1999
DOI: 10.1103/physrevb.60.14521
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Susceptibility behavior ofCuGeO3:Comparison between experiment and the quantum transfer-matrix approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

7
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Analysis of our model (3) is based on the numerical Quantum Transfer Matrix method [20][21][22][23][24] , where the partition function of the quantum chain is mapped onto the partition function of the classical 2d system with multispin interactions and a finite width 2M 25,26 . For different values of M , called the Trotter number, the classical partition functions form a series of approximants Z M , where the leading errors are of the order of 1/M 2 .…”
Section: Model and Dmrg Methods For Canted Single-chain Magnetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysis of our model (3) is based on the numerical Quantum Transfer Matrix method [20][21][22][23][24] , where the partition function of the quantum chain is mapped onto the partition function of the classical 2d system with multispin interactions and a finite width 2M 25,26 . For different values of M , called the Trotter number, the classical partition functions form a series of approximants Z M , where the leading errors are of the order of 1/M 2 .…”
Section: Model and Dmrg Methods For Canted Single-chain Magnetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To consider the macroscopic limit L → ∞, the quantum transfer matrix approach (QTM) is referred here [2][3][4]. Under the Suzuki-Trotter formula the partition function of the quantum chain can be converted into a series of approximants Z M of the equivalent two-dimensional classical system, where M is called the Trotter number.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having no analytical expression for χ(T ) in the case α = 0 and δ = 0, the fitting procedure was based on the numerically exact QTM method applied earlier to CuGeO 3 results [20]. Analyzing only the experimental susceptibility data for three crystallographic directions [16], the following exchange couplings: J 1 = −30 ± 5 K, α = −0.50 ± 0.05 and the following g factors: g a = 2.00, g b = 2.19, g c = 2.30 were obtained.…”
Section: Phenomenological Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%