Skip to main content
Log in

The early years of quantum Monte Carlo (2): finite-temperature simulations

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The European Physical Journal H Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we present the second part of our historical survey on quantum Monte Carlo methods. We focus on the simulations performed at a finite temperature and based on Feynman’s path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics. We introduce the method and insist on the central role played by the description of the transition to superfluidity for Helium 4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Actual computations were done with a model of interactions proposed by Aziz [11]; Aziz potential improves on Lennard-Jones in the modelling of helium but is qualitatively similar.

  2. Feynman described the moment of «discovery» of his understanding of his helium theory in a conversation with Sir Fred Hoyle recorded at the end of a British TV documentary («The world from another point of view»); it can be viewed on Youtube.

  3. Feynman, of course, did not have such an illustration at hand, but his discussion shows that he was thinking on similar representations of the atomic paths. (Thanks to David M. Ceperley for allowing use of the figure).

  4. The mathematical problem was related to the geometry of those path cycles.

  5. This action is temperature dependent and therefore it is not the true action as defined in classical mechanics.

  6. Interview of David Ceperley: “The work started when we became aware of work by John Barker (IBM San Jose) using path integrals for hard spheres. I organized a meeting with Barker, Pollock, Alder and Kalos in Berkeley in 1978 or 1979. He told us about his methods, in particular about the Metropolis procedure and the pair density matrix. While I was at Courant, Kalos had been working on a more complicated and less efficient scheme based on Green’s function Monte Carlo\(^{25}\). Roy Pollock and I decided to go the route Barker had followed, using the Metropolis algorithm instead of the algorithm that Kalos advocated.

  7. Since then, an alternative way, based on the grand canonical ensemble, has been developed which allowed to achieve better efficiency, see [6].

  8. The winding number of a path is said to be topologically invariant.

  9. The proceedings of a workshop organized in December 1982 in Paris by Malvin Kalos are a valuable report on the state of the art in that period: see [22].

  10. Daan Frenkel,  «Feynman Paths and Quantum Monte Carlo», in Rapport d’activité scientifique du CECAM, 1974–1975”. Copy of the report can be found in the archives collected by CECAM at its headquarters at the EPFL in Lausanne.

  11. In the summer of 1975, Gianni Jacucci visited the US. He saw Berni Alder: I had asked Gianni to get me a hard-sphere code, but he was (of course) unsuccessful, so I wrote my own (this project overlapped with my path-integral work). Gianni also visited John Barker. When Gianni came back (in early September) he asked: “do you know about path integrals?” I said “yes”, because I had just read the book by Feynman and Hibbs. Then Gianni said: “John Barker is trying to compute quantum-virial coefficients, using path integrals. Wouldn’t it be nice to use path integral Monte Carlo to simulate quantum many-body systems. I was enthusiastic and started right away. Actually, my plan was to do quantum dynamics by analytical continuation from the imaginary time axis. However, that was still too difficult in 1975. So, in the end we did simple Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac and Bose Einstein ideal gases, and explored how to improve the sampling of interacting systems. However, at the end of September I had to return to Amsterdam, where I had little computing power (and I had to do experiments). So, the only thing that resulted is the attached report in the CECAM Annual Report 1975. The report acknowledges John Barker, and Bernie Goodman, whom I had never met. However, in 1981 Lee and Goodman published a paper on QMC of liquid helium—but NOT using path integrals.

  12. This statement is not quite correct. One should indeed mention that techniques using real-time PIMD have been developed for providing time-dependent properties. These methods have to face a serious sign problem (cancelation of huge positive and negative contributions) so that their impact remains somewhat limited. See [2] or [5] for a critical appreciation. (We thank the referee for bringing our attention to this point.)

  13. The quantity \(u={ it}/{ h}\) goes from 0 to \(\beta \).

References

  1. ALDER, Berni J., CEPERLEY, David M., and POLLOCK Edwin L., 1982. Computer Simulation of Phase Transitions in Classical and Quantum Systems, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 16, 49 (1982).

  2. ALTHORPE, Stuart C. and TRENINS, George. 2018. Mean-field Matsubara dynamics: analysis of path-integral curvature effects in rovibrational spectra. J. Chem. Phys., 149 014102. (2018) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038616

  3. BARKER John A., 1979. A Quantum-statistical Monte Carlo Method: path integrals with boundary conditions, J. Chem. Phys. 70, 2914-2918 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. BATTIMELLI Giovanni and CICCOTTI, Giovanni. 2018. Berni Alder and the pioneering times of computer simulation. Eur. Phys. J. H (2018) 43(2) 303-335.

  5. BENSON Raz E., TRENINS George and ALTHORPE, Stuart C.. 2020. Which Quantum Statistics-Classical Dynamics is Best for Water? Faraday Discussions, 221 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1039/C9FD00077A

  6. BONINSEGNI, Massimo, PROKOF’EV Nikolay and SVISTOUNOV Boris. 2005. The Worm Algorithm for Continuous-Space Path Integral Monte Carlo Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 070601 (2005).

  7. CEPERLEY David M., KALOS Malvin.H., and LEBOWITZ Joel L., 1981. The Computer Simulation of the Static and Dynamic Properties of a Polymer Chain, Macromolecules 14,1472 (1981).

  8. CEPERLEY David M., and POLLOCK, Edwin L. 1986. Path Integral Computation of the Low Temperature Properties of Liquid\(^{4}\)He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 351 (1986).

  9. CEPERLEY David M., and POLLOCK, Edwin L. 1987. The Momentum Distribution of Normal and Superfluid Liquid\({}^{4}He\), Can. J. Physics 65, 1416 (1987).

  10. CEPERLEY David M. 1992. Path-Integral Calculations of Normal Liquid \(^{3}\)He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 331-334 (1992)

  11. CEPERLEY David M. 1995. Path Integrals in the Theory of Condensed Helium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 279 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.070601

  12. CHANDLER David and WOLYNES Peter G., 1981. Exploiting the isomorphism between quantum theory and classical statistical mechanics of polyatomic fluids, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 4078-4095 (1981)

  13. FELLER, William, 1957. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, vol. 1, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1957)

  14. FEYNMAN Richard P., 1948. Space-Time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 367-387 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.20.367

  15. FEYNMAN Richard P. 1953a. The lambda-Transition in Liquid Helium, Phys. Rev. 90 (5), 1116-1117 (1953)

  16. FEYNMAN Richard P., 1953b. Atomic Theory of the lambda transition in Helium, Phys. Rev. 91, 1291-1301(1953)

  17. FEYNMAN Richard P. 1953c. Atomic Theory of Liquid Helium near Absolute Zero, Phys. Rev. 91 (5), 1301-1308 (1953)

  18. FEYNMAN Richard P. 1954. Atomic Theory of the Two-Fluid Model of Liquid Helium, Phys. Rev. 94 (2) 262-277 (1954)

  19. FEYNMAN Richard P. 1982. Simulating Physics with Computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21, 467-488 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

  20. FEYNMAN Richard P. and HIBBS Albert R. 1965. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, MacGraw-Hill, New York (1965) and emended edition by David F. Slyer (2005)

  21. FRENKEL Daan and SMIT Berend, 2002. Understanding Molecular Simulations: from Algorithms to Applications, Academic Press, Elsevier (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-267351-1.X5000-7

  22. KALOS Malvin H.,1982. Monte Carlo Methods in Quantum Problems, M. H. Kalos editor, NATO proceedings 125 (1982).

  23. KAPITZA, Piotr, 1938. Viscosity of Liquid Helium below the lambda Point, Nature 141, 74 (1938)

  24. KLEMM A. D. and STORER R.G., 1973. The Structure of Quantum Fluids: Helium and Neon, Austr. J. Phys. 26, 43-60 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. KUHARSKI Robert A., BADER Joel S., CHANDLER David, SPRIK Michiel and KLEIN Michael L., 1988. Molecular Model for Aqueous Ferrous-Ferric Electron Transfer, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 3248–3257 (1988).

  26. LONDON Fritz, 1938. On the Bose-Einstein Condensation, Phys. Rev. 54, 947-954 (1938)

  27. LAWANDE Suresh V., JENSEN C. A. and SAHLIN H. L., 1969. Monte Carlo Evaluation of Feynman Path Integrals in Imaginary Time and Spherical Polar Coordinates, J. Comp. Phys. 4, 451-464 (1969)

  28. MARCUS Rudolf A.1956. On the Theory of Oxidation-Reduction Reactions involving Electron Transfers, J. Chem. Phys. 24, 966-977 (1956).

  29. MARCUS Rudolf A. 2020. Reflections on electron transfer theory, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 210401. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0035434

  30. MARESCHAL Michel. 2018. Early years of Computational Statistical Mechanics. Eur. Phys. J. H (2018) 43, 293-302.

    Google Scholar 

  31. MARESCHAL Michel. 2019. From Varenna (1970) to Como (1995): Kurt Binder’s Long Walk in the land of criticality. Eur. Phys. J. H (2019) 44 (2) 161-179

  32. MARESCHAL Michel. 2021. The early years of quantum Monte Carlo (1): the ground state. Eur. Phys. J. H (2021) 46 (1) 11-26

  33. McMAHON, Jeffrey M., MORALES Miguel A., PIERLEONI Carlo and CEPERLEY David M., 2012. The Properties of Hydrogen and Helium under Extreme Conditions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1608-1653 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1607

  34. METROPOLIS, Nick, ROSENBLUTH Arianna W., ROSENBLUTH Marshal N., TELLER Augusta and TELLER Edward, 1953. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 6, 1087-1092, 1953

  35. MILITZER Burkhard and CEPERLEY David M., 2000. Path Integral Monte Carlo Calculation of the Deuterium Hugoniot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1890-1893 (2000)

  36. PARRINELLO Michele and RAHMAN Anesur, 1984. Study of an F Center in Molten KCl, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 860-867 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.446740

  37. PENROSE Oliver and ONSAGER Lars, 1956. Bose-Einstein Condensation and Liquid Helium, Phys. Rev. 104, 576 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.104.576

  38. PIERLEONI, Carlo, CEPERLEY David M., BERNU Bernard and MAGRO W.R., 1994. Equation of State of the Hydrogen Plasma by Path Integral Monte Carlo Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2145-2149 (1994)

  39. PIERLEONI, Carlo and CEPERLEY David M., 2006. The Coupled Electron-ion Monte Carlo Method, in Computer Simulations in Condensed Matter Systems: from Materials to Chemical Biology, eds. M. Ferrario, G. Ciccotti and K. Binder, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 703, 641-683, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2006)

  40. POLLOCK, Edwin L., and CEPERLEY, David M., 1984. Simulation of Quantum Many-Body Systems by Path Integral Methods, Phys. Rev. B 30, 2555 (1984).

  41. POLLOCK, Edwin L., and CEPERLEY David M., 1987. Path-Integral Computation of Superfluid Densities, Phys. Rev. B 36, 8343 (1987).

  42. ROSENBLUTH Marshall N. and ROSENBLUTH Arianna W., 1955. Monte Carlo Calculation of the Average Extension of Molecular Chains, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 356 (1955)

  43. STORER R. G., 1968. Path-integral Calculation of the Quantum-Statistical Density Matrix for Attractive Coulomb Forces, J. Math. Phys., 9, 964-970 1968. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1664666

  44. SPRIK Michiel, KLEIN Michael L. and CHANDLER David, 1985. Staging: A sampling technique for the Monte Carlo evaluation of path integrals, Phys. Rev.B 31, 4234–4244 (1985).

  45. SPRIK Michiel and KLEIN Michael L., 1988. Application of path integral simulations to the study of electron salvation in polar fluids, Comp. Phys. Rep. 7-3, 147-166 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7797(88)90001-9

  46. TUCKERMAN Mark E., BERNE Bruce J., MARTYNA Glen J. and KLEIN Michael L., 1993. Efficient Molecular Dynamics and Hybrid Monte Carlo for Path Integrals, J. Chem. Phys. 99-4, 2796-2808 (1993)

  47. TUCKERMAN Mark E., 2010. Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Molecular Simulation, Oxford University Press (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to David Ceperley for his hospitality and patience during my visit to him in Illinois, for later correspondence and a careful reading of the manuscript. The idea to undertake this study was a suggestion by Giovanni Ciccotti whom I wish to thank for his availability and many useful suggestions. Stimulating discussions with Benoit Roux and Carlo Pierleoni are gratefully acknowledged. Burkhard Militzer is being thanked for permission to use Figs. 2 and 3. David Ceperley’s interview was made possible through financial support provided by the Neubauer’s Collegium of the University of Chicago.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Mareschal.

Additional information

M. Mareschal: Retired.

Appendix 1: Derivation of equation (1)

Appendix 1: Derivation of equation (1)

We consider the quantum canonical ensemble of N atoms enclosed in a volume V and maintained at temperature T. It is being modelled by N point particles with mass m and interaction potential energy \(V(r_{ij}\)), with \( r_{ij}\) the absolute value of the relative distance. The Hamiltonian is a sum of kinetic, K, and potential energy, V; it reads

$$\begin{aligned} H=\mathop {\sum }\limits _{i=1}^N {\frac{p_{i}^{2} }{2m}} +\mathop {\sum }\limits _{i\ne j} {V\left( r_{ij} \right) =K+V} \end{aligned}$$
(A1)

The Helmholtz free energy, \(F_{N}\)(V,T), is related to the density operator \(\rho \) and the partition function Z through the usual relation

(A2)

In the main text, the 3N-dimensional element of integration is represented by the symbol dR. As usual, \(\beta \) is 1/k\(_{B}T\)

The starting point of the analysis is a rather trivial identity for the equilibrium density operator:

$$\begin{aligned} \rho =e^{-\beta H}=\left( {e^{-\tau H}} \right) ^{M}with\,\,\,\,\tau =\frac{\beta }{M}\,\,\, \end{aligned}$$
(A2)

the quantity \(\tau \) is called the timestep and it will be used as a smallness parameter. By analogy with the usual time propagator, \(\exp \left( {-\frac{iHt}{\hslash }} \right) \), we can imagine following an imaginary timeFootnote 13 between 0 and \(\beta \), and \(\tau =\beta /M\) is then called the timestep.

Quantum effects are known to appear at low temperatures. More precisely, the usual transition between classical and quantum behaviour occurs when the average distance between particles becomes of the order of the so-called de Broglie wavelength

$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda =\frac{h}{\sqrt{2\pi mk_{B} T} } \end{aligned}$$
(A3)

Or, for a system of number density \(n=N/V\), quantum effects will appear while lowering the temperature so that

$$\begin{aligned} n\Lambda ^{3}\simeq o(1) \end{aligned}$$
(A4)

Since K and V are non-commuting operators,

$$\begin{aligned} e^{-\tau H}=e^{-\tau K}e^{-\tau V}+o(\tau ^{2}) \end{aligned}$$
(A5)

or

$$\begin{aligned} e^{-\beta H}=\lim \limits _{M\rightarrow \infty } \left( {e^{-\tau K}e^{-\tau V}} \right) ^{M} \end{aligned}$$
(A6)

The approximation in Eq. (A5) is called the primitive approximation and is essential in the present analysis. It allows an explicit writing of Eq. (A6) in a position representation. Equation (A6) is only exact when M goes to infinity, which is known as the Trotter formula, but one expects the expression given in Eq. (A5) to be useful for M sufficiently large.

The eigenfunctions of the kinetic energy operator are plane waves

(A7)

where k is a three-dimensional integer vector times 2\(\pi /L\). The density matrix for a free particle in a box \(V=L^{3}\) is explicitly obtained using Eq. (A7):

(A8)

Using Eqs. (A6) and (A8), one obtains the density matrix elements which can be written explicitly as the following expression:

$$\begin{aligned} \left\langle {R_{0} } \left| \rho R_{M} \right| \right\rangle= & {} \int \cdots \int d \mathrm{R}_{1}\ldots d \mathrm{R}_{M-1} \frac{1}{(4\pi \lambda \tau )^{3NM/2}}\nonumber \\&\mathrm{exp}\left\{ -\mathop {\sum }\limits _{k=1}^{M}\left[ \frac{(R_{k-1}-R_{k})^{2}}{4\lambda \tau }\right] \right. \nonumber \\&\left. +\frac{\tau }{2}\left( V(R_{k-1})+V(R_{k})\right) \right\} \end{aligned}$$
(A9)

In order to go from Eqs. (A9) to (1) of the present article, one has to take into account the symmetry of the wave functions under permutation of any two particle indices. This step can be found in several textbooks, see, for example, [47]. Note that the kinetic energy has been transformed into the energy of a harmonic string between intermediate configurations. It can also be looked as the square of a velocity in imaginary time (difference of positions divided by the timestep).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mareschal, M. The early years of quantum Monte Carlo (2): finite-temperature simulations. EPJ H 46, 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00026-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00026-5

Navigation