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 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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Composite fermions: Flux attachment non-relativistic fermion v.s. emergent Dirac fermion

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
54 views

The question concerns the composite fermion as electrons in strong magnetic fields in quantum Hall states; in particular, I am comparing two scenarios:

non-relativistic fermion with flux attachment v.s. Dirac fermion as the vortex dual.

Recently Son proposed an interesting composite fermion picture as Dirac particle (vortex) distinct from the usual flux attachment procedure: http://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031027.

Son tackles the un-easiness and uncomfort of using flux attachment, by giving an example, the Jain sequence quantum Hall states which are particle-hole conjugate pairs with the filling fractions of original electron $\nu=\frac{n}{2n+1}$ and $\nu=\frac{n+1}{2n+1}$. However, using the flux attachment picture, one attach 2 flux quanta to the original electron to form the composite fermion. In this case, we send:

$$\nu=\frac{n+1}{2n+1} \to \nu_{CF}=n$$

$$\nu=\frac{n}{2n+1} \to \nu_{CF}=-(n+1)$$

Namely, the filling fractions of original electron $\nu$ as fractional quantum Hall state is sent to the filling fractions of composite fermion $\nu_{CF}$ with integer filling fractions as integer quantum Hall state.

In the new picture Son proposed, 

$$\nu=\frac{n+1}{2n+1} \to \nu_{CF,Dirac}=n+\frac{1}{2}$$

$$\nu=\frac{n}{2n+1} \to \nu_{CF,Dirac}=-(n+\frac{1}{2})$$

Namely, the filling fractions of original electron $\nu$ as fractional quantum Hall state is sent to the filling fractions of composite fermion $\nu_{CF,Dirac}$ with integer+1/2 filling fractions as quantum Hall state of Dirac particle.

Questions: Since the original Son's proposal is attacking the 1/2-filling Landau level, the compressible un-quantized gapless metallic state, the $n\to \infty$ is taken. And this is not a gapped quantum Hall state. However, from the examples motivated his thinking, the gapped fractional quantum Hall Jain sequence, he seemed not to be satisfactory on the flux attachment on the gapped quantum Hall state as well. Thus, I ask how strong is that Son's attack on flux attachment non-relativistic fermion is incorrect or improper, for just (a) 1/2-filled Landau level gapless metallic state, or (b) also for all the gapped Jain's sequence quantum Hall, or (c) even more general for any composite fermion, as comparing to the new scenario of the Dirac fermion he newly proposed? Namely, does Son mean that the flux attachment on non-relativistic fermion is fundamentally problematic?

However, if Son's attack is a stronger claim, I suppose that there are certain interesting physics (such as Moore-Read Pfaffian state) can still be explained by the flux attachment. I suppose that Son's theory can recover every correct physics of the $\nu=1/2$-filled Landau level state. But does Son's Dirac particle story also work for generic quantum Hall state as well?

asked Nov 3, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by RKKY (320 points) [ revision history ]

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
...