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

Please welcome our new moderators!

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

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,543 answers , 19,337 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
407 active unimported users
More ...

How to define the mirror symmetry operator for Kane-Mele model?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
92 views

Let us take the famous Kane-Mele(KM) model as our starting point.

Due to the time-reversal(TR), 2-fold rotational(or 2D space inversion), 3-fold rotational and mirror symmetries of the honeycomb lattice system, we can derive the intrinsic spin-orbit(SO) term. Further more, if we apply a spatially uniform electric field perpendicular to the 2D lattice(now the mirror symmetry is broken), a (extra) Rashba-type SO term will emerge.

To present my question more clearly, I will first give a more detailed description of the above symmetry operations in both first- and second- quantization formalism. In the follows, a 3D Cartesian coordinate has been set up where the 2D lattice lies in the $xoy$ plane.

First-quantization language:

(1) TR symmetry operator $\Theta:$ $\Theta\phi(x,y,z)\equiv \phi^*(x,y,z)$, hereafter, $\phi(x,y,z)$ represents an arbitrary wave function for single electron.

(2) 2-fold rotational operator $R_2:$ $R_2\phi(x,y,z)\equiv \phi(-x,-y,z)$, where we choose the middle point of the nearest-neighbour bond as the origin point $o$ of the coordinate.

(3) 3-fold rotational operator $R_3:$ $R_3\phi(\vec{r} )\equiv \phi(A\vec{r})$, where $A=\begin{pmatrix} \cos\frac{2\pi}{3}& -\sin\frac{2\pi}{3}& 0\\ \sin\frac{2\pi}{3}& \cos\frac{2\pi}{3} & 0\\ 0& 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ $\vec{r}=(x,y,z)$ and we choose the lattice site as the origin point $o$ of the coordinate.

(4) Mirror symmetry operator $\Pi:$ $\Pi\phi(x,y,z)\equiv \phi(x,y,-z)$.

Second-quantization language:

(1) TR symmetry operator $T:$ $TC_{i\uparrow}T^{-1}=C_{i\downarrow}, TC_{i\downarrow}T^{-1}=-C_{i\uparrow}$, where $C=a,b$ are the annihilation operators referred to the two sublattices of graphene.

(2) 2-fold rotational operator $P_2:$ $P_2a(x,y)P_2^{-1}\equiv b(-x,-y), P_2b(x,y)P_2^{-1}\equiv a(-x,-y)$, $P_2$ is unitary and we choose the middle point of the nearest-neighbour bond as the origin point $o$ of the coordinate.

(3) 3-fold rotational operator $P_3:$ $P_3C(\vec{x})P_3^{-1}\equiv C(A\vec{x}), \vec{x}=(x,y),C=a,b$, where $A=\begin{pmatrix} \cos\frac{2\pi}{3}& -\sin\frac{2\pi}{3}\\ \sin\frac{2\pi}{3}& \cos\frac{2\pi}{3} \\ \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_3$ is unitary, we choose the lattice site as the origin point $o$ of the coordinate.

(4) Mirror symmetry operator $M:$ ????

as you see, that's what I want to ask: how to define the mirror symmetry operator $M$ in terms of second-quantization language for this 2D lattice system? Or maybe there is no well defined $M$ for this model? Thanks in advance.

Remarks:

(1) A direct way to verify your definition of $M$ being correct or not is as follows: The intrinsic SO term $i\lambda\sum_{\ll ij \gg }v_{ij}C_i^\dagger\sigma_zC_j$ should be invariant under $M$ while the Rashba term $i\lambda_R\sum_{<ij>}C_i^\dagger \left ( \mathbf{\sigma}\times\mathbf{p}_{ij}\right )_zC_j$ will not be.

(2)Here mirror operation is just reflection in one of the three spatial axes (i.e. $(x,y,z)\rightarrow (x,y,-z)$), not the “parity” operation in the context of "CPT symmetry" in field theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
asked Apr 29, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Kai Li (975 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Firstly, You do not in fact seem to be asking about "second quantization" - the mirror operation works in second quantization the same way other symmetries work, which I deduce that you understand from your question.

What is seems you are actually asking is: "how does the mirror symmetry work in the tight binding model?". As you probably realized the lattice sites are invariant and Bloch wavefunctions are invariant under the mirror symmetry. However the electron spin is not invariant. Keeping in mind that the Pauli matrices form a "pseudo-vector" you see that the correct transformation is: $C\rightarrow \sigma_z C\sigma_z$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user BebopButUnsteady
answered Jun 18, 2013 by BebopButUnsteady (325 points) [ no revision ]
@ BebopButUnsteady, thanks for your good comment. I have one more question, mirror symmetry is a symmetry about spatial degrees of freedom, how is it related to the spin space? Furthermore, if the electron is spinless in our tight binding model, is your definition $C\rightarrow \sigma_zC\sigma_z$ still work?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
@ BebopButUnsteady, to confirm one thing: Does the symbol $\sigma_z$ in your answer mean $\sigma_z=C_\uparrow^\dagger C_\uparrow-C_\downarrow^\dagger C_\downarrow$? If so, the operator $\sigma_z $ represents a symmetry transformation(unitary operator) **only if** the single occupation condition $C_\uparrow^\dagger C_\uparrow+C_\downarrow^\dagger C_\downarrow=1$ satisfies.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy

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$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$ow
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
...