Quick Navigation
Topics
Topological Quantum Computing
Quantum Simulation
Semionic resonating valence bond states
arXiv
Authors: Mohsin Iqbal, Didier Poilblanc, Norbert Schuch
Year
2014
Paper ID
48353
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
166
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The nature of the kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet (HAFM) is under ongoing debate. While recent evidence points towards a Z_2 topological spin liquid, the exact nature of the topological phase is still unclear. In this paper, we introduce semionic Resonating Valence Bond (RVB) states, this is, Resonating Valence Bond states which are in the Z_2 ordered double-semion phase, and study them using Projected Entangled Pair States (PEPS). We investigate their physics and study their suitability as an ansatz for the HAFM, as compared to a conventional RVB state which is in the Toric Code Z_2 topological phase. In particular, we find that a suitably optimized "semionic simplex RVB" outperforms the equally optimized conventional "simplex RVB" state, and that the entanglement spectrum (ES) of the semionic RVB behaves very differently from the ES of the conventional RVB, which suggests to use the ES to discriminate the two phases. Finally, we also discuss the possible relevance of space group symmetry breaking in valence bond wavefunctions with double-semion topological order.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.