• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,079 questions , 2,229 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,758 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
819 active unimported users
More ...

  Berry phase in the toric code model and 2D chiral $p$-wave superconductors

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

When we derive the exchange statistics by moving quasiparticles around a circle in the toric code model we do not mention any Berry phase contribution. Is the Berry phase contribution trivial or it is nontrivial but does not alter the exchange statistics? This is also the case when we derive the nonabelian statistics for the vortices in 2D chiral $p$-wave superconductors. We seem to consider only the wave function monodromy but not the Berry phase contribution.

My question is:

(simpler one) what is the Berry phase contribution in both cases and why does it not alter the exchange statistics?

(harder one) is there any way to reach the conclusion (i.e. trivial vs.\ nontrivial, and alter vs.\ not alter the statistics) without calculation?

(challenge) could we find a general guideline as to whether and when we should account for the Berry phase contribution when deriving exchange statistics for any topological phase?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-08 22:41 (UTC), posted by SE-user PhysicsMath
asked Dec 7, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by PhysicsMath (5 points) [ no revision ]
Welcome to Physics Stack Exchange. This is a very interesting post! Please note, however, that it's important to ask one specific question per post. By asking several questions you reduce the probability of getting an answer because for someone to write an answer they have to read, understand, think about, solve, and write a solution for multiple things.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-08 22:41 (UTC), posted by SE-user DanielSank
Hi Daniel, thanks for the reminder. But these two questions are very related because the toric code model is the representative model for abelian anyon statistics and the 2D chiral $p$-wave superconductors is the representative model for nonabelian anyon statistics.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-08 22:41 (UTC), posted by SE-user PhysicsMath

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

For 2D chiral p-wave, it has been shown that the Berry phase contribution vanishes and therefore the exchange statistics is entirely given by the monodromy. This was done in http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505515. For the closely related case of Moore-Read wavefunctions, the problem is much harder and was finally resolved in http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.5194 (plus some numerical verification of two-component plasma screening).

In general, the separation of exchange/braiding statistics into the monodromy and Berry phase is by itself artificial, so it is not clear what kind of "general result" one should expect. In the context of FQH where wavefunctions are obtained from conformal blocks of rational conformal field theory, we expect when the wavefunction represents a gapped phase (i.e. certain plasma is screening), the monodromy coming from the conformal blocks is the whole story and Berry phase contribution should vanish, but I don't think there is a proof.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-12-08 22:41 (UTC), posted by SE-user Meng Cheng
answered Dec 7, 2015 by Meng Cheng (40 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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights