Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Thermodynamics
Energy gaps of Hamiltonians from graph Laplacians
arXiv
Authors: Abbas Al-Shimary, Jiannis K. Pachos
Year
2010
Paper ID
10777
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
113
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The Cheeger inequalities give an upper and lower bound on the spectral gap of discrete Laplacians defined on a graph in terms of the geometric characteristics of the graph. We generalise this approach and we employ it to determine if a given discrete Hamiltonian with non-positive elements is gapped or not in the thermodynamic limit. First, we define the graph that corresponds to such a generic Hamiltonian. Then we present a suitable generalisation of the Cheeger inequalities that overcomes scaling deficiencies of the original version. By employing simple examples we illustrate how the generalised Cheeger inequalities can successfully identify gapped or gapless phases and we comment on the computational complexity of this approach.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Thermodynamics research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- The Cheeger inequalities give an upper and lower bound on the spectral gap of discrete Laplacians defined on a graph in terms of the geometric characteristics of the graph.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.