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
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Are the symmetry operators well defined in the context of Projective Symmetry Group(PSG)?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
16 views

Consider the Schwinger-fermion approach $\mathbf{S}_i=\frac{1}{2}f_i^\dagger\mathbf{\sigma}f_i$ to spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ system on 2D lattices. Just as Prof.Wen said in his seminal paper on PSG, the enlarged Hilbert space and gauge redundancy complicate our symmetry analyses.

Now let's take the translation-symmetry as an example. The unitary translation-symmetry operator $D$ is defined as $D\psi_iD^{-1}=\psi_{i+a}$, where $\psi_i=(f_{i\uparrow},f_{i\downarrow}^\dagger)^T$ and $a$ is the lattice vector. As we know, the transformation $\psi_i\rightarrow \widetilde{\psi_i}=G_i\psi_i(G_i\in SU(2))$ doesn't change the spin operators and the projective opearator $P=\prod_{i}(2\hat{n}_i-\hat{n}_i^2)$(Note here $P\neq \prod _i(1-\hat{n}_{i\uparrow}\hat{n}_{i\downarrow})$). Similarly, in the new basis $\widetilde{\psi_i}$, we can define another translation-symmetry operator $\widetilde{D}$ as: $\widetilde{D}\widetilde\psi_i\widetilde{D}^{-1}=\widetilde\psi_{i+a}$. But $D\widetilde\psi_iD^{-1}=G_i\psi_{i+a}\neq \widetilde\psi_{i+a}$, which means that $\widetilde{D}\neq D$, the translation operators depend on the 'fermion basis' we choose. Does this imply the translation operators unphysical?

But the translation operators should be physical, so are they equivalent in the physical subspace, say for any physical spin-state $\phi=P\phi$, does $\widetilde{D}\phi=D\phi$? If this is true, then how to prove it?

Thanks in advance.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
asked Sep 17, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Kai Li (975 points) [ no revision ]
Please link to the arxiv free paper

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Luckly, I just found that I can answer this question by myself now, and the answer is 'Yes', the base-dependent symmetry operators become the same in the physical subspace, here is the proof (The notations used here are the same as those in Two puzzles on the Projective Symmetry Group(PSG)?):

Let $A$ be the symmetry operator(e.g., lattice translation, rotation, and parity symmetries, and time-reversal symmetry). First of all, $A$ should make sense in the physical subspace, in the sense that if $\phi$ is a physical state, then $A\phi$ should also be a physical state, this is true due to the fact $[P,A]=0$. Secondly, after a gauge rotation $\psi_i\rightarrow\widetilde{\psi_i}=R\psi_iR^{-1}=G_i\psi_i$, the symmetry operator $A$ defined in $\psi_i$ basis would changes to $\widetilde{A}=RAR^{-1}$ defined in $\widetilde{\psi_i}$ basis, now use the identity $PR=RP=P$ in Two puzzles on the Projective Symmetry Group(PSG)?, it's easy to show that $\widetilde{A}P=AP$, and hence for any physical state $\phi$, we have $\widetilde{A}\phi=A\phi$, which means that the symmetry operator $A$ is well defined in the physical subspace.

Note that $R$ is the local $SU(2)$ gauge rotation instead of spin rotation, and in the above proof we have used $[P,A]=[P,\widetilde{A}]=0$.

Remark: The spin-rotation symmetry operator is a little special in the sense that it is basis independent (This is obvious due to the SU(2) gauge structure of Schwinger-fermion representation).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
answered Sep 22, 2013 by Kai Li (975 points) [ no revision ]

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$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
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
...