Physics Asked by Ricky Pang on July 12, 2021
I am confused with the $SU(2)$ spin rotation symmetry of the fermion Hubbard Hamiltonian. If the Hubbard model has $SU(2)$ rotational symmetry, it means that the Hubbard Hamiltonian commutes with the global spin operator in all direction:
begin{equation}
[vec S, H] = 0 ~~,~~ vec S = frac{1}{2}sum_{i}
begin{pmatrix}
c^{dagger}_{i uparrow} & c^{dagger}_{i downarrow}
end{pmatrix}
vec{sigma}
begin{pmatrix}
c_{i uparrow}
c_{i downarrow}
end{pmatrix}
end{equation}
Where $vec sigma$ is the Pauli matrices in vector form. My confusion is that whether $[vec S, H] = 0$ implies $[S_{x}, H] = [S_{y}, H] = [S_{z}, H] = 0 $. I have proved that they are equal to zero but I thought that my calculation was wrong. The reason why I think my calculation is wrong since if both $S_{x}, S_{y} , S_{z}$ commutes with $H$, it means that they simultaneously share the same eigenstates and $[S_x, S_y] = 0$. However, we know that from elementary QM course:
begin{equation}
[S_{i}, S_{j}] = i epsilon_{ijk} S_{k} ~~,~~ ijk = xyz
end{equation}
In my opinion, $[S_{x}, H] = [S_{y}, H] = [S_{z}, H] = 0 $ is not true because they cannot satisfy $SU(2)$ commutation relation if all commutes with $H$. May I know is it true that $[vec S, H] = 0$ implies $[S_{x}, H] = [S_{y}, H] = [S_{z}, H] = 0 $?
From what I understand of the standard notation, the statement that $$[vec{S}, H] = 0$$ is exactly the same as saying $$[S_j, H] =0$$ for all $j$. Then, to give a proof that a vector operator commutes with some operator simply amounts to proving each component commutes with the given operator.
Answered by DaireConnolly on July 12, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP