Zwiebach on Lattices: What Does He Mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Zwiebach's statement about lattices indicates that each point on the unit torus corresponds to I distinct points in the C-hat torus due to the identification process. This identification involves mapping points in the unit square to points in a parallelogram, creating multiple representations of each point. The confusion arises from the assumption that compact regions contain the same number of points, but the identification alters this relationship. By visualizing the unit square and its repetitions, one can see how intersection points are replicated across the parallelogram. Understanding this mapping is crucial for grasping the implications of lattices in this context.
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


On this page Zwiebach says that "It is a known fact about lattices that the torus C-hat contains I copies of each point on the unit torus".

I am confused about what this means and what this has to do with lattices. Any compact, 2-dimensional region in a plane contains the same number of points as any other compact 2-dimensional region in the plane since you can find a bijection between the two. So what is Zwiebach really saying here?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
So what is Zwiebach really saying here?
He means that each point in the unit square is mapped to I points in the parallelogram by the indentification x ~ x + 1, y ~ y + 1. (I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I forget exactly what the identification is.)

Look at the unit square in the bottom lefthand corner of the figure, imagine that it is repeated in every square. Consider the intersection points of the oblique lines in the unit square. Now imagine those intersection points also repeated in every square. How many such intersection points will be covered by the parallelogram? Don't forget to identify points that lie on the edges of the parallelogram.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top