Pierels substitution integral approximation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Peierls substitution in the context of a tight binding model as presented in the textbook "Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors" by B. Andrei Bernevig and Taylor L. Hughes. Participants are examining the approximation used in the integration of the vector potential and questioning the presence of a factor of 1/2 in the equations provided in the textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites the textbook's approximation for the integral of the vector potential, questioning the disappearance of the factor of 1/2 when transitioning from equation 3.9a to 3.10.
  • Another participant asserts that the factor of 1/2 should not be present in the final expression, suggesting that the vector potential is simply evaluated at the midpoint of the interval.
  • A subsequent participant expresses confusion and requests a source for the claim that the factor of 1/2 is incorrect, reiterating that their equation is directly from the textbook.
  • Another participant agrees with the assertion that the textbook contains errors, labeling the presence of the factor of 1/2 as a mistake in basic calculus.
  • A final participant humorously remarks that expressions should be considered "up to multiple numerical factors," implying that the discrepancy is minor but acknowledges the specific issue of the factor of 1/2 in this case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the presence of the factor of 1/2 in the equations from the textbook. Some participants believe it is an error, while others defend the textbook's formulation, leading to an unresolved debate on the correctness of the approximation.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific equations and approximations from the textbook, indicating a reliance on the text's authority while also highlighting perceived errors. The discussion involves technical details that may depend on interpretations of calculus and vector potential evaluations.

DeathbyGreen
Messages
83
Reaction score
15
In the textbook "Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors" by B. Andrei Bernevig and Taylor L. Hughes, there is a chapter titled "Hall conductance and Chern Numbers". In section 3.1.2 (page 17) they are discussing including an external field in a tight binding model, the Peierls substitution. They make the statement that "if the vector potential" A(s,t) "does not vary widely over the integration path" (when moving from lattice site R to R') we can use the approximation

\int_R^{R'}A(s,t)\cdot ds \approx (R-R')\cdot \frac{1}{2}(A(R',t)+A(R,t)) \approx. (R'-R)\cdot \frac{1}{2}A\left(\frac{R'+R}{2},t\right)

which is equation (3.9a). In equation 3.10, they use this substitution (changing variables with r=i-j):

<br /> H_{ext} = \sum_{k_1k_2\alpha\beta}c^{\dagger}_{k_1\alpha}c_{k_2\beta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{rj}e^{i(k_2-k_1)j - ik_1r}h^{\alpha\beta}_r(t)i\int_j^{j+r}A_p(t)dl\\<br /> \approx<br /> \sum_{k_1k_2\alpha\beta}c^{\dagger}_{k_1\alpha}c_{k_2\beta}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{rj}e^{i(k_2-k_1)j - ik_1r}h^{\alpha\beta}_r(t)irA_p(j<br /> +\frac{r}{2},t)<br />

I don't understand where the \frac{1}{2} goes. It seems to disappear going from equation 3.9a to 3.10.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
DeathbyGreen said:
In the textbook "Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors" by B. Andrei Bernevig and Taylor L. Hughes, there is a chapter titled "Hall conductance and Chern Numbers". In section 3.1.2 (page 17) they are discussing including an external field in a tight binding model, the Peierls substitution. They make the statement that "if the vector potential" A(s,t) "does not vary widely over the integration path" (when moving from lattice site R to R') we can use the approximation

\int_R^{R&#039;}A(s,t)\cdot ds \approx (R-R&#039;)\cdot \frac{1}{2}(A(R&#039;,t)+A(R,t)) \approx. (R&#039;-R)\cdot \frac{1}{2}A\left(\frac{R&#039;+R}{2},t\right)
The factor 1/2 you have in the last expression on the right should not be there. (## A(s,t) ## is simply getting evaluated at the midpoint of the interval.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DeathbyGreen
Thank you! Do you have a source for that? The equation I wrote

\int_R^{R&#039;}A(s,t)\cdot ds \approx (R-R&#039;)\cdot \frac{1}{2}(A(R&#039;,t)+A(R,t)) \approx. (R&#039;-R)\cdot \frac{1}{2}A\left(\frac{R&#039;+R}{2},t\right)

Is straight from the textbook, no typos.
 
DeathbyGreen said:
Thank you! Do you have a source for that? The equation I wrote

\int_R^{R&#039;}A(s,t)\cdot ds \approx (R-R&#039;)\cdot \frac{1}{2}(A(R&#039;,t)+A(R,t)) \approx. (R&#039;-R)\cdot \frac{1}{2}A\left(\frac{R&#039;+R}{2},t\right)

Is straight from the textbook, no typos.
Then they goofed. This is basic calculus. The 1/2 in the 3rd expression (in front of the ## A ##), is in error.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MisterX and DeathbyGreen
That textbook is full of errors. They did a really bad job.
 
From my lecturers and students in QFT,Electromagnetism, Statistical Mechanics and Solid State Physics every expression should be regarded as "upto multiple numerical factor" correct.

In your case it's only half, that's superb! :-D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
971
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K