I am seeing how the Berry connection $\mathcal{A}(k)$ transforms under time reversal symmetry. I seem to have a hiccup over something simple. I may have overcomplicated things but I think it points to some misconceptions I may have.
From the definition of the Berry curvature as per usual: \begin{align} \mathcal{A}(k) &= i \langle \psi(k) | \frac{d}{dk} |\psi(k)\rangle \\ &= i \int \psi^\star (k) \frac{d \psi (k)}{dk} d\vec{r} \end{align}
Applying time reversal $\hat{\mathcal{T}}$, \begin{align} \hat{\mathcal{T}} \mathcal{A}(k) &= i \langle \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi(k) | \frac{d}{dk} | \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi(k)\rangle \\ &= i \int \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi^\star (k) \frac{d \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi (k)}{dk} d\vec{r} \\ &= i \int \psi(-k) \frac{d \psi^\star (-k)}{dk} d\vec{r} \end{align} Since $\mathcal{A}$ must be real, we can conjugate it. \begin{align} &= -i \int \psi^\star(-k) \frac{d \psi(-k)}{dk} d\vec{r} \\ &= - \mathcal{A}(-k) \end{align} So If I am in a time-reversal invariant system, I have \begin{align} \hat{\mathcal{T}} \mathcal{A} (k) &= \mathcal{A} (k) \\ \implies \mathcal{A} (k) &= - \mathcal{A}(-k) \end{align} Which is wrong, I am off by the minus sign.
My Questions:
- Is it true that the Berry connection is always real? That was my justification for conjugating it. I think they do this step in both sources listed below.
- Is this an abuse of notation if I did this (putting the derivative with the ket): \begin{align} \mathcal{A}(k) &= i \langle \psi(k) | \frac{d \psi(k)}{dk} \rangle \\ \hat{\mathcal{T}} \mathcal{A} (k) &= i \langle \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi(k) | \hat{\mathcal{T}} \frac{d \psi(k)}{dk} \rangle \end{align} And if this were the case, how does $\hat{\mathcal{T}}$ act on the differential operator? Would \begin{align} \hat{\mathcal{T}} \frac{d }{dk} = \frac{d }{d(-k)} \hat{\mathcal{T}} \end{align} be true? I feel like you can't just take the derivative out without a minus sign, or else how would the velocity operator become negative?
- Why does $\hat{\mathcal{T}} $ not act on the $i$ outside the braces in $\hat{\mathcal{T}} \mathcal{A}(k) = i \langle \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi(k) | \frac{d}{dk} | \hat{\mathcal{T}} \psi(k)\rangle $?
- Was there something else wrong in my derivation?
Sources:
- They define the Berry connection with an extra minus sign but that shouldn't matter http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sunkai/teaching/Fall_2012/chapter3_part8.pdf
- Topological States on Interfaces Protected by Symmetry, by Takahashi 2015. The derivation from that is the following:
\begin{align} \mathbf { a } ^ { \alpha } ( \mathbf { - k } ) & = - i \left\langle u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) | \nabla u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) \right\rangle \\ & = - i \left\langle \nabla \Theta u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) | \Theta u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) \right\rangle \\ & = i \left\langle \Theta u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) | \nabla \Theta u ^ { \alpha } ( - \mathbf { k } ) \right\rangle \\ & = \mathbf { a } ^ { \beta } ( \mathbf { k } ) + i \nabla \chi ( \mathbf { k } ) \end{align}