Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
U
usadelndsoc
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Deploy
Releases
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
JYU Condensed Matter Theory
usadelndsoc
Commits
ec0807ab
Commit
ec0807ab
authored
2 years ago
by
patavirt
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
DOC
parent
fc929170
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
doc/discretization.md
+16
-38
16 additions, 38 deletions
doc/discretization.md
with
16 additions
and
38 deletions
doc/discretization.md
+
16
−
38
View file @
ec0807ab
...
@@ -8,11 +8,12 @@ in the action formulation.
...
@@ -8,11 +8,12 @@ in the action formulation.
The action is
The action is
```
math
```
math
S[Q] = \mathrm{Tr}[D(\hat{\nabla}Q)^2 + F_{ij}Q\hat{\nabla}_iQ\hat{\nabla}_jQ + \Omega Q]
S[Q] =
\frac{i\pi\nu}{8}
\mathrm{Tr}[D(\hat{\nabla}Q)^2 +
\alpha
F_{ij}Q\hat{\nabla}_iQ\hat{\nabla}_jQ +
4 i
\Omega Q]
\,,
\,,
```
```
where $
`\hat{\nabla}_j Q = \partial_j Q - i[\mathcal{A}_j, Q]`
$. We'd
where $
`\hat{\nabla}_j Q = \partial_j Q - i[\mathcal{A}_j, Q]`
$
like the discretized functional to be also gauge invariant.
and $
\O
mega =
\e
psilon
\t
au_3 + i
\D
elta$, $
\D
elta^
\d
agger =
\D
elta$.
We'd like the discretized functional to be also gauge invariant.
We subdivide the space to cells, centered on a rectangular lattice
We subdivide the space to cells, centered on a rectangular lattice
$
`\vec{r}_j=(h j_x, h j_y, h j_z)`
$ with $
`j_{x,y,z}\in\mathbb{Z}`
$
$
`\vec{r}_j=(h j_x, h j_y, h j_z)`
$ with $
`j_{x,y,z}\in\mathbb{Z}`
$
...
@@ -49,7 +50,6 @@ the symmetry.
...
@@ -49,7 +50,6 @@ the symmetry.
## Derivative term
## Derivative term
We then discretize
We then discretize
%
```
math
```
math
S_2
S_2
=
=
...
@@ -78,19 +78,7 @@ U_{ji}
...
@@ -78,19 +78,7 @@ U_{ji}
=
=
\sum_{n=0}^\infty i^n |\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j|^n \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds_1\int_{-1/2}^{s_1}ds_2\ldots\int_{-1/2}^{s_{n-1}}ds_n\, \mathcal{A}(s_1)\cdots\mathcal{A}(s_n)
\sum_{n=0}^\infty i^n |\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j|^n \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds_1\int_{-1/2}^{s_1}ds_2\ldots\int_{-1/2}^{s_{n-1}}ds_n\, \mathcal{A}(s_1)\cdots\mathcal{A}(s_n)
```
```
```
math
where $
`\mathcal{A}(s)=\mathcal{A}[(\frac{1}{2} - s)\vec{r}_i + (\frac{1}{2} + s)\vec{r}_j]`
$.
U_{ji}
\approx
1 + i h \mathcal{A}(s=0)
+
\frac{(ih)^2}{2}\mathcal{A}(s=0)^2
+
\mathcal{O}(h^3)
\,,
```
where $
`\mathcal{A}(s)=\mathcal{A}[(\frac{1}{2} - s)\vec{r}_i + (\frac{1}{2} + s)\vec{r}_j]`
$. The second line indicates the midpoint rule,
found using $
`\mathcal{A}(s)\simeq\mathcal{A}(\frac{1}{2}) + (s-\frac{1}{2})\mathcal{A}'(\frac{1}{2})+\ldots`
$
and observing that and $
`\frac{d^n}{ds^n}\mathcal{A}(s) = \mathcal{O}(h^n)`
$.
As well known in lattice QCD, the field strength can be expressed in
As well known in lattice QCD, the field strength can be expressed in
terms of the link matrices $
`U`
$ via a plaquette loop. Consider then
terms of the link matrices $
`U`
$ via a plaquette loop. Consider then
...
@@ -202,24 +190,16 @@ We can also calculate the matrix current $j\mapsto{}i$ between neighboring cells
...
@@ -202,24 +190,16 @@ We can also calculate the matrix current $j\mapsto{}i$ between neighboring cells
J_{ij}^a
J_{ij}^a
=
=
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
S[
U_{ij}
\mapsto
e^{i\xi h T^a} U_{ij}
]\rvert_{\xi=0}
=
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
S[
S[
U_{ij}
U_{ij}
\mapsto
\mapsto
U_{ij}
U_{ij}
+
+
\frac{ih}{2}
T^a U_{ij}\xi
T^a U_{ij}\xi
]\rvert_{\xi=0}
]\rvert_{\xi=0}
```
```
%
where $
`T^a`
$ is an appropriate matrix generator, and the transformation
where $
`T^a`
$ is an appropriate matrix generator, and the transformation
is inserted only
to
one of the links.
is inserted
to
only one of the links.
The local gauge invariance now implies that there is an exact discrete
The local gauge invariance now implies that there is an exact discrete
continuity equation
continuity equation
...
@@ -227,10 +207,10 @@ continuity equation
...
@@ -227,10 +207,10 @@ continuity equation
\sum_{j\in{}N_i} J_{ij}^a
\sum_{j\in{}N_i} J_{ij}^a
=
=
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
S[Q(i)\mapsto{}e^{
i
\xi T^a}Q(i)e^{-
i
\xi T^a}]\rvert_{\xi=0}
S[Q(i)\mapsto{}e^{\xi T^a}Q(i)e^{-\xi T^a}]\rvert_{\xi=0}
=
=
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
S[\Omega(i)\mapsto{}e^{-
i
\xi T^a}\Omega(i)e^{
i
\xi T^a}]\rvert_{\xi=0}
S[\Omega(i)\mapsto{}e^{-\xi T^a}\Omega(i)e^{\xi T^a}]\rvert_{\xi=0}
=
=
R_{i}^a
R_{i}^a
\,.
\,.
...
@@ -238,19 +218,17 @@ continuity equation
...
@@ -238,19 +218,17 @@ continuity equation
This is one main advantage of the procedure, in addition to its
This is one main advantage of the procedure, in addition to its
invariance vs. gauge fixing.
invariance vs. gauge fixing.
However, the definition of the matrix current is
\e
mph{
asymmetric
}
, so
However, the definition of the matrix current is
*
asymmetric
*
, so
that $
`J_{ij}\ne{}-J_{ji}`
$ as they differ by a quantity of order
that $
`J_{ij}\ne{}-J_{ji}`
$ as they differ by a quantity of order
$
`\mathcal{O}(h^2)`
$. The asymmetry arises when $
`T^a`
$ does not commute
$
`\mathcal{O}(h^2)`
$. The asymmetry arises when $
`T^a`
$ does not commute
with $
`U_{ij}`
$, so it is an issue only for the SU(2) component. The
with $
`U_{ij}`
$, so it is an issue only for the SU(2) component. The
problem is to some degree just in the interpretation of what $
`J_{ij}`
$
problem is only in the interpretation.
means:
It is the incoming current measured at site $
`i`
$, whereas
The currents measured at sites $
`i`
$ and $
`j`
$ are different: since
$
`J_{ji}`
$ is measured as site $
`j`
$. Since the parallel transport of
the parallel transport of spin between these two locations can imply
spin between these two locations can imply rotation due to the gauge
rotation due to the gauge field, there's no reason why we should have
field, there's no reason why we should have $
`J_{ij}=-J_{ji}`
$, except
$
`J_{ij}=-J_{ji}`
$, except in the continuum limit where the two points
in the continuum limit where the two points become close to each
become close to each other.
other.
## Implementation
## Implementation
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment