Timeline for Loop defects in Walker-Wang model
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | Kevin Walker | ... For example, a module category for $A(S)$ can be used to modify the WW hamiltonian near a loop, and thus describe a loop defect. For excitations, I'm not sure what counts as "intuitive". If you have a favorite way of understanding excitations in, say, the toric code, then probably there is an analogous description of excitations for LW and WW models. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 17:23 | comment | added | Kevin Walker | I tend to think it terms of string nets, so I'm not sure I can say what is intuitive from the lattice hamiltonian point of view, but I'll try. Crude boundary conditions correspond to fixing certain spins near the boundary of the lattice, I think. Defects can be described nicely from the lattice point of view. Along the defect there are special degrees of freedom (spins), and near the defect there are special terms in the hamiltonian describing the interaction between the defect spins and the bulk spins. ... | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 15:23 | vote | accept | Abbas | ||
| Mar 30, 2015 at 15:23 | comment | added | Abbas | Thanks for the answer. For someone familiar with the Hamiltonian version of the WW and LW models, and trying to understand the skein space/string-net picture, is there an intuitive way to think about the various ingredients involved including quasiparticle excitations? This is not obvious to me, for example, the term boundary, as in lattice boundary and manifold boundary is not the same. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 13:48 | history | edited | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a couple of clarifying remarks
|
| Mar 27, 2015 at 22:16 | history | answered | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |