Dynamics of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional Lattice

IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP)
e-ISSN: 2278-4861.Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. - Aug. 2013), PP 75-84
www.iosrjournals.org
www.iosrjournals.org 75 | Page
Dynamics of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional
Lattice
Enaibe A. Edison and Osafile E. Omosede
Department of Physics, Federal University of Petroleum Resources P.M.B. 1221 Effurun, Nigeria.
Abstract: The physical property of strongly correlated electrons on a three-dimensional (3D) 3 x 3 x 3 cluster
of the simple cubic lattice is here presented.In the work we developed the unit step Hamiltonian as a solution to
the single band Hubbard Hamiltonian for the case of two electrons interaction in a finite three dimensional
lattice. The approximation to the Hubbard Hamiltonian study is actually necessary because of the strong
limitation and difficulty pose by the Hubbard Hamiltonian as we move away from finite - size lattices to larger
N - dimensional lattices. Thus this work has provided a means of overcoming the finite - size lattice defects as
we pass on to a higher dimension. We have shown in this study, that the repulsive Coulomb interaction which in
part leads to the strong electronic correlations, would indicate that the two electron system prefer not to
condense into s-wave superconducting singlet state (s = 0), at high positive values of the interaction strength.
This study reveals that when the Coulomb interaction is zero, that is, for free electron system (non-interacting),
thevariational parameters which describe the probability distribution of lattice electron system is the same. The
spectra intensity for on-site electrons is zero for all values of the interaction strength.
Keywords: unit step Hamiltonian, Hubbard Hamiltonian, 3D cubic lattice, interaction strength, total energy,
lattice separation.
I. Introduction
In recent years, the Hubbard model has received increasing attention for its relevance for high-Tc
superconductivity, antiferromagnetism, and ferromagnetism, thus playing a central role in the theoretical
investigation of strongly correlated systems (Domanski et al., 1996).In spite of the enormous successes of the
approach (Rycerz and Spalek, 2001) based on the effective single particle wave equation for many 3-
dimensional metals andsemiconductors, the understanding of the so-called correlated fermionic systems is still
lacking.
This is because in their description of the electronic states the role of the long-range Coulomb
interaction is crucial, as the charge screening becomes less effective. An electron located at a given lattice site
would always feel the presence of another electron which is located at a different lattice site. This interaction is
due to the presence of spin and charge between them. So long as this relationship exists the electrons are said to
be correlated.
In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength
and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or
co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply
causation.
Interacting electrons (van Bemmel et al., 1994) are key ingredients for understanding the properties of
various classes of materials, ranging from the energetically most favourable shape of small molecules to the
magnetic and superconductivity instabilities of lattice electron systems, such as high-Tc superconductors and
heavy fermion compounds.
The one-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonianis a good prototype for an exactly solvable model of
correlated electrons in narrow band systems (Vallejo et al., 2003), where at half-filling the ground state is found
to be anti-ferromagnetic and insulating for a repulsive (positive) potential. The other exact solution for the
Hubbard Hamiltonian is the case of an infinite dimensional lattice. The exact solutions have brought a very
important progress in the understanding of strongly correlated systems.
The Hubbard model has the following features: (i) the model exhibits non-fermi liquid (FL) (quantum
liquid in which the spin fluctuation is unmodified by interaction) behaviour as long as U > 0 for a finite particle
density, (ii) there is no correspondence between the states of free and interacting particles even at nearly zero
density, (iii) it allows double occupancy at a given site, (iv) consequent upon (iii) the size of the Hilbert space
for a given cluster is much larger then for the t - J model, (v) the model exhibits anti-ferromagnetism rather than
ferromagnetism, (vi) the Hubbard Hamiltonian (Hubbard, 1963) becomes very cumbersome to handle when the
size of the Hilbert space of a given dimensional lattice increases.
Submitted Date 18 June 2013 Accepted Date: 24 June 2013

Dynamics Of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional Lattice
We have in this study extended the work of Chen and Mei (1989) which was limited to one-and two-
dimensional (ID and 2D) lattice to three-dimensional (3D) lattice. We also devised a unit step Hamiltonian and
simplified trial wavefunction for our variational calculation instead of the more complex Hubbard Hamiltonian
and correlated trial wavefunction developed by Chen and Mei.
The organization of this paper is as follows.In section 1, we discussed the nature of superconductivity
and the relevance of the single band Hubbard Hamiltonian and its limitation for solving correlated electrons
system. In section 2 we provide the method of this study by giving a brief description of the single - band
Hubbard Hamiltonian and thetrail wavefunction to be utilized. We also present in this section an analytical
solution for the two particles interaction on a 3x3 x 3 cluster of the simple cubic lattice. In section 3 we present
numerical results. The result emanating from this study is discussed in section 4. This paper is finally brought to
an end with concluding remarks in section 5 andthis is immediately followed by an appendix and lists of
references.
II. Mathematical Theory
The single-band Hubbard Hamiltonian (Marsiglo, 1997) reads;
  

  i
i
i
ij
ji nnUchCCtH

 .. (2.1)
where ji, denotes nearest-neighbour (NN) sites,   ji CC
is the creation (annihilation) operator with spin
 or at site i , and  iii CCn 
 is the occupation number operator, ..ch (  ij CC

) is the hermitian
conjugate . The transfer integral ijt is written as ttij  , which means that all hopping processes have the same
probability. The parameter U is the on-site Coulomb interaction. It is worth mentioning that in principle, the
parameter U is positive because it is a direct Coulomb integral. The exact diagonalization of (2.1) is the most
desirable one. However, this method is applicable only to smaller dimensional lattice system, since the
dimension of the Hamiltonian matrix increases very rapidly with the number of sites and number of particles.
2.2 The correlated variational trial wave function (CVA)
The correlated variational trial wave function (CVA) given by Chen and Mei (1989) is of the form
  }{}{ ,,,, 

  jiji
ji
XiiiiX jIIi
i
(2.2)
where  ,...,2,1,0iXi are variational parameters and  ji , is the eigen state of a given electronic
state, l is the lattice separation.
The exact diagonalization of (2.1) is the most desirable one. However, this method is applicable only to
smaller dimensional lattice system, since the dimension of the Hamiltonian matrix increases very rapidly with
number of sites and number of particles.
With a careful application of the two equations above we can conveniently solve for the wave function
and hence the groundstate energy of the two interacting electrons provided the two important conditions stated
below are duly followed.
(i) the field strength tensor






jiiff
jiiff
ji ij
0
1
 (2.3)
(ii) the Marshal rule for non-conservation of parity (Weng et al., 1997)
 ijji ,, (2.4)
The analytical geometry of the 3D 3 x 3 x 3 cluster is shown in the appendix. There are a total of five
planar lattices. We have generally summarized the details of the two electrons interaction on the 3D 3 x 3 x 3
cluster of the simple cubic lattice in table 2.0.

Table 2.0The summary of the relevant information derived from the analytical geometry of the 3D 3X3X3
cluster on a simple cubic lattice.
Lattice separation l
Between the two
electrons and actual
separation distance d
Pair wave
function
l
Number of pair electronic states at
lattice separation l
ll 
Pair electronic states
 ji ,
l d
0 0
0
27
,111,111 
 333,333,
1 a
1
162
,211,111 
 333,332,
2 a2
2
324
,221,111 
 332,233,
3 a2
3
216
,222,111 
 232,323,
Total number of electronic states
N=3; (N x N)3
or (N x N x N)2 729 729
It can be shown from the lattice symmetry that the central site for any odd 3D N x N x N lattices is





 
2
1
,
2
1
,
2
1 NNN
,from which for the 3D 3 x 3 x 3 it is (222).A lattice separation of 0l , then means
that both electrons are at the same site ),,( iii . Whilea lattice separation of 1l ,then means that both electrons
are on different sites at a separation distance of 1 and so on. Note that the actual separation distance d comprises
of both linear and diagonal lengths.Details of how to calculate the respective actual separation distance for
various separation lengthsbetween the two interacting electrons, can be found in (Akpojotor et al, 2002) and
(Enaibe, 2003).
2.3 The Unit Step Hamiltonian in 3D cluster of the simple cubic lattice.
The approximation to the Hubbard Hamiltonian study is actually necessary because of the strong
limitation and difficulty pose by the Hubbard Hamiltonian as we move away from finite - size lattices to larger
N - dimensional lattices. Thus this work has provided a means of overcoming the finite - size lattice defects as
we pass on to a higher dimension.
The unit step model takes advantage of the symmetry of the Hubbard model given by (2.1). The kinetic
hopping term (t ) can only distribute and redistribute the electrons within only nearest-neighbour (NN) sites in a
given lattice according to ±1. The U part can only act on the on-site electrons (double occupancy) while it is
zero otherwise. Also from the geometry of the 3D lattice we can recast (2.2) as
ll
l
l
X  0
(2.5)
where l are the eigen states for a given separation, N is the total number of separations.Now suppose we let
mlkji ,,,, and n represent the eigen state of a given lattice site such that for the 3D cluster on a simple cubic
lattice it will be     lmnijk , . Then
 )(,)1()(,)1()(,)( { lmnkjilmnjkitlmnijkH +
 mnlijklmnkij )1(,)()(,)1(
})1(,)()1(,)(  nmlijknmlijk
 )(,)( iiiiiiU (2.6)

 )(,)1()(,)1()(,)( { lmnkjilmnkjitlmnijkH +
 )(,)1()(,)1( lmnkjilmnkji
 )(,)1()(,)1( lmnkijlmnkij +
 nmlijknmlijk )1(,)()1(,)(
 nmlijknmlijk )1(,)()1(,)(
})1(,)()1(,)(  nmlijknmlijk
 )(,)( iiiiiiU (2.7)
2.4 On the evaluation of the unit step Hamiltonian
The N - dimensional unit step Hamiltonian contains the kinetic hopping term t and the on-site Coulomb
repulsion term U. In practice the U term makes a contribution only when all lattice sites are equal (double
occupancy). It is zero for inter-site lattice. The implementation of the Hubbard model on the trail wave function
would demand using (2.1) to run through all pair electronic states one after the other.
That is, for 3D 3x3x3simple cubic lattice where there are a total of 729 pair electronic states;
729,,3,2,1:  llH . While for 3D 5 x 5 x 5 simple cubic lattice wherethere are a total of 15625
pair electronic states; then 15625,,3,2,1:  llH . This process as we all know is actually
cumbersome and it will be very difficult to handle without error.
The advantage of theunit step model as an approximation to the single band Hubbard
Hamiltonian,which we presented in this work is that instead of using (2.1) to run through all the pair electronic
states one after the other as the case demands, we rather use (2.6) to act on only one single electronic in each
separation and sum the result.We know that  H is always a commuting or Hermitian matrix. The eigen
vectors of the Hermitian matrix are orthogonal and form a complete set, i.e., to say that any vector of this space
is a linear combination of vectors of this set.
Consequent upon this, we use (2.6) to evaluate only a given eigen state from each of the given set
l and generalize the result since the vectors are commuting. Thus generally, when the unit step model acts
on (2.5) we can sum the result as follows.
 l
llXHH ll
jj
jlll
XU
Xn
t
llj



 









)(
(2.8)
where n is the total number of states generated within a given lattice separation, ll  is the
inner product of the state acted on by the unit step Hamiltonian, jj  is the total number or the inner
product of the new state generated after operating on theeigen state, l is the particular lattice separation,
j is the new state generated.
To understand completely how the unit step Hamiltonian works, we shall demonstrate it elementarily
for only two cases and assume the same routine for the rest separations. Now
   llXHH 33221100  HXHXHXHXHX ll (2.9)
0H  111,111H   111,211111,3110Xt  111,131 +
 111,121 +  311,111211,111111,112111,113
 112,111113,111121,111131,111 00  XU (2.10)
Note that in the process of applying this technique, for instance, if (i + l ) = 4 or (i - l ) = 0, since there is no 4
or 0 in the information providedby thelattice geometry in table 2.0, then 4 ( = 1) and 0 ( = 3 ) because of the

requirements of the repeated boundary conditions. It is obvious from the parentheses of (2.10) that all the 12
new eigen states generated are ofthe same separation 1l and thereforehavingeigen state 1 .
0H =  112  t 00  XU (2.11)
Hence upon comparing this result with the equation (2.8), then 12n , 1j and 0l .Thus
0H = 00
11
100
0
12









 XUXt (2.12)
0H = 00
1
0
162
2712








 XUXt   0010 2  XUXt (2.13)
Now there is also the need for us to use the unit step Hamiltonian to act on the state in separation 1l
instead of just generalising the effectiveness and accuracy of the unit step Hamiltonian with the result of only
separation 0l . The events of separation 1l would be a bit different from the first one. Thus, when the unit
step Hamiltonian acts on the eigen state in separation 1l we get,
1H  211,111H


 
10
1 211,311211,211Xt 
2
211,121
2
211,131  + 
0122
111,111311,111211,113211,112



2222
213,111212,111231,111221,111
(2.14)
Where for clarity of purpose the superscripts only indicate the respective separations generated. We can
now revert to (2.8) for the summation technique.
1H =  2101 822  Xt (2.15)
1H = 














22
211
11
111
00
011
1
822
Xt (2.16)
1H = 




 





324
1628
162
1622
27
1622 210
1Xt (2.17)
1H =  2101 4212  Xt (2.18)
Also by a similar algebraic subroutine, when the unit step Hamiltonian acts on the eigen state in
separation 2l and 3l ,after a careful simplification we get respectively
2H =  3212 648  Xt (2.19)
3H =  323 64  Xt (2.20)
We can see that this technique is very straightforward as it limits the operation to only one eigen state
in a given lattice separation instead of using the Hubbard Hamiltonian to operate on all the states
consecutively.Hence in accordance with (2.8) and (2.9) we get
 33221100  XXXX (2.21)
  32221221110110 64842122 XXXXXXXtH
 3323 64 XX 00 UX (2.22)
With the use of (2.3)and the information provided in table 3.1, we can eventually establish after multiplying
through (2.21) and (2.22) by the complex conjugate of (2.5) that
 00
2
0X  11
2
1X  22
2
2X 33
2
3 X (2.23)
 2
3
2
2
2
1
2
0 812627 XXXX  (2.24)
 2
0
2
3
2
2
2
1322110 )4/(1212324246)4)(27( XtUXXXXXXXXXtH  (2.25)

2.5 The variational method
The variational method consists in evaluating the integral
 HEg
 uHtH (2.26)
Where gE is the correlated ground state energy and  is the guessed trial wave function. We can now
differentially minimize (2.26) after the substitution of (2.24) and (2.25) as follows.









 H
XX
E
X
E
ii
g
i
g
(2.27)
Subject to the condition that the correlated ground state energy of the two interacting electrons is a
constant of the motion, that is
0


i
g
X
E
; 3,2,1,0 i (2.28)
We can carefully transform the resulting equation into a homogeneous eigen value problem of the form
  0 ll XIA

 (2.29)
Where A is an NXN matrix which takes the dimension of the number of separations, l is the eigen
value (total energy E ) to be determined, I is the identity matrix which is also of the same order as A , iX

are
the various eigen vectors or simply the variational parameters corresponding to each eigen value. After some
algebraic subroutine we get the matrix.









































0
0
0
0
6600
4440
0822
00124
3
2
1
0
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
uE
(2.30)
Where tUu 4/ is the interaction strength between the two interacting electrons and tEE g / is the
total energy possess by the two interacting electrons. From the matrix given by (2.30) we can now determine the
total energy and the corresponding variational parameters for various arbitrary values of the interaction strength.
2.6 Spectra density )(f

and spectra intensity
2
)(f

of the two electrons.
The spectra density )(f

defines the distribution of the probability of values of the momentum to the total
energy E . The spectra density is defined as follows.
dx
xi
xf
X
f ell




0
2
)(
2
)(





(2.31)
But the kernel )(xf in the integrand is simply
2
X , this is because the variational parameters is the square of the
lattice separation. Now suppose we evaluate (2.31) within the limits of the lattice spacing l (l =0, 1, 2, 3) then
dx
xi
X
X
f
l
ll
e


0
2
2
2
)(





(2.32)
































li
elXli
e
li
el
X
f llll
i
22
2
2
2
1
2
2
)(

(2.33)
The spectra intensity which is the absolute value of the spectra density is given by




































2
2
2
222
2
2
2 222
2
)(









l
el
l
e
l
elX
f ll

(2.34)
Now because of the presence of the exponential function in (2.34) would make us to vary it logarithmically so
that














































2
2
2
222
2 222
2
2
2
)(









l
el
l
e
l
elX
nlfnl ll

(2.35)
After a careful arrangement we get that the spectra intensity is
lll
e
lX
f




239.1
2
3
32
2
2
)(











(2.36)
III. Presentation of Results
Table 3.0 Shows the calculated values of the total energy and the variational parameters for various arbitrary
values of the interaction strength.
Interaction
strength U/4t
Total energy
E=Eg/t
Variational parameters ( lX ) ( l 0, 1, 2, 3)
0X 1X 2X 3X
50.00 -11.5906 0.0278 0.4897 0.5941 0.6376
30.00 -11.6394 0.0456 0.5008 0.5920 0.6298
20.00 -11.6530 0.0659 0.5033 0.5908 0.6271
15.00 -11.6656 0.0846 0.5055 0.5895 0.6243
10.00 -11.6883 0.1181 0.5088 0.5867 0.6188
5.00 -11.7415 0.1944 0.5142 0.5775 0.6035
1.00 -11.8916 0.3871 0.5126 0.5370 0.5469
0.00 -12.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
-1.00 -12.2290 0.6700 0.4594 0.4200 0.4045
-5.00 -21.3825 0.9930 0.1144 0.0289 0.0113
-10.00 -40.6358 0.9986 0.0529 0.0059 0.0010
-15.00 -60.4149 0.9994 0.0346 0.0025 0.0003
-20.00 -80.3081 0.9997 0.0257 0.0014 0.0001
-30.00 -120.2035 0.9999 0.0170 0.0006 0.0000
-50.00 -200.1212 0.9999 0.0101 0.0002 0.0000
Table 3.1 Shows the calculated values of the of the spectra intensity for various variational parameters and total
energy with a fixed arbitrary value of the spatial frequency mrad /5 .
Interaction
strength U/4t
Total energy
E=Eg/t Spectra intensity
2
)(f

0X 1X 2X 3X
50.00 -11.5906 0.0000 187.3164 5.72 x 108
1.90 x 1014
30.00 -11.6394 0.0000 206.6151 5.69 x 108
1.83 x 1014
20.00 -11.6530 0.0000 211.2646 5.65 x 108
1.80 x 1014
15.00 -11.6656 0.0000 215.4480 5.62 x 108
1.77 x 1014
10.00 -11.6883 0.0000 221.9907 5.53 x 108
1.72 x 1014
5.00 -11.7415 0.0000 233.6787 5.24 x 108
1.57 x 1014
1.00 -11.8916 0.0000 236.7220 4.02 x 108
1.08 x 1014
0.00 -12.0000 0.0000 218.2158 3.08 x 108
7.72 x 1013
-1.00 -12.2290 0.0000 161.5063 1.59 x 108
3.43 x 1013
-5.00 -21.3825 0.0000 1.8987 1.09 x 104
6.39 x 107
-10.00 -40.6358 0.0000 0.3135 68.3902 1.42 x 104
-15.00 -60.4149 0.0000 0.1268 4.8732 253.0000
-20.00 -80.3081 0.0000 0.0682 0.8468 5.5307
-30.00 -120.2035 0.0000 0.0293 0.0640 0.0000
-50.00 -200.1212 0.0000 0.0101 0.0022 0.0000

IV. Discussion of Results
The total energies and the variational parameters for the 3D 3 x 3 x 3 simple cubic lattice obtained from
the matrix (2.30) of section 2 is shown in table 3.0. The table shows that (i) the total energy is non-degenerate
and it decreases as the interaction strength is decreased, (ii) X0 increases as the interaction strength is decreased,
(iii) X1 increases until the interaction strength tU 4/ = 5.00 and then it starts to decrease as tU 4/ is
decreased, (iv) X2and X3 decreases consistently as tU 4/ is decreased.
The table exhibits clearly that the variational parameters for any given system are of equal weights
when tU 4/ = 0. This implies that the probability of double occupancy is the same as single occupancy. When
the interaction strength tU 4/ = 0, we observe a free electron system (the electrons are non-interacting). Since
the electrons are not under the influence of any given potential they are free to hop to any preferable lattice site.
We infer from this result that when the interaction strength tU 4/ is made more negatively large, then
the electrons now prefer to remain close together (Cooper pairing). This is represented by the greater value of X0
(double occupancy). Generally, it is this coming together or correlation of electrons that is responsible for the
many physical properties of condensed matter physics, e.g. superconductivity, magnetism, super fluidity.
However, in the regime of tU 4/  20, the two electrons prefer to stay far apart as possible and the event is
synonymous with ferromagnetism.
As indicated in table 3.1, the spectra intensity for on-site electrons is zero for all values of the
interaction strength. The table exhibits clearly that the variational parameter X1increases until tU 4/ =1.00 and
thereafter it starts to decreasewhile X2 and X3decreases consistently to zero as the interaction strength is
decreased. This implies that high values of positive interaction strength increase the intensity of the two
electrons and they prefer to stay as far apart as possible. While high negative interaction strength decreases the
intensity of the two electrons.
V. Conclusion
This study demonstrates that for any positive on-site interaction strength ( tU 4/ ), the two electrons
prefer to stay as far apart as possible in order to gain the lowest energy. The model in this regime best describes
ferromagnetism. Also for sufficiently large and negative on-site interaction strength ( tU 4/ ) the electrons
prefer to stay close together in order to gain the lowest energy. The model in this regime favours Cooper pairing.
Generally, it is this coming together or correlation of electrons that is responsible for the many physical
properties of materials in condensed matter physics, e.g. superconductivity, magnetism, super fluidity.We have
investigated in this study, that the repulsive Coulomb interaction which in part leads to the strong electronic
correlations, would indicate that the two electron system prefer not to condense into s-wave superconducting
singlet state (s = 0), at high positive values of the interaction strength U/4t. This study reveals that for free
electron system (non-interacting), the probability distribution of lattice electron system is the same.

Appendix

The dotted square maps out the boundary of our interest in a given planar lattice. We consider the
origin at(111). Now for lattice separation 0l , for instance means the two electrons are on the same site and
the lattice distance between them is 0l , there are 27 of such possibility.
For lattice separation 1l , nearest neighbour sites NN, we have a single linearlattice distance d a ,
that means one electron is at lattice site (111) and the second one is at site (211) within the same plane or (121)
in the second plane and there are 162 of the possibility of the two electrons to interact. Note that these two
positions are also equivalent to (212) or (232) and (221) or (223).
For lattice separation 2l , we have a diagonal lattice distance d a2 , that means one electron is at
lattice site (111)and the second one is at site (212) within the same plane or (122) on the second plane and there
are 324 of such possibility.
For lattice separation 3l , we have a double lattice distance al 2 , that means one electron is at
lattice site (111) and the second one is at site (113) within the same plane or (131) on the third plane and there
are 216 of such possibility.
The total number of sites n at a separation parameter l from the origin (111); for 0l , 1n ; 1l ,
6n (4 NN from one plane while 2 from either sides of the plane), 2l , 12n , 3l , 8n .
References
[1]. Akpojotor G. E., Enaibe A. E. and Idiodi J. O. A.(2002). A method to determine the states of two electrons lattice system. Nig.
Journ. of Phys. Vol. 14, No. 2; pp 117 – 121.
[2]. Chen L. and Mei C. (1989). Exact calculation of the two-electron interaction in the ground state of the Hubbard model. Phys. Rev.
B Vol. 39, No. 13; p9006 – 9010 .
[3]. Domasnski T., Wysokinski K. I., and Ramakumer R. (1996). Superconductivity ina strongly correlated one – band system. Phys.
Rev. B54, No. 2; pp 3058 – 3064.
[4]. Enaibe A.E. (2003). A variational approach to the study of highly correlated electron systems. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished).
[5]. Hubbard J. (1963). Electron correlations in narrow energy bands. Proc. Roy, Soc. London, series A276; p238 – 257
[6]. Rycerz A. and Spalek J. (2001). Electronic states, Mott localization, electron-lattice coupling, and dimerization for correlated one-
dimensional systems. arXiv:cond.mat/0105574 Vol. 2; p 1 – 20.
[7]. van Bemmel H.J.M., ten Haaf D.F.B., van Soarlos W., van Leeuwen J.M.J. and An G. (1994). Fixed-Node Quantum Monte Carlo
Method for lattice fermions. Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 72, No. 15; p 2442 – 2450.
[8]. Vallejo E., Navarro O. and Espinosa J.E. (2003). Two-particle correlation in the one-dimensional Hubbard model; a ground state
analytical solution. Rev. Mex. De fis. Vol. 49, No. 3; p 207 – 211.
[9]. Weng Z. Y., Sheng D. N., Chen Y. C. and Ting C. S. (1997). Phase string effect in the t - j model.
Phys. Rev. B 55 ,No. 6 ; p 3894-3900.

Dynamics of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional Lattice

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Dynamics of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional Lattice (20)

More from IOSR Journals (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Dynamics of Twointeracting Electronsinthree-Dimensional Lattice