1
$\begingroup$

Suppose that we use the Schwinger-fermion ($\mathbf{S_i}=\frac{1}{2}f_i^\dagger\mathbf{\sigma}f_i$) mean-field theory to study the Heisenberg model on 2D lattices, and now we arrive at the mean-field Hamiltonian of the form $H_{MF}=\sum_{<ij>}(\psi_i^\dagger u_{ij}\psi_j+H.c.)$ with $u_{ij}=t\sigma_z$($t>0$), where $\psi_i=(f_{i\uparrow},f_{i\downarrow}^\dagger)^T$, and $\sigma_z$ is the third Pauli matrix.

Now let's find the IGG of $H_{MF}$, by definition, the pure gauge transformations in IGG should satisfy $G_iu_{ij}G_j^\dagger=u_{ij}\Rightarrow G_j=\sigma_zG_i\sigma_z $ on link $<ij>$—(1) . Specifically, consider the IGGs on the following different 2D lattices:

(a)Square and honeycomb lattices(unfrustrated): These two lattices can be both viewed as constituted by 2 sublattices denoted as $A$ and $B$. Due to Eq.(1), it's easy to show that for both of these two lattices the gauge transformations $G_i$ in the same sublattice are site-independent while those in different sublattices differ by $G_A=\sigma_zG_B\sigma_z$ and $IGG=SU(2)$.

(b)Triangular and Kagome lattices(frustrated):Due to Eq.(1), it's easy to show that for both of these two lattices the gauge transformations $G_i$ are global (site-independent) and $G_i=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} e^{i\theta }& 0\\ 0& e^{-i\theta } \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ which means that $IGG=U(1)$.

So my question is: The same form mean-field Hamiltonian $H_{MF}$ may has different $IGGs$ on different lattices?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, it is possible. In my understanding, the most easy way to identify IGG is to study the loop of ansatz with the same basepoint. Starting from $SU(2)$ formulation, if loops are colinear, then $IGG=SU(2)$. If loops are coplanar, then $IGG=U(1)$. Otherwise, $IGG=Z_2$. The reason to consider loop is because only gauge flux (more accuracy, Wilson loop) is observable. You can easily see the difference between loops in honeycomb/square lattice with loops in Kagome/triangular lattice. And this is the true reason for your question. However, there is one thing to be notice: there may exists hidden symmetry beyond the formulation. For example, even if we use $U(1)$ slave boson formulation, we can still have $SU(2)$ spin liquid. However, it is very difficult to extract the hidden symmetry, I think.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @ Shenghan Jiang, thanks for your good answer. But I'm studying PSG at the very beginning and got a lot of puzzles, like by 'loop of ansatz ', what does it mean? And are there only $SU(2), U(1), Z_2$ three kinds of IGGs? From the math side, for example, can $IGG=Z_4$? $\endgroup$ – Kai Li Sep 10 '13 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ Shenghan Jiang, from the math viewpoint, we can construct many subgroups of $SU(2)$ (math.stackexchange.com/questions/488309/…), so physically, I think all these subgroups may become the possible IGGs in proper physical models. What's your opinion? Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Kai Li Sep 10 '13 at 18:25

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.