Open JerryChen97 opened 4 years ago
Considering that Jx
and Jy
are actually equivalent to each other, we can just fix one of them, e.g. Jx = 1
.
Then, we will vary Jy
and Jz
in some certain areas, e.g. [-2, 2] * [-2, 2].
Or we can just follow the convention of Kitaev to plot the phase diagram on the plane Jx+Jy+Jz=1
.
@aaronszasz which one do you prefer?
I like Plan A personally. You can always plot it in the style of Plan B later.
I like Plan A personally. You can always plot it in the style of Plan B later.
Cool I will start with Plan A
I like Plan A personally. You can always plot it in the style of Plan B later.
I just reconsidered this choice: since the Hamiltonian for our Kitaev ladder is scalable (Jx
, Jy
, and Jz
are of the same dimension), actually working with the plane Jx+Jy+Jz=1
will reflect more information of the phase diagram.
What do you think of this argument? @aaronszasz
The problem is, I'm not really sure what Plan B actually entails. You need a two-parameter parametrization of the Jx+Jy+Jz plane, and fixing Jx = constant seems like a reasonable one. Setting it to 1 is also fine, because you can just correct the energy later to put it on the desired plane.
The problem is, I'm not really sure what Plan B actually entails. You need a two-parameter parametrization of the Jx+Jy+Jz plane, and fixing Jx = constant seems like a reasonable one. Setting it to 1 is also fine, because you can just correct the energy later to put it on the desired plane.
Hmmm indeed this is also true.
Actually now I am trying mapping the parameters onto the unit sphere so that not only it can faithfully keep all the information we want but also the implementation is very easy and convenient.
Plot the phase diagram of the Kitaev ladder