}, 1095 (1997).

2030: 

2031: \bibitem{note1} The proof for non-existence of LRO at $T=0$ for

2032:   $\lambda =1$, if $\alpha

2033:   >3$ \cite{Parreira97}, can be trivially extended and

2034:   shown to hold for   all $\lambda \ne 1$.

2035: 

2036: \bibitem{Sandvik02} O.~F.~Syljuasen and A.~W.~Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E

2037:   {\bf 66}, 046701 (2002).

2038: 

2039: \bibitem{Sandvik03} A.~W.~Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 056701 (2003).

2040: 

2041: \bibitem{CardyBook} J. Cardy, {\it Scaling and Renormalization in

2042:   Statistical Physics} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996),

2043:   Chap. 4.

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Ian86} H. W. J. Bl\"ote, J. L. Cardy,

2046: and M. P. Nightingale, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 742 (1986); I. Affleck, 

2047: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 746 (1986).

2048: 

2049: \bibitem{Holstein}  T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. {\bf 58},

2050:   1098 (1940). 

2051: 

2052: \bibitem{note2} These equations are the analogs of equations (6) of

2053:   Ref. \cite{Yusuf04}. We use $\gamma$ instead of $\alpha$ since

2054:   in our work $\alpha$ defines the spatial variation of the exchange

2055:   (the parameter called $\beta$ in Ref. \cite{Yusuf04}). The

2056:   definition of $f(k)$ is corrected by a factor of $2$. 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: \bibitem{Reger88} J. D. Reger and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{37}}, 5978 (1988).

2060: 

2061: \bibitem{notexi}

2062: A precise determination of

2063:   the exponent $\nu$ is actually impossible to achieve

2064:   because of large error bars for $\xi_{\lambda}$ due to some natural

2065:   uncertainties in the data collapse procedure.

2066: \bibitem{noteta} 

2067: It is important to note that, up to  small corrections, this

2068: estimate Eq.~(\ref{MFeta}) was

2069: also found 3 decades ago by several authors for the related  $n$-vector

2070: model with long range interaction~\cite{Fisher72,Brezin76,Ma73}.

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{Ma73} S-K. Ma, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 7}, 2172 (1973).

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{Sak} J. Sak, Phys. Rev. {\bf B15}, 4344 (1977).

2075: 

2076: \bibitem{Bhatt} J. Bhattacharjee, J.L. Cardy and D.J. Scalapino, 

2077: Phys. Rev. {\bf B25}, 1681 (1982). 

2078: 

2079: \end{thebibliography}

2080: \end{document}

2081: 

2082: