Magnetic response in quantized spin hall phase of correlated electrons

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Goryo, Jun ^a   Maeda, Nobuki ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE   (Japan)

^b HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Electron correlation; Intrinsic spin orbit interaction; Kane Mele model; Layered honeycomb structure; Magnetic response; Quantized spin Hall effect; Superconductivity; Superlattice; Topological BF term

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954454474     PISSN: 00319015     EISSN: 13474073     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.80.044707     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele: Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 146802.
2. C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele: Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 226801.
3. z-conservation is violated by time-reversal-invariant perturbations and the conductivity is no longer well defined, but the helical edge state, which is a hallmark of the quantum SH effect, still survives robustly.1,2,10) As is mentioned in the text, we focus on the quantized spin Hall phase.
4. A. Shitade, H. Katsura, J. Kuneš., X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, and N. Nagaosa: Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 256403.
5. D. A. Pesin and L. Balents: Nat. Phys. 6 (2010) 376.
6. S. Rachel and K. Le Hur: Phys. Rev. B 82 (2010) 075106.
7. J. Goryo and N. Maeda: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 79 (2010) 095001.
8. B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang: Science 314 (2006)
9. M. König, S. Wiedmann, C. Brüne, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang: Science 318 (2007) 766.
10. M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane: Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 3045, and
11. It has been pointed out by Rachel and Le Hur6) that, in the layeredhoneycomb lattice system, the phase transition occurs around U=t ≃f 3
12. G. D. Mahan: Many-Particle Physics (Kluwer Academic, New York, 2000) 3rd ed.
13. Hereafter, we use the Lagrange formalism. The reason is that the topological BF term, which plays a crucial role in our discussion, does not appear in the Hamilton formalism explicitly and the formulation becomes complicated.15.17) We can explain this as follows: The quantized SH effect is one of the physical implications of the term [see Appendix]. It is renown that there is no energy consumption in the quantized SH effect, like the quantized charge Hall effect, since current response is perpendicular to the external field.
14. J. Goryo, N. Maeda, and K.-I. Imura: arXiv:0905.2296.
15. M. Blau and G. Thompson: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 205 (1991) 130.
16. M. Freedman, C. Nayak, K. Shtengel, K. Walker, and Z. Wang: Ann.
17. T. H. Hansson, V. Oganesyan, and S. L. Sondhi: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)
18. G. Y. Cho and J. E. Moore: arXiv:1011.3485; to be published in Ann.
19. G. W. Semenoff, P. Sodano, and Y.-S. Wu: Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989)
20. D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs: Phys.
21. D. J. Thouless: Phys. Rev. B 27 (1983) 6083.
22. X. G. Wen: Int. J. Mod. Phys. 6 (1992) 1711.
23. K. Shizuya: Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2907.
24. N. Maeda: Phys. Lett. B 376 (1996) 142.
25. Y. Hatsugai: Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3697.
26. Y. Hatsugai: Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993) 11851.
27. Professor S. Kurihara: private communication.
28. Substituting eq. (6.2) into the Maxwell equation δ×B/μ -J, where B . ẑB, and taking the rotation of both sides of the equation, we have. mathematical equation represented. To solve it, we can obtain the equivalent results discussed in §4
29. S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 140 (1982)
30. S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton: Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982)
31. N. Imai, K. Ishikawa, and I. Tanaka: Prog. Theor. Phys. 82 (1989) 608.
32. N. Nagaosa and M. Kohmoto: Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4294.
33. P. Kotetes and G. Varelogiannis: Phys. Rev. B 78 (2008) 220509(R).
34. M. C. Diamantini, P. Sodano, and C. A. Trugenberger: Eur. Phys. J. B 53 (2006) 19