Spin-Gap Phase in the One-Dimensional t-J-J′ Model

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 717-720

  Nakamura, Masaaki ^a,b  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Backward scattering; Factorized wave function; Renormalization group; Singlet triplet level crossing; Spin gap; Tomonaga Luttinger liquid; Twisted boundary conditions; Two electron problem

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032375310     PISSN: 00319015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.67.717     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. M. Nakamura, K. Nomura and A. Kitazawa: Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3214, and references therein.
2. C. K. Majumder: J. Phys. C 3 (1970) 911; C. K. Majumder and D. K. Ghosh: J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 1399.
3. C. K. Majumder: J. Phys. C 3 (1970) 911; C. K. Majumder and D. K. Ghosh: J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 1399.
4. B. S. Shastry and B. Sutherland: Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 964.
5. P. M. van den Broek: Phys. Lett. A 77 (1980) 261.
6. K. Okamoto and K. Nomura: Phys. Lett. A 169 (1992) 433; K. Nomura and K. Okamoto: J. Phys. A 27 (1994) 5773.
7. K. Okamoto and K. Nomura: Phys. Lett. A 169 (1992) 433; K. Nomura and K. Okamoto: J. Phys. A 27 (1994) 5773.
8. K. Sano and K. Takano: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62 (1993) 3809; K. Takano and K. Sano: Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993) 9831.
9. K. Sano and K. Takano: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62 (1993) 3809; K. Takano and K. Sano: Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993) 9831.
10. M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini and T. M. Rice: Phys. Rev. B 44 (1991) 12083.
11. M. Ogata and H. Shiba: Phys. Rev. B 41 (1989) 2326.
12. H. Q. Lin: Phys. Rev. B 44 (1991) 4676.
13. J. Sólyom: Adv. Phys. 28 (1979) 201.
14. H. J. Schulz: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 2831; Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5 (1991) 57.
15. H. J. Schulz: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 2831; Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 5 (1991) 57.
16. F. D. M. Haldane: J. Phys. C 14 (1981) 2585.
17. s.
18. F. Woynarovich: J. Phys. A 22 (1989) 4243. In this paper, the selection rule is derived from the Bethe-ansatz result of the U → ∞ limit of the Hubbard model.
19. T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz: Phys. Rev. B 39 (1989) 4620.
20. In fact, we can determine the critical point without twisting the boundary conditions, but the excitation energies become higher and the finite-size effect becomes larger. The elimination of the charge excitation is also important in the identification of the universality class of the transition.
21. I. Affleck, D. Gepner, H. J. Schulz and T. Ziman: J. Phys. A 22 (1989) 511.
22. M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, S. Sorella and F. F. Asaad: Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 2388.
23. ρ/2 (see M. Nakamura and K. Nomura: Phys. Rev. B 56 (1997) 12840).
24. In contrast to the spin-gap phase boundary, the finite-size effect of the phase-separation boundary is large, and its systematic evaluation is difficult, so that the remaining ambiguity should be considered.
25. J. C. Slater, H. Statz and G. F. Koster: Phys. Rev. 91 (1953) 1323.
26. For example, see K. Yosida: Theory of Magnetism (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996).