Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,551 answers , 19,358 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

How Fundamental is Spin-Orbit Coupling to Topological Insulators?

+ 14 like - 0 dislike
43 views

I'm well aware this is a very active area of research so the best answer one can give to this question may be incomplete.

Topological states in condensed matter are well-known, even if not always recognized as such. The most famous example is likely the quantum Hall effect. In this case, time-reversal symmetry is broken by an external $\vec{B}$ field.

In the past decade, it was realized that spin-orbit coupling can be used to break time-reversal symmetry as well. This leads to topologically preserved states in so-called topological insulators.

However, I've overheard that some condensed matter theorists believe spin-orbit coupling may not be necessary for breaking time-reversal symmetry in topological insulators. Apparently, there are some other mechanisms proposed in which this breaking is not (or at least not primarily) due to spin-orbit coupling. I've heard from a fairly well-respected condensed matter physicist that he believed spin-orbit coupling was important in all realistic topological insulators, but probably not essential for the theory.

Being a relative novice in the area, I don't know of any other mechanism by which time-reversal symmetry could be broken. Besides spin-orbit coupling effects, is there any other way that topologically protected states could exist with 0 $\vec{B}$ field? If so, how realistic are these? If not, what is meant when people claim spin-orbit coupling is not fundamental to topological insulators, and what would be a more fundamental way to look at it? Any references are certainly appreciated.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 16, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Logan Maingi (210 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 16 like - 0 dislike

The short answer: graphene is a counterexample.

The longer version: 1) You do not need to break the time reversal symmetry. 2) spin-orbit coupling does not break the time-reversal symmetry. 3) In graphene, there are two valleys and time inversion operator acting on the state from one valley transforms it into the sate in another valley. If you want to stay in one valley, you may think that there is no time-reversal symmetry there.

A bit more: It seems that time-reversal symmetry is not a good term here. Kramers theorem (which is based on time-reversal symmetry) says that state with spin up has the same energy as a state spin down with a reverse wavevector. It seems that in your question you use time-reversal symmetry for $E_{↑}({\bf k})=E_{↓}({\bf k})$ which is misleading and incorrect in absence of space-reversal symmetry.

Are you still need a citations or these directions will be enough?

UPD I looked through the papers I know. I would recommend a nice review Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010). My answer is explained in details in Sec. II.B.II, Sec. II.C (note Eq. (8)) Sec. III.A, IV.A. The over papers are not that transparent. Sorry for the late update.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 16, 2011 by Nestoklon (340 points) [ no revision ]
@seandbarrett Ok. I will edit my answer a bit later.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Citations might be useful for others who land here.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I see. I probably misunderstood because I'm not coming from a condensed matter perspective and Kramers theorem is not something I was well-acquainted with. I think this direction should be sufficient to begin reading on the subject, and hopefully correcting my misinterpretation.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...