0
$\begingroup$

In the textbook "Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors" by B. Andrei Bernevig and Taylor L. Hughes, there is a chapter titled "Hall conductance and Chern Numbers". In section 3.1.2 (page 17) they are discussing including an external field in a tight binding model, the Peierls substitution. They make the statement that "if the vector potential" A(s,t) "does not vary widely over the integration path" (when moving from lattice site R to R') we can use the approximation

$$\int_R^{R'}A(s,t)\cdot ds \approx (R-R')\cdot \frac{1}{2}(A(R',t)+A(R,t)) \approx. (R'-R)\cdot \frac{1}{2}A\left(\frac{R'+R}{2},t\right)$$

which is equation (3.9a). In equation 3.10, they use this substitution (changing variables with r=i-j): $$ H_{ext} = \sum_{k_1k_2\alpha\beta}c^{\dagger}_{k_1\alpha}c_{k_2\beta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{rj}e^{i(k_2-k_1)j - ik_1r}h^{\alpha\beta}_r(t)i\int_j^{j+r}A_p(l,t)dl\\ \approx \sum_{k_1k_2\alpha\beta}c^{\dagger}_{k_1\alpha}c_{k_2\beta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{rj}e^{i(k_2-k_1)j - ik_1r}h^{\alpha\beta}_r(t)irA_p(j +\frac{r}{2},t) $$

I don't understand where the $ \frac{1}{2}$ goes. It seems to disappear going from equation 3.9a to 3.10.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand your comment on the variable change. Are you changing r by i-j or what does it mean? $\endgroup$ – ccorbella Aug 4 '17 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, but the approximation I wrote is straight from the textbook. No typos :/ $\endgroup$ – DeathbyGreen Aug 4 '17 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ The variable change isn't so important, but the previous integration limits were from i to j, and a variable change was made for r=i-j so the new limits are j to r+j $\endgroup$ – DeathbyGreen Aug 4 '17 at 22:20
0
$\begingroup$

I think that what is wrong is the approximation above. Let's take the function: $f(x)=x$ to see it clearly.

You say that: $$A(R′,t)+A(R,t) \approx A\left(\dfrac{R′+R}{2},t\right)$$ (it can be easily deduced from the equation shown)

That would mean that: $$R'+R\approx\dfrac{R'+R}{2}$$

Don't you think that here the $\frac{1}{2}$ should be removed in the approximation and that the rest is OK as it is?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it seems they made a typo in the book. I found a similar identity but without the 1/2 $\endgroup$ – DeathbyGreen Aug 4 '17 at 22:30
0
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure if this is just a more longwinded restating of ccorbella's answer, but I there might be a little room for confusion.

I think the problem is in the last part of your first expression.

Assuming that $A$ is slowly varying we can Taylor expand about $\frac{R+ R'}{2}$, so we have \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\left(A(R, t) + A(R', t)\right) \approx \frac{1}{2}\left(A(\frac{R + R'}{2}, t) + \frac{d}{dx}A(x, t)|_{x=\frac{R + R'}{2}}\left[R - \frac{R + R'}{2}\right] + A(\frac{R + R'}{2}, t) + \frac{d}{dx}A(x, t)|_{x=\frac{R + R'}{2}}\left[R' - \frac{R + R'}{2}\right] + \cdots\right) \end{equation} To first order, the derivative terms cancel and we have \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\left(A(R, t) + A(R', t)\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(2 A(\frac{R + R'}{2}, t) + O([R-R']^2)\right) \approx A(\frac{R + R'}{2}, t) \end{equation}

This is all to say that if $A$ is slowly varying, you can replace the average of $A$ at $R$ and at $R'$ with $A$ evaluated at the average of $R$ and $R'$. So the first equation is off by an overall factor of 2, but the second equation is correct.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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