How Does the Vector Potential Transform in the Flux-Tube Model for Anyons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReyChiquito
  • Start date Start date
ReyChiquito
Messages
119
Reaction score
1
I have a simple question regarding the flux-tube model for anyons. It may sound complicated but it isnt. So here we go.

Considering the interaction term L_{s}=\frac{\hbar\theta}{\pi}\dot{\phi} where \frac{\theta}{\pi}=\alpha is called "anyon parameter" (0 for bosons, 1 for fermions), and \phi is the relative angle between particles.

I have proven that the Hamiltonian in relative coordinates for that kind of system can be written as
H_{r}=\frac{p_{r}^2}{m}+\frac{(p_{\phi}-\hbar\alpha)^2}{mr^2}.}

In order to generalize the Hamiltonian for a N partices system, the book (Fractional Statistics and Quantum Theory by Khare) introduces the next vector potential:

a_{i}(\bold{r})=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}\frac{\epsilon_{ij}r_{j}}{\bold{r^2}} where \epsilon_{ij} is the antisimetric tensor (i asume).

Then the book goes
\mbox{Thus }a_{x}=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}\mbox{, }a_{y}=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}\frac{-x}{x^2+y^2}\mbox{, or in polar coordinates }
a_{r}=0\mbox{, }a_{\phi}=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}

I know it seems simple to deduce this step but i don't get it, here is what I've done:
a_{i}(\bold{r})=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi\bold{r^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}y\\-x\end{array}\right)=\frac{\Phi}{2\pi\bold{r^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}rsin\phi\\-rcos\phi\end{array}\right)=-\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}\frac{1}{r}\bold{\hat{\phi}}

What am i doing wrong??

I asked a friend of mine and he mentioned something about the metric. To tell you the truth, i don't know what he is talking about. Can anybody explain this to me please?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yea that looks right up to the last step, you basically have it in front of you *the last equality is wrong tho*.. Keep in mind you pick up a factor of r from the transformation..

You know, ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 d(theta)^2
 
Thx.. i knew i was missing something.

Can you explain me from where this factor arrives?

Its directly from calculus (i.e. jacobian) or has to do something with tensors and metric?
 
It's the radial coordinate of the polar coordinates. The formula Haelfix gave is the length differential in polar coordinates.
 
I understand that, maybe i need to refrace my question.

Why this isn't an ordinary change of variables?

I don't see any rates involved so i don't understand why do i have to include that factor.

If this where a simple calculus problem the tangent vector can be described in polar coordinates as
\vec{T}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-y\\x\end{array}\right)=r\hat{\phi}

if i used
\vec{T}=r^2\hat{\phi}

i would be describing the wrong point in space right?, plus, how to correct the minus sign? isn't supossed to be a right hand system?

I KNOW that what I am doing is wrong, and i understand that the r factor must be included and the book is right, but i don't see any reason for including that factor.

Am i missing something simple and i need to review my clac notes?

ps. my quantum mechanics course sucked big time, it was like half spetial functions course and half "learn the dirac algebra and the conmutator operator", i harldy saw any of the stuff u should see in this subject (ie Cohen)
 
Last edited:
Dumping here. Just to see if anybody can explain it to me like i was a 4 year old :P
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top