-1
$\begingroup$

$H = \sum_{k} V(q) a_{k4}^{\dagger}b_{k3}^{\dagger}b_{k2}a_{k1}$

where $q$ is the transfer momentum, $a$ $b$ are two orbits or two sublattice sites.

Will the eigenvalues of the above Hamiltonian unchanged under the following transform (gauge transform of Bloch state):

$b_k \to e^{i\theta(k)}b_k$ where $\theta(k)$ is real

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Are the number indices such of the momenta, i.e. $k_1, k_2, \ldots$ or such of the operators $a$ and $b$? $\endgroup$
    – Clever
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment, I just short some notation to make the question clear, here is the full one: $\sum_k := \sum_{k_4, k_3, k_2, k_1} \delta_{k_4+k_3,k_2+k_1}$, and $q=k_4-k_1$ $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 16:05

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

The interaction term is not invariant under the gauge transformation. $b_k\rightarrow e^{i\theta_k}b_k$ is only a symmetry for the non-interacting Hamiltonian $H=\sum_k E(k)b_k^\dagger b_k$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The term itself is not invariant, but the physics is invariant. Like electrons under magnetic field, different vector potential will change the Hamiltonian but not the physics. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 3:13
  • $\begingroup$ My understanding is that different gauge are different mathematical description of the same physics problem. So the eigenvalue should not changed. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 3:16
  • $\begingroup$ Or say this gauge transform is just an unitary transform on the original Hamiltonian. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 3:17
  • $\begingroup$ The physics is invariant under local gauge transformation in real space, provided you include U(1) gauge fields. Notice that the Hamiltonian of electrons in a magnetic field is actually invariant once you take into account the gauge transformations on the electron operators and the vector potential, otherwise it would not be called a symmetry. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50
  • $\begingroup$ I agree the Hamiltonian is invariant. I think I mean the "form of the Hamiltonian" written in the new field operator changed. $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 4:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.