1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,prl]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[aps,epsfig,float,twocolumn,prl]{revtex4}

3: %\documentstyle[aps,epsfig,float,twocolumn,prl]{revtex}

4: %\documentstyle[11pt]{article}

5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

7: \newcommand{\sg}{\rm{sign}}

8: 

9: \usepackage{graphicx}

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: \usepackage{amstext}

12: \usepackage{amssymb}

13: \usepackage{amsfonts}

14: \usepackage{amsbsy} 

15: %\usepackage{showkeys} 

16: 

17: 

18: 

19: 

20: \renewcommand{\v}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}

21: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

22: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

23: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}

24: \renewcommand{\t}[1]{\tilde{#1}}

25: \renewcommand{\th}{\theta}

26: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}

27: 

28: 

29: 

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{document}

33: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

34: 

35: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname @twocolumnfalse\endcsname

36: 

37: \title{Quasi-adiabatic Continuation of Quantum States: 

38: %Area, Perimeter, and Zero Laws

39: The Stability of Topological Ground State Degeneracy

40: and Emergent Gauge Invariance

41: }

42: \author{M. B. Hastings$^1$ }

43: \email{hastings@lanl.gov} 

44: \author{Xiao-Gang Wen$^2$}

45: \homepage{http://dao.mit.edu/~wen} 

46: %} \address{

47: \affiliation{$^1$Center for Nonlinear Studies and Theoretical Division,

48: Los Alamos National

49: Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}

50: \affiliation{

51: $^2$Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

52: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

53: }

54: 

55: \date{March 7, 2005}

56: \begin{abstract}

57: We define for quantum many-body systems a quasi-adiabatic continuation of

58: quantum states.  The continuation is valid

59: when the Hamiltonian has a gap, or else has a sufficiently small

60: low-energy density of states, and thus is away from a quantum phase

61: transition.  This continuation takes local operators into local operators,

62: while approximately

63: preserving the ground state expectation values.  We apply this

64: continuation to the problem of gauge theories coupled to matter, and propose a

65: new distinction, perimeter law versus ``zero law" to identify confinement.

66: We also apply the continuation to local bosonic models with emergent gauge

67: theories. We show that local gauge invariance is topological and cannot

68: be broken by any local perturbations in the bosonic models in either

69: continuous or discrete gauge groups.  We show that

70: the ground state degeneracy in emergent discrete gauge theories

71: is a robust property of the bosonic model, and we argue that the

72: robustness of local gauge invariance in the continuous case protects

73: the gapless gauge boson.

74: \vskip2mm

75: \end{abstract}

76: \maketitle

77: %]

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: 

81: Traditionally,

82: gauge theory was described as a theory of a vector field $a_\mu$ that has

83: a local gauge symmetry.  In a Lagrangian framework,

84: this means $L(a_\mu+\partial_\mu

85: \phi)=L(a_\mu)$.  This gauge symmetry was believed to be

86: the defining property

87: of a gauge theory. It was believed that the gauge symmetry protects the gapless

88: gauge boson for continuous gauge groups and the topological ground state

89: degeneracy on

90: compact space for discrete gauge groups. Even the slightest gauge symmetry

91: breaking, such as a gauge potential term $(a_\mu)^2$ in the Lagrangian, gives a

92: finite mass to the gauge boson or lifts the topological degeneracy.  In this

93: case we can no longer regard the theory as a gauge theory at low energies.

94: 

95: However, the above standard picture for gauge symmetry protecting gapless

96: gauge bosons and ground state degeneracy is very formal, since the gauge

97: symmetry is not really a symmetry.

98: %is very different from the continuous global symmetry that protects the

99: %gaplessness of Goldstone bosons. 

100: Within the Hamiltonian formulation of gauge theories, the gauge transformation

101: is simply a transformation between different labels that label the \emph{same}

102: physical state. It is a do-nothing transformation.  It is very different from

103: the usual symmetry transformation that transforms a physical state to a

104: \emph{different} physical state.  

105: Therefore, it is not clear what is the essence of 

106: gauge theory and gauge symmetry.

107: %So the standard picture for gauge theory is too formal that may hide the

108: %essence of the gauge theory and gauge symmetry. It may hide the physical

109: %reason why gauge bosons are gapless. 

110: 

111: In last 15 years, it was shown, with increasing rigor, that \emph{deconfined}

112: gauge theories can emerge from certain local bosonic lattice models.

113: \cite{KL8795,WWZcsp,RS9173,Wsrvb,SF0050,MS0181,Wqoslpub,Wlight,SP0258,BFG0212,%

114: MS0204,Walight,MS0312,HFB0404,AFF0493,LWstrnet} If the emergent gauge theory

115: has a continuous gauge group, the local bosonic model will have gapless

116: excitations that behave just like gauge

117: bosons.\cite{Wlight,MS0204,Walight,MS0312,HFB0404}  If the emergent gauge

118: theory has a discrete gauge group or has a Chern-Simons term, the local

119: bosonic model will have degenerate ground states on compact

120: space.\cite{Wrig,WNtop,Wsrvb}  This raises a physical question: what protects

121: the gapless gauge bosons and the ground state degeneracy?  According to the

122: standard picture for gauge theory, those properties are protected by gauge

123: symmetry, but from the point of view of local bosonic model, what is this

124: ``gauge symmetry''?  How does ``gauge symmetry'' emerge at low energies?

125: 

126: A close examination of those local bosonic models with emergent gauge theory

127: reveals that the emergence of gauge theory is intimately connected to

128: string condensation.\cite{Walight,LWstrnet} The ``gauge symmetry'' is

129: related to the integrity of the strings.  If the strings are unbreakable, one

130: can show that the low energy states are gauge invariant.  However, in general,

131: the strings in the boson model are not perfectly well defined. Strings may

132: break up momentarily and rejoin.  One may wonder if this means that the

133: ``gauge symmetry'' becomes approximate. We know that a theory that loses its

134: ``gauge symmetry'' even slightly no longer behaves like a gauge theory at low

135: energies. This seems to suggest that breakable strings will give gauge bosons a

136: mass gap or lift the ground state degeneracy.

137: 

138: On the other hand, it was believed that the gaplessness of the gauge bosons

139: and the degeneracy of the ground states in those bosonic models are

140: topological and are robust against any local

141: perturbations.\cite{Wrig,WNtop,Wsrvb}

142: % of the bosonic model. 

143: A formal argument goes as the follows (see, for example, Ref. \cite{Wen04},

144: page 393 and page 435).  We first derive the low energy effective gauge theory

145: of the bosonic model.  We then argue that any generic perturbation of the

146: bosonic model cannot generate any terms that break the ``gauge symmetry'' in

147: the low energy effective gauge theory. Therefore, all the properties protected

148: by the ``gauge symmetry'' are robust against arbitrary perturbations of the

149: bosonic model.  

150: 

151: We see that to understand why ``gauge symmetry'' remains exact

152: even for a generic boson model with virtually breakable strings is vital in

153: our understanding why the degeneracy of the ground states is protected even

154: when the original boson model has no symmetry, and why  the gaplessness of the

155: gauge bosons is protected even when the original boson model has only

156: translation symmetry.  We would like to address some of these issues in this

157: paper.

158: 

159: In the next section, we start by introducing some bosonic models with emergent

160: gauge theories, and raise the question of the ability of topological order and

161: gauge symmetry to survive local perturbations of the Hamiltonian, as well as

162: proposing the zero law to identify deconfined gauge theories.  We then

163: introduce in the following section a quasi-adiabatic continuation which

164: enables us to identify appropriately dressed operators for the perturbed

165: Hamiltonian, such that the dressed operator has almost the same ground state

166: expectation value for the perturbed Hamiltonian as the original operator had

167: for the original Hamiltonian.  The final section illustrates the application

168: of the continuation

169: via a series of examples, beginning with local models without

170: emergent gauge structure, such as quantum Ising models, and then going on to

171: emergent gauge theories.  Many of these systems are theories for which the

172: unperturbed Hamiltonian has a ground state degeneracy and then a gap to the

173: rest of the spectrum, with no local operators connecting the degenerate ground

174: states.  We are then able to show that, so long as the gap to the rest of the

175: spectrum remains open, the splitting between the low energy states of the

176: perturbed Hamiltonian remains exponentially small.  This is illustrated in the

177: case of the ferromagnetic quantum Ising model; in the case of the fractional

178: quantum Hall effect where we are able to extend results on the insensitivity

179: of the topological degeneracy to disorder\cite{Wrig,WNtop}; and in the case of

180: an emergent $Z_2$ gauge theory.  The case of gapless theories is also

181: discussed; it will turn out that gauge symmetry is much more robust

182: in compact than in non-compact theories.

183: 

184: \section{Simple local bosonic models with emergent gauge theories}

185: 

186: To make the above discussion more concrete, in this section we are going to

187: discuss two simple bosonic models that have emergent $Z_2$ and $U(1)$ 

188: gauge theories respectively.

189: 

190: \subsection{A bosonic model with emergent $Z_2$ gauge theory}

191: 

192: The first bosonic model is a spin-1/2 model on a $d$-dimensional cubic lattice.

193: \cite{W7159,K7959,K032}

194: The spins live on the links labeled by $\v i$.

195: The Hamiltonian is given by

196: \begin{eqnarray}

197: \label{HZ2}

198:  H_0=U\sum_{\v I}\left( 1-W_{\v I}\right)

199: -g\sum_{\v p} \left(\prod_\text{edges of $\v p$} \si^x_{\v i}\right)

200: \end{eqnarray}

201: where $\v I$ labels the vertices and $\v p$ the squares of the lattice, and

202: $W_{\v I}$ is given by

203: \begin{equation}

204: \label{xf}

205:  W_{\v I}=\prod_\text{legs of $\v I$} \si^z_{\v i}.

206: \end{equation}

207: The legs of a vertex are the links that connect to the vertex and the edges

208: of a square are the four links around the square.

209: $\si^{x,y,z}$ are the Pauli matrices.

210: 

211: \begin{figure}[tb]

212: \centerline{

213: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{z2str.eps}

214: }

215: \caption{

216: A closed-string state. The up-spins are represented by open dots

217: and the down-spin by filled dots.

218: }

219: \label{z2str}

220: \end{figure}

221: 

222: \begin{figure}[tb]

223: \centerline{

224: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{specH0.eps}

225: }

226: \caption{

227: The energy levels of $N$ spin-1/2 spins described by $H_0$.

228: }

229: \label{specH0}

230: \end{figure}

231: 

232: When $U$ is very large, the low energy sector of the model is formed by closed

233: string states. What are the closed string states?

234: First, the state with all spins up is defined as the no string state.

235: A closed string state is a state where the down spins form closed loops

236: (see Fig. \ref{z2str}). 

237: We note that the close-string states are the states that satisfy

238: $ W_{\v I} |\text{closed strings}\> = |\text{closed strings}\>$,

239: Since $[W_{\v I}, H_0]=0$, the closed-string states and the open-string 

240: states\footnote{The open-string states are states which are not closed-string

241: states.} do not mix.

242: This allows us to plot the

243: spectrum of $H_0$ separately for closed-string states and open-string states

244: in Fig. \ref{specH0}.

245: 

246: When

247: $g>0$, the ground state $|\Phi_0\>$ of the model is the equal weight

248: superposition of all closed string states. Such a state is called a

249: closed-string condensed state since the closed-string creation operator

250: $S(C_\text{closed})$ has a non-zero expectation value \cite{Wqoexct}

251: \begin{eqnarray}

252: \label{zlaw}

253:  \<\Phi_0|S(C_\text{closed})|\Phi_0\>=1

254: \end{eqnarray}

255: regardless of the size of the string $C_\text{closed}$.

256: Here a string creation operator that creates a string $C$ is given by

257: \begin{eqnarray*}

258: S(C)=\prod_{\v i\text{ on }C}\si^x_{\v i}.

259: \end{eqnarray*}

260: We can show (\ref{zlaw}) to be true by noting that

261: \begin{equation}

262: \label{SHcom}

263:  [S(C_\text{closed}), H_0]=0.

264: \end{equation}

265: 

266: 

267: What is the physical character of the closed-string condensed state?  It is

268: believed that the  closed-string condensed state contain a new kind of order

269: -- topological order -- which cannot be characterized by symmetry breaking and

270: long range order.\cite{Wrig,LWstrnet} So we need a new way to characterize such

271: an order.  One way to characterize the topological order is through the robust

272: ground state degeneracy on torus.\cite{WNtop,Wsrvb} The closed-string condensed

273: state in our spin-1/2 model is characterized by a four-fold ground state

274: degeneracy.

275: 

276: To show the four-fold ground state degeneracy,

277: we would like to first point out that the $S(C_\text{close})$ are not the only

278: closed string operators that commute with the Hamiltonian.

279: We can define dual string operators that also commute with the

280: Hamiltonian.\cite{K032}

281: 

282: \begin{figure}[tb]

283: \centerline{

284: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{z2dstr.eps}

285: }

286: \caption{

287: A dual closed-string.

288: }

289: \label{z2dstr}

290: \end{figure}

291: 

292: While strings are formed by segments that connect nearest neighbor vertices,

293: dual strings are formed by segments that connect the centers of

294: nearest neighbor squares (see Fig. \ref{z2dstr}). 

295: A dual string operator $\t S(\t C)$ for a dual

296: string $\t C$ is defined as

297: \begin{equation}

298: \label{ds}

299: \t S(\t C)=\prod_{\v i\text{ cross }\t C}\si^z_{\v i}.

300: \end{equation}

301: One can check that

302: \begin{equation}

303: \label{SHcomD}

304:  [\t S(\t C_\text{closed}), H_0]=0,

305: \end{equation}

306: which implies that the dual closed-strings also condense

307: \begin{eqnarray}

308: \label{zlawD}

309:  \<\Phi_0|\t S(\t C_\text{closed})|\Phi_0\>=1.

310: \end{eqnarray}

311: 

312: Now we are ready to show that the ground states of $H_0$ on torus have at

313: least four-fold degeneracy.  Let $C_x$ and $C_y$ ($\t C_x$ and $\t C_y$)

314: be the closed (dual) strings that wrap around the torus once in $x$ and $y$

315: directions.  We find that the four large-string operators

316: $(S(C_x), S(C_y),\t S(\t C_x), \t S(\t C_y))$ commute with each other

317: except

318: \begin{eqnarray}

319: \label{acr}

320:  \{S(C_x), \t S(\t C_y)\}=0, \ \ \ \ \ \ 

321:  \{\t S(\t C_x), S(C_y)\}=0. 

322: \end{eqnarray}

323: The above algebra has only one four-dimensional irreducible representation.

324: Since the large-closed-string operators $(S(C_x), S(C_y),\t S(\t C_x), \t S(\t

325: C_y))$ act within the degenerate ground states, the ground state degeneracy

326: must be a multiple of four.

327: 

328: When $U= \infty$, the model becomes the $Z_2$ gauge theory.\cite{W7159}  

329: One way to see

330: this is to note that the only states with finite energies are

331: closed-string states and closed-string states are gauge invariant states under

332: local $Z_2$ gauge transformations.  The local $Z_2$ gauge transformations are

333: generated by the unitary operators $W_{\v I}$ in (\ref{xf}):

334: \begin{eqnarray}

335: \label{gaugeinv}

336:  W_{\v I} |\text{closed strings}\> = |\text{closed strings}\> \ \ \

337: \text{for any }\v I.

338: \end{eqnarray}

339: A generic $Z_2$ gauge transformation is given by

340: \begin{eqnarray}

341: \prod_{\v I} (W_{\v I})^{n_{\v I}} |\text{closed strings}\> 

342: = |\text{closed strings}\> .

343: \end{eqnarray}

344: %%where $n_{\v I}=0,1$ and a local $Z_2$ transformation $W_{\v I}$

345: %is given by (\ref{xf}).

346: In the gauge theory language the closed-string operator

347: $S(C_\text{closed})$ turns out to be the Wilson-loop operator,\cite{W7159,W7445}

348: which is gauge invariant

349: \begin{equation*}

350: W_{\v I} S(C_\text{closed}) W_{\v I}^\dag = S(C_\text{closed}) .

351: \end{equation*}

352: 

353: (\ref{zlaw}) implies that the expectation values

354: of the Wilson loop satisfies the perimeter law

355: \begin{eqnarray}

356: \label{plaw}

357:  \<\Phi_0|S(C_\text{closed})|\Phi_0\>\sim e^{-\alpha |C_\text{closed}|}

358: \end{eqnarray}

359: with zero coefficient $\alpha=0$. Here $|C_\text{closed}|$ is the length

360: of the string $C_\text{close}$.

361: In this case we will call (\ref{zlaw}) the zero law.

362: 

363: The perimeter law indicates that the $Z_2$ gauge theory is in the deconfined

364: phase. The $Z_2$ deconfined phase has four nearly degenerate ground states on

365: the torus which is  consistent with our previous direct calculation on the

366: spin model. The energy separation between the four nearly degenerate ground

367: states is of order $e^{-L/\xi}$ where $L$ is the linear size of the torus and

368: $\xi$ a finite length scale.

369: 

370: Now let us add a term

371: \begin{equation*}

372:  H_1=-J_1\sum_{\v i} \si^z_{\v i}

373: \end{equation*}

374: to our spin model Hamiltonian $H_0$ and assume $U$ is finite.  

375: $S(C_x)$ and $S(C_y)$ no longer commute

376: with the modified Hamiltonian $H_0+H_1$. So it is not clear if $H_0+H_1$ still

377: has four degenerate ground states on a torus. 

378: 

379: %Certainly, if $J_1\gg g$, the

380: %ground state is given by a state where almost all spins pointing up, which is

381: %non degenerate. But when $J_1\ll g$, do we still have the four-fold degeneracy

382: %in the ground states?

383: 

384: To understand the properties of modified spin system $H_0+H_1$, we note that

385: $H_0+H_1$ still does not mix the closed-string and open-string states.  So if

386: $U\gg g,J_1$, the low lying states are still closed string states.  One can

387: check that if we restrict $H_0+H_1$ to the close-string subspace, the system

388: is identical to a pure lattice $Z_2$ gauge theory.

389: %On the other hand, the low energy sector of $H_0+H_1$ is still formed by

390: %closed strings if $U$ is very large.  Those low energy closed-string states

391: %are still invariant under the $Z_2$ gauge transformation. This leads us to

392: %think that low energy effective theory is still a pure $Z_2$ gauge theory.  

393: A pure $Z_2$ gauge theory has two phases in d+1 dimensions if $d > 1$: a

394: deconfined phase where the expectation value of the Wilson loop satisfies the

395: perimeter law, and a confined phase where the expectation value of the Wilson

396: loop satisfies the area law: \begin{eqnarray} \label{alaw}

397: \<\Phi_0|S(C_\text{closed})|\Phi_0\>\sim e^{-\gamma A(C_\text{closed})},

398: \end{eqnarray} where $A(C_\text{closed})$ is the area enclosed by the loop

399: $C_\text{closed}$ and $\gamma >0$.  So we expect our spin model $H_0+H_1$ also

400: has two phases.  If $|J_1|\ll |g|$, the ground state of the spin model is

401: filled with large closed strings which correspond to the $Z_2$ deconfined

402: phase.  If $J_1 \gg |g|$, the ground state of the spin model hardly has any

403: strings (i.e. almost all spins point up) which correspond to deconfined phase.

404: 

405: Base on this picture, we guess that when  $|J_1|\ll |g|$, the ground states of

406: $H_0+H_1$ are (nearly) four-fold degenerate, while when $|J_1|\gg |g|$ the

407: ground state is not degenerate.  But the result for $|J_1|\ll |g|$ clearly is

408: just a guess. Can we provide a more rigorous proof?

409: 

410: \begin{figure}[tb]

411: \centerline{

412: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{specH012.eps}

413: }

414: \caption{

415: The energy levels of $N$ spin-1/2 spins described by $H_0+H_1+H_2$, assuming

416: $|J_1|,|J_2| \ll |g| \ll U \ll N|g|$.

417: }

418: \label{specH012}

419: \end{figure}

420: 

421: The situation gets even more complicated if we add another term

422: \begin{equation*}

423:  H_2=-J_2\sum_{\v i} \si^x_{\v i}.

424: \end{equation*}

425: Such a term can mix the closed-string and open-string states.  The low energy

426: sector of $H_0+H_1+H_2$ is not formed by simple closed-string states, although

427: the mixing with the open string states may be small for small $J_2$ (see Fig.

428: \ref{specH012}).  It appears that $H_2$ breaks the $Z_2$ ``gauge symmetry''

429: since the low energy states no longer satisfy (\ref{gaugeinv}).  

430: 

431: 

432: Also when $J_2 \neq 0$ and $U<\infty$, the expectation

433: value of a closed string operators satisfies the perimeter law in both

434: $|J_1|\ll |g|$ limit and $J_1\gg |g|$ limit, which give no sign of two phases.

435: All of those suggest that the four-fold ground state degeneracy is lifted

436: by a finite $J_2$.

437: 

438: \begin{figure}[tb]

439: \centerline{

440: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{z2phs.eps}

441: }

442: \caption{

443: A likely quantum phase diagram for the spin-1/2 system $H_0+H_1+H_2$.

444: The deconfined phase is characterized by

445: four nearly degenerate ground states on torus

446: with energy splitting of order $e^{-L/\xi}$ where $L$ is the linear size of the

447: torus and $\xi$ a length scale.

448: The confined phase is characterized by a non degenerate ground state on torus.

449: In general, the confined phase and the deconfined phase are distinguished by

450: the zero law and the perimeter law of certain loop operators.

451: }

452: \label{z2phs}

453: \end{figure}

454: 

455: But this suggestion is incorrect. Ref.  \cite{Wsrvb} argues that any local

456: perturbations of $H_0$ cannot break the $Z_2$ ``gauge symmetry''.  As a

457: result, $H_0+H_1+H_2$ will have four nearly degenerate ground states as long

458: as $J_1$ and $J_2$ are not too large. Such a phase contains a non-trivial

459: topological order. However, Ref.  \cite{Wsrvb} only provides a formal

460: argument. A more rigorous understanding is needed.

461: 

462: Certainly, large $J_1$ and $J_2$ will polarize the spins and lift the ground

463: state degeneracy.  Such a phase has a trivial topological order.  This

464: suggests a phase diagram in Fig. \ref{z2phs}.  We note that the two phases in

465: Fig. \ref{z2phs} have the same symmetry and are distinguished only by

466: topological orders.  

467: 

468: {}From the phase diagram, we see that when $J_2\neq 0$ the perimeter/area laws

469: of the closed string operators (or Wilson loop) cannot determine if the ground

470: state is topologically ordered or not.  Thus for a generic bosonic model,

471: perimeter/area laws of the closed string operators is not the proper way to

472: test if the ground state has closed-string condensation (or non-trivial

473: topological order).  

474: 

475: In the examples

476: section, we will show that the topological phase is characterized

477: by dressed closed-string operators which satisfy the zero law. The trivial

478: phase does not contain any such closed string operator.  The closed string

479: operators in the trivial phase all satisfy the perimeter law.  So it is the

480: zero/perimeter laws that distinguish topological/trivial (deconfined/confined)

481: phases, instead of perimeter/area laws.

482: 

483: For $J_1=J_2=0$, the system has an exact four-fold degeneracy of the ground

484: state on the torus, followed by a gap of order $g$ to the next lowest state.

485: The closed-string operators satisfy the zero law.  In the examples section, we

486: will show that, for small but non-zero $J_1$ and $J_2$, a deformed or dressed

487: closed-string operator can still  satisfy the zero law.  The zero law of the

488: dressed string operator allows us to show the four-fold degeneracy of the

489: ground states in the small $J_{1,2}$ limit.  More precisely, we assume that

490: the gap, from the four lowest states to the rest of the spectrum, remains

491: open, and then we show the four-fold ground state degeneracy up to an

492: exponentially small splitting.  We will also show that, in the small $J_{1,2}$

493: limit, the low energy sector of the model is still formed by $Z_2$ gauge

494: invariant states.  However, for $J_2\neq 0$, the gauge invariance is under a

495: deformed $Z_2$ gauge transformation.  So in this sense, none of the small

496: perturbations in the spin model can break the ``gauge symmetry'' in the low

497: energy effective gauge theory.

498: 

499: \subsection{A bosonic model with emergent $U(1)$ gauge theory}

500: 

501: In our second bosonic model, we consider rotors on the links of

502: $d$-dimensional cubic lattice.

503: A rotor can be viewed as a particle moving on a circle.

504: The position of the particle is given by an angle $\th$,

505: and the angular momentum of the particle by $L^z=-i \partial_\th$.

506: The Hamiltonian of the rotor model is given by

507: %(see Fig. \ref{})

508: % \cite{Walight,Wen04,HFB0404}

509: \begin{align}

510: \label{strnetH}

511: H_\text{rotor} &= U\sum_{\v I}  Q^2_{\v I}

512: - g \sum_{\v p} (B_{\v p}+h.c.)

513: \nonumber\\

514: &\ \ \ \ + J_1 \sum_{\v i} (L^z_{\v i})^2 

515: + J_2 \sum_{\v i} (L^+_{\v i}+L^-_{\v i})

516: \\

517: B_{\v p} &= L^+_{1}L^-_{2}L^+_{3}L^-_{4},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

518: Q_{\v I} = (-)^{\v I} \sum_{\text{legs of }\v I} L^z_{\v i} ,

519: \nonumber 

520: \end{align}

521: where $\v I$ 

522: labels the vertices, $\v i$ labels the links and $\v p$

523: labels the squares of the cubic lattice.

524: %The legs of $\v I$ are the six links that are attached to the vertex $\v I$

525: %(see Fig. \ref{cubbos}b), and 

526: 1, 2, 3, 4 label the four links that form

527: the edges of the square $\v p$.

528: $L^+=e^{i\th}$ is the raising operator of $L^z$, $L^-=(L^+)^\dag$, and

529: $(-)^{\v I}=1$ for the even vertices and.

530: $(-)^{\v I}=-1$ for the odd vertices.

531: 

532: %In this paper, we mainly consider the case where $S$ is a large integer

533: %(or more precisely $S\to \infty$ limit). However, due to the stability of the

534: %string-net condensed state in 3D, we expect many results about the condensed

535: %state remain to be valid for relatively small $S$ \cite{MS0312} or even

536: %half-integer $S$ \cite{HFB0404}. 

537: 

538: 

539: \begin{figure}[tb]

540: \centerline{

541: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{u1str.eps}

542: }

543: \caption{

544: The empty dots represent rotors with $L^z=0$ -- the no string states. 

545: A closed string is formed by a loop connecting

546: neighboring vertices.

547: A closed-string state is obtained by

548: alternately increase or decrease $L^z$

549: by 1 along the closed string.

550: The filled dots represent rotors with $L^z=\pm 1$.

551: The arrows on the links all point from even vertices to odd vertices.

552: }

553: \label{u1str}

554: \end{figure}

555: 

556: When $g=J_1=J_2=0$ and $U>0$, 

557: the ground states are highly degenerate and form a low

558: energy subspace.  One of the ground states is the state with $L^z_{\v i}=0$

559: for every rotor.  Other ground states can be constructed from the first ground

560: state by drawing an loop in the cubic lattice, and then alternately increasing

561: or decreasing $L^z$ by 1 along the loop (see Fig.~\ref{u1str}).  The sum

562: $\sum_{\text{legs of }\v I} L^z_{\v i}$ vanishes on every vertices for such a

563: closed-string state.  Such a process can be repeated to construct all of the

564: degenerate ground states.  We see that the degenerate ground states are formed

565: by loops, or more precisely string-nets, since loops can overlap and form

566: branched strings.

567: 

568: %We may define the orientation of the string on a link

569: %as pointing from the even vertex (where $I_x+I_y+I_z=$even) to odd vertex if

570: %$L^z>0$ and from the odd vertex to even vertex if $L^z<0$.  Under this

571: %definition, the loops in the degenerate ground state are all oriented strings.

572: 

573: The $J_1$-term gives the strings in the degenerate ground states a fine

574: energy and represents string tension. The $B_{\v p}$ operator creates a small

575: loop of closed string or deforms the existing strings. 

576: %in the degenerate ground states.

577: Thus the $g$-term generates string ``hopping'' or string fluctuations.

578: 

579: The $J_{1,2}$-term and the $g$-term lift the degeneracy of the ground states.

580: In the $U\gg J_{1} \gg \text{max}(|g|,|J_2|)$ limit, the true ground state correspond to a

581: state with almost no strings (i.e., a state with $L^z_{\v i}=0$ on every

582: link). The excitations above such a state have finite energy gaps.  In the

583: $U\gg |g| \gg J_{1,2}>0$ limit, the true ground state is a superposition of

584: many large closed strings \cite{Walight,Wen04}. Such a state is a string-net

585: condensed state.  

586: 

587: When $J_2=0$, the Hamiltonian $H_\text{rotor}$ does not mix the closed-string

588: states and open-string states. 

589: When  restricted to the closed-string

590: subspace, $H_\text{rotor}$ is identical to the Hamiltonian of lattice $U(1)$

591: gauge theory.

592: The closed-string states can be viewed as gauge invariant states

593: since they are invariant under local $U(1)$ gauge transformations

594: \begin{equation}

595: \label{u1gauge}

596:  e^{i \phi Q_{\v I}}

597: |\text{closed-string}\> = |\text{closed-string}\>,\ \ \ \

598: \text{for any } \v I.

599: \end{equation}

600: A general $U(1)$ gauge transformation is generated by

601: $e^{i\sum_{\v I} \phi_{\v I} Q_{\v I}}$.

602: 

603: In the limit $|J_1| \gg |g|$, the lattice $U(1)$ gauge theory is in the strong

604: coupling limit and is in a confined phase.  In the limit $|J_1| \ll |g|$, the

605: lattice $U(1)$ gauge theory is in the weak coupling limit and has gapless

606: $U(1)$ gauge bosons as its only low lying excitations if $d>2$.  So when

607: $J_2=0$ and when $U\gg |g| \gg |J_1|$, the rotor model $H_\text{rotor}$

608: contains emergent gapless $U(1)$ gauge

609: bosons.\cite{MS0204,Walight,MS0312,HFB0404,Wen04}

610: 

611: When $J_2\neq 0$, $H_\text{rotor}$ mixes the closed-string and open-string

612: states. The low energy states are no longer pure closed-string states and is

613: not invariant under the local $U(1)$ gauge transformation (\ref{u1gauge}). It

614: appears that a non-zero $J_2$ will break the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. We may

615: conclude that even a small $J_2$ will give the $U(1)$ gauge boson a gap and

616: the rotor model $H_\text{rotor}$ cease to have emergent $U(1)$ gauge bosons at

617: low energies.  In the section of examples,

618: we will show that this line of argument

619: is incorrect.  For a small $J_2$ (or any other small perturbations to

620: $H_\text{rotor}$), we can define deformed local $U(1)$ gauge transformations

621: so that the low energy states of $H_\text{rotor}$ are invariant under the

622: deformed local $U(1)$ gauge transformations.  Thus the local ``$U(1)$ gauge

623: symmetry'' cannot be broken by any small perturbations if $U\gg |J_{1,2}|,

624: |g|$.  Thus far, we will prove these results for $U(1)$ theories;

625: we do not prove, but strongly conjecture, that the stability of

626: the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry protects the gaplessness of the

627: gauge boson.

628: As a result, no translation invariant perturbation can give the gapless

629: $U(1)$ gauge boson a mass gap. The gaplessness of the emergent $U(1)$ gauge

630: boson is topologically stable!

631: 

632: 

633: 

634: 

635: 

636: 

637: 

638: \section{Quasi-Adiabatic Continuation}

639: 

640: In this section we define the quasi-adiabatic continuation.  We consider a

641: family of Hamiltonians, ${\cal H}_s$, depending on a continuous parameter $s$,

642: where we wish to define a continuation from $s=0$ to $s=1$.  We denote

643: eigenstates of ${\cal H}_{s}$ by $\Psi_{a,s}$, where a state $\Psi_{a,0}$

644: evolves into state $\Psi_{a,s}$ under an {\it adiabatic} evolution of ${\cal

645: H}_s$.  In the event of a level crossing as a function of $s$, any

646: arbitrary continuation of the states through the level crossing is allowed.

647: 

648: Let us begin with some motivation and discussion.  We define the unitary

649: operator $V(s)=\sum_a |\Psi_{a,s}\rangle \langle\Psi_{a,0}|$.  Then, for any

650: operator $O$, we could define a corresponding dressed operator by $O_{\rm

651: adiab}(s)=V(s)OV(s)^{\dagger}$ so that $O_{\rm adiab}(s)$ would have exactly

652: the same expectation value in state $\Psi_{a,s}$ as $O$ does in state

653: $\Psi_{a,0}$.  Using such a definition of dressed operators, we can show that

654: the dressed string operators and the dressed gauge transformations will have

655: the same properties in the deformed model as the bare string operators and the

656: bare gauge transformations in the exactly soluble model. However, this

657: definition of a dressed operator would not suffice for our purposes at all!

658: In particular, we do not have any reason to believe that the resulting $O_{\rm

659: adiab}(s)$ would still be a local operator.  

660: 

661: Indeed, even if $O$ only involves operators on a few sites, in general, the

662: continued $O_{\rm adiab}(s)$ will contain operators on every site of the

663: system.  However, in this section, we will show that, under certain

664: conditions, we can continue $O$ into an local operator that acts only on a

665: finite number of sites.  

666: 

667: To state the result more precisely, let us first assume that $\cH_s$ has a gap

668: $\Delta E$

669: separating a low energy sector and a high energy sector for all $0<s<1$.  

670: For

671: any operator $O$ which acts on a set of sites $S_O$, we will construct

672: an approximate dressed operator $O(s)$ which only acts on sites within

673: a distance $l$ from the sites $S_O$.  Then, there is a unitary matrix 

674: $Q_0(s)$ which acts only within the low energy sector of $\cH_s$, such that

675: \begin{equation}

676: \label{boundGap}

677:  \<\Psi_\text{low,s}|Q_0(s)^{\dagger} O(s) Q_0(s)

678: - O_{\rm adiab}(s)

679: |\Psi_\text{low,s}\> < N_{S_{O,l}} e^{- l/\xi}

680: \end{equation}

681: in the large $l$ limit for a certain

682: fixed length scale $\xi$, where $N_{S_{O,l}}$ is the number of

683: sites within distance $l$ of a site in $S_O$.  This number grows

684: only as a power of $l$, so is easily overwhelmed by the exponential.

685: The state $|\Psi_\text{low,s}\>$ is any state in the low energy sector

686: of $\cH_s$.  

687: 

688: If $\cH_s$

689: has no gap between the low energy and high energy

690: sectors, we will define a density of states $\rho(E)$ in the high

691: energy sector.  If $\rho(E)$ is

692: bounded by $\rho(E)< E^{\alpha-1}$, then the 

693: bound in (\ref{boundGap}) is weakened to

694: \begin{equation}

695: \label{boundNoGap}

696:  \<\Psi_\text{low,s}|Q_0(s)^{\dagger} O(s) Q_0(s)-O_{\rm adiab}(s) 

697: |\Psi_\text{low,s}\> < 

698: N_{S_{O,l}} l^{1-\alpha/2}.

699: \end{equation}

700: For a local operator $O$, $N_{S_{O,l}}$ grows as $l^d$, where

701: $d$ is the dimension of the lattice, and so if $d+1-\alpha/2<0$ then

702: the error decays for large $l$.  For a string-like operator,

703: $N_{S_{O,l}}$ is proportional to $l^{d-1} |O|$, where $|O|$ is the

704: length of the strength, for $l<|O|$, and is proportional to $l^d$ for

705: $l>|O|$.

706: (A more rigorous statement of the results will be given later.)

707: 

708: The key in obtaining the above result is to

709: adopt a {\it different} definition of the dressed operator by

710: $O(s)=\t V(s)O \t V(s)^{\dagger}$, where the unitary operator $\t V(s)$ is defined

711: following Eq.~(\ref{weq}).  Physically, the definition of $V$ corresponds to

712: adiabatically changing the Hamiltonian from ${\cal H}_0$ to ${\cal H}_s$,

713: while the definition (\ref{weq}) of $\t V(s)$ corresponds to a quasi-adiabatic

714: change of the Hamiltonian.  So $\t V(s)$ can be viewed as an approximation of

715: $V(s)$.  The operator $\t V(s)$ will be chosen to achieve the goal of defining

716: dressed operators $O(s)$ which have approximately the same ground state

717: expectation values in the perturbed Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_s$ as the original

718: operators did in the unperturbed Hamiltonian, while preserving the locality of

719: the operators.

720: 

721: The locality of the operators is very important.  Suppose, for example that

722: the ground state of ${\cal H}_0$ has long-range correlations.  That is, there

723: exist two local operators, $O_1,O_2$ which are correlated even though the

724: two operators are far separated from each other in space.  For example, if

725: this is a spin system with long-range spin correlations these

726: may be spin operators acting on two different sites which are far separated from

727: each other.  Then, however, the operators $O_1(s),O_2(s)$ will also

728: be correlated in the ground state of ${\cal H}_s$, and since the operators

729: remain local under the continuation this implies the existence of long-range

730: correlations in the ground state of ${\cal H}_s$.

731: 

732: The major result will be an explicit definition of $\t V(s)$ in terms of

733: derivatives of the Hamiltonian which accomplishes these goals.  In order to

734: show that ground state expectation values remain approximately unchanged under

735: the continuation, we will make some assumptions on the existence of a gap,

736: though some extensions to gapless systems with sufficiently small low-energy

737: density of states will be discussed.  The dressed operators remain local under

738: this evolution: local operators are spread out over a length scale of order

739: the correlation length in a gapped system, while string-like operators are

740: spread out over a length scale which grows only logarithmically with the

741: string length.  Detailed proofs will be given in an Appendix.

742: 

743: The importance of the low energy density of states in what follows can be

744: understood physically by analogy to another continuation that should be much

745: more familiar, namely Fermi liquid theory.  As discussed by

746: Anderson\cite{pwa}, the correct way to think of Fermi liquid theory is to

747: think of starting with a non-interacting system and turning the interactions

748: on slowly, but not infinitely slowly; that is, physically exactly the same

749: procedure we imagine here.  Anderson's discussion of how fast the interactions

750: need to be turned on is based on considerations of the quasi-particle states,

751: and corresponds very closely to our two criteria: maintaining both the

752: expectation values and the locality of the operators.  To show that this is

753: possible, the analysis in the Fermi liquid case relies on the low density of

754: particle-hole excitations near the Fermi surface.  Here, we rely on something

755: similar, namely a low density of states at low energy.  Our continuation is

756: very general, and thus valid for a much wider range of systems than Fermi

757: systems, but this generality can in some cases limit what we can prove on

758: specific systems.

759: 

760: \subsection{Definition of System}

761: 

762: We consider a family of Hamiltonians, ${\cal H}_s$, which obey the

763: finite-range conditions\cite{LR7251,H0402}: ${\cal H}_s=\sum_i {\cal H}_s^i$,

764: where letters $i,j,...$ labels different lattice sites of the system; each

765: ${\cal H}_s^i$ acts only on sites $j$ with $d(i,j)\leq R$ where $R$ is the

766: interaction

767: range and $d(i,j)$ is some metric on the lattice; and $||{\cal H}_s^i||\leq J$

768: for some constant $J$ for all $i,s$.  We further assume that

769: $||\partial_s{\cal H}_s^i|| \leq K$ for some constant $K$ for

770: all $i,s$.  It is possible to slightly

771: weaken the finite-range conditions and consider exponentially decaying

772: interactions as well\cite{LR7251}.

773: 

774: To define the concept of ``density of states'', let us focus on a state

775: $\Psi_{\rm low,s}$

776: that we continue.  We will consider a $\Psi_{\rm low,s}$ which is a

777: ground state of $\cH_s$, but in general we could continue any eigenstate of

778: $\cH_s$.  The state $\Psi_{a,s}$ has energy $E_a>0$ compared to $\Psi_{\rm

779: low,s}$ if $a$ is not in the low energy sector.

780: We assume that, for $0\leq s \leq 1$, the

781: density of states of the local operator $u^i_s=\partial_s {\cal H}^i_s$ is

782: bounded as follows.  We assume that there is a $D(E)$ such that $\sum_{a\in

783: high,

784: |E_a| \leq E}|\langle \Psi_{a,s}|u^i_s| \Psi_{\rm low,s}\rangle|^2\leq D(E)

785: ||u^i_s||$, where $||...||$ denotes the operator norm.  The sum is restricted

786: to states $\Psi_a$ in the high energy sector.

787: Note that $D(E)\leq 1$

788: for all $E$.  We define $\partial_E D(E)=\rho(E)$ to be the density of states

789: at energy $E$ produced by operator $u^i_s$.

790: 

791: There are a number of systems for which this density of states bound is

792: relevant.  For a discrete gauge theory, there will be a set of topological

793: excitations below a gap.  These topological excitations

794: form the low energy sector, and thus $D(E)$ vanishes below the gap.

795: For a transverse-field Ising system, ${\cal H}^i=J

796: \sum_{<i,j>} \si^z_i \si^z_j+B \si^y_i$, in the ferromagnetic phase, there

797: will again be two almost degenerate states below a finite gap.  At $B=0$, these

798: states correspond to symmetric and anti-symmetric combinations of all spins up

799: or all spins down.

800: 

801: The bound $D(E)$ implies a locality bound\cite{H0402}.  Suppose some operator

802: $O$ acts only on some set of sites, $S_O$.  We define the distance between a

803: site $j$ and the operator $O$ to be equal to $d(j,O)={\rm min}_{i\in

804: S_O}(d(i,j))$, with the minimum is taken over sites $i \in S_O$, and we define

805: the distance between two operators $O_1,O_2$ to be $d(O_1,O_2)={\rm min}_{i\in

806: S_{O_1},j \in S_{O_2}}(d(i,j))$.  Suppose the system has a unique ground

807: state.  Then if the system is gapped, so that $D(E)=0$ for $E\leq \Delta E$,

808: the connected expectation value $|\langle O u^i_s \rangle_s -\langle O

809: \rangle_s \langle u^i_s \rangle_s|$ is exponentially decaying in $l$, where

810: $\langle ... \rangle_s$ denotes the ground state expectation value with

811: Hamiltonian $\cH_s$.  On the other hand, if $D(E)\propto E^{\alpha}$, then

812: $|\langle O u^i_s \rangle_s -\langle O \rangle_s \langle u^i_s \rangle_s|$ is

813: bounded by some constant times $d(i,O)^{-\alpha/2}$.

814: 

815: \subsection{Definition of Quasi-Adiabatic Continuation} 

816: 

817: We introduce the unitary operator

818: \begin{eqnarray}

819: \label{weq}

820: &&\t V(s) \\

821: &=&{\cal S}'\exp\left\{-\int_0^{s}

822: {\rm d}{s'}

823: \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau 

824: e^{-(\tau/t_q)^2/2}

825: %\times \\ \nonumber

826: [\tilde u_{s'}^+(i\tau)-

827: h.c.]

828: \right\}, \nonumber 

829: \end{eqnarray}

830: where the symbol ${\cal S}'$ denotes that the exponential is $S'$-ordered, in

831: analogy to the usual time ordered or path ordered exponentials.  We define

832: $u_{s}=\partial_s{\cal H}_{s}=\sum_i u^i_s$, and define $\tilde

833: u_{s}^+(i\tau)$ following Ref. \cite{H0402}: for any operator $A$

834: \begin{eqnarray} 

835: {\tilde A}(t)\equiv A(t) 

836: \exp[-(t/t_q)^2/2]

837: , \\

838: \label{tdef}

839: {\tilde A}^{\pm}(\pm i\tau)

840: =\frac{1}{2\pi}

841: \int {\rm d}t \,

842: {\tilde A}(t)\frac{1}{\pm it+\tau}.

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: The time $t_q$ will be chosen later.  For comparison with previous

845: work\cite{H0431,H0402}, $t_q$

846: is what was previously called $\sqrt{q}/\Delta E$; in this work, we also

847: consider the possibility of gapless theories where there is no scale $\Delta

848: E$.  The time evolution of operators is defined by $A(t)=\exp[i{\cal H}_{s'}

849: t]A\exp[-i{\cal H}_{s'}t]$.  The Hermitian conjugate in Eq.~(\ref{weq}) of

850: $\tilde u_{s}^+(i\tau)$ is $\tilde u_{s}^-(-i\tau)$, and $\t V(s)$ is a unitary

851: operator.

852: 

853: At $t_q=\infty$, the operator $\t V(s)$ becomes equal to

854: $V(s)=\sum_a\Psi_{a,s}\rangle \langle\Psi_{\rm low,s}$.  To see this, note that at

855: $t_q=\infty$, we have $\tilde A^+(i\tau)=A^+(i\tau)$, where $A^+(i\tau)$ is

856: the positive energy part of $A$ taken at imaginary time $i\tau$.  That is, in

857: a basis of eigenstates of ${\cal H}_s$ with energies $E_a,E_b$, we have matrix

858: elements $A^+(i\tau)_{ab}= A_{ab}\Theta(E_a-E_b)\exp[-\tau(E_a-E_b)]$, where

859: $\Theta(x)$ is the step function.  Then, $-\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau

860: [u^+(i\tau)-u^-(-i\tau)]= -(E_a-E_b)^{-1} \partial_s{\cal H}_s$, which gives

861: the result of linear perturbation theory for the adiabatic evolution of

862: quantum states with a change in the Hamiltonian.  We instead keep $t_q$ finite

863: to define a ``quasi-adiabatic" evolution, which will transform local operators

864: into local operators.  To show that keeping $t_q$ finite maintains the

865: locality we will rely on finite group velocity results, while we will use the

866: gap to show that we get only a small error in the ground state expectation

867: values by taking a finite $t_q$; detailed proofs of this are in the Appendix,

868: while the physical discussion is given in the next section.

869: We will relate the time $t_q$ to the scale $l$ by Eq.~(\ref{lscale}) below.

870: 

871: \subsection{Results}

872: \label{res}

873: 

874: For any operator $O$, we define $O(s)=\t V(s) O \t V(s)^{\dagger}$, where

875: $O(s)$ has been ``smeared out" over a scale $l$ given by Eq.~(\ref{lscale})

876: below.  For a gapped theory, we only need to take a length $l$ of order the

877: correlation length $\xi$ to get a small error in Eq.~(\ref{boundGap}).  To

878: understand how this works, define $Q(s)=\tilde V(s) V(s)^{\dagger}$.  Then,

879: for a state $| \Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle$ in a low energy subspace, $\langle

880: \Psi_{\rm low,s} | O(s) | \Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle= \langle \Psi_{\rm low,0} |

881: Q(s) O Q^{\dagger}(s) | \Psi_{\rm low,0} \rangle$.  

882: If we can show that $Q(s)$ has nearly vanishing matrix elements

883: between the low energy and high energy states,

884: %If we can show that $Q(s)$

885: %is close to unity, outside the low energy subspace,

886: we can bound the difference in expectation values in Eq.~(\ref{boundGap}).

887: The gap between the states in the low energy subspace and the high energy

888: subspace enables us to show this; for a given gap $\Delta E$, if we perform

889: the quasi-adiabatic continuation sufficiently slowly, we can show that

890: (loosely speaking) the matrix elements of $Q(s)$ between the low energy and

891: high energy states almost vanishes and $Q(s)$ almost acts within the low

892: energy subspace as an unitary operator.

893: %Thus, acting on a low energy state, $Q(s)$ produces

894: %excitations above the gap, but we can bound the matrix elements between the

895: %ground and excited states.  

896: 

897: However, there is one complication: in a

898: macroscopic system, $Q(s)$ produces excitations throughout the sample.  Thus,

899: for infinitesimal $s$, $Q(s)=1+s \sum_i e^i + ...$, where the

900: anti-Hermitian operator $e^i$ creates

901: local excitations near site $i$.  The probability that $Q(s)$ produces some

902: excitation acting on the ground state diverges with the system size.  

903: Strictly speaking, the matrix elements of $Q(s)$ between the low energy and

904: high energy states are not small.

905: However,

906: the terms $e^i$ in $Q$ with $i$ sufficiently far from $O$ can be commuted

907: through $O$ and do not affect the final expectation value.

908: We will show that

909: the error from the terms $e^i$ with $i$ near $O$ is

910: exponentially small in $l$ divided by the correlation length.

911: The proof in the appendix follows this argument, using a triangle inequality

912: to make the bound precise.  

913: 

914: If $D(E)$ is not gapped, but has a power law behavior, $D(E)\propto

915: E^{\alpha}$ for small $\alpha$, then in a $d$-dimensional system we can still

916: find a local $O(s)$ if $\alpha/2>d+1$ according to

917: Eq.~(\ref{boundNoGap}).  This requirement on the exponent can

918: be physically understood as follows: if we keep $t_q$ finite so that $O(s)$ is

919: spread out over a length scale $l$ under the quasi-adiabatic evolution, then

920: we have to worry about any error in $Q(s)$ on the length scale $l$.

921: The correlation

922: function of $u_s$ with $O$ decays as $l^{-\alpha/2}$, and this

923: also is how the error terms decay, while the space-time

924: volume at scale $l$ is of order $l^{d+1}$.  Thus, this

925: requirement can be understood in terms of the relevance or irrelevance of

926: $u_s$ at large scales in the given correlation function. 

927: 

928: This physical description is based on two technical results.  First, we

929: claim that $O(s)$ is {\it local} up to a scale $l$.  Specifically, we claim

930: that for any operator $O_j$ which acts only on site $j$, 

931: \begin{eqnarray}

932: \label{le}

933: ||[O_j,O(s)]||\leq X_1 ||O_j|| ||O|| \times \\ \nonumber

934: {\rm max}(\exp[-d(j,O)/\xi_C],\exp[-(d(j,O)/l_q)^2/2]),

935: \end{eqnarray}

936: for some constant $X_1$ of order unity and constant $l_q$ of order $t_q/c_1$,

937: where $c_1$ is a characteristic inverse velocity of the system.  The length

938: $\xi_C$ is a microscopic length of order the interaction range of the

939: Hamiltonian and is defined later.  Eq.~(\ref{le}) implies that, while

940: $O(s)$ does involve sites more than a distance $l_q$ from $S_O$,

941: the commutator becomes exponentially small once $d(j,O)$ becomes larger than

942: $l_q$.  To relate $l_q$ and $l$, we ask for the commutator to

943: be smaller than the error in Eq.~(\ref{boundNoGap}) or Eq.~(\ref{boundGap})

944: once $d(j,O)$ becomes larger than $l$.

945: For a gapless theory, we only need to take

946: $d(j,O)$ logarithmically larger than $l_q$ before the exponential decay becomes

947: much smaller than $l^{d+1-\alpha/2}$; in this case, $l$ is of order $l_q$.

948: For a gapped theory, we need that $\exp[-(l/l_q)^2]\sim \exp[-l/\xi]$, so

949: that 

950: \be

951: \label{lscale}

952: l\sim l_q^2/\xi \sim t_q^2 \Delta E/c_1.

953: \ee

954: The correlation length $\xi$ is at most of order $1/(c_1 \Delta E)$.

955: 

956: If one prefers to have an operator which involves only sites

957: within a distance $l$ of $S_O$,

958: and {\it exactly} commutes with sites more

959: than a distance $l$ from $S_O$, one may

960: define

961: an operator $O_{trunc}(s)$ such that

962: \begin{widetext}

963: \begin{eqnarray}

964: \label{otb}

965: ||O_{trunc}(s)-O(s)||\leq X_2 

966: \sum_{j, d(i,j)\geq l}

967: {\rm max}(\exp[-d(j,O)/\xi_C],\exp[-(d(j,O)/l_q)^2/2]),

968: \end{eqnarray}

969: \end{widetext}

970: for some constant $X_2$ of order unity.  In order for the error

971: in Eq.~(\ref{otb}) to be of order the error in Eq.~(\ref{boundNoGap}) or

972: Eq.~(\ref{boundGap}), we need to pick $l$ as above: $l\sim l_q^2/\xi$ in

973: the gapped case, up to logarithmic corrections.

974: 

975: Second, we claim that $O(s)$ has almost the same expectation value as

976: $O_{\rm adiab}(s)$, up to the unitary matrix $Q_0$.

977: Specifically, we show that for $0\leq s \leq 1$

978: \begin{eqnarray}

979: \label{ce}

980: |\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s}|

981: Q_0(s)^{\dagger} O(s) Q_0(s) -O_{\rm adiab}|\Psi_{\rm low,s}\rangle|

982: \\ \nonumber

983: \leq

984: 2 ||O|| [c_2(s)+c_3(s)],

985: \end{eqnarray}

986: where $c_2(s),c_3(s)$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{teq},\ref{difb}) in

987: the Appendix.

988: One may verify from the calculation in the Appendix that

989: the error term, $c_2(s)+c_3(s)$, gives the error described above in

990: Eqs~(\ref{boundGap},\ref{boundNoGap}).

991: Note that if

992: $O=O_1 O_2 ... O_n$, then $O(s)=O_1(s) O_2(s) ... O_n(s)$, so the expectation

993: values of products of operators are also approximately preserved under this

994: quasi-adiabatic evolution.

995: Thus,

996: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s}|Q_0(s)^{\dagger} O_1(s) O_2(s) ... Q_0(s)-

997: O_{1,{\rm adiab}}

998: O_{2,{\rm adiab}} ...  |\Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle| \leq

999: 2 ||O_1|| ||O_2|| ... [c_2(s)+c_3(s)]$, where here the $c_2(s),c_3(s)$

1000: are the error terms appropriate for the product operator $O_1O_2...$

1001: 

1002: \section{Examples}

1003: We illustrate the quasi-adiabatic continuation by a series of

1004: examples.  We start with local operators, considering a system with

1005: $Z_2$ (Ising) symmetry, a fractional quantum Hall system,

1006: and then a system with $U(1)$ symmetry.  We then

1007: repeat the process in the case of non-local, string operators.

1008: 

1009: \subsection{Local Ising Model}

1010: The first and simplest example is a quantum Ising

1011: ferromagnet

1012: in a transverse field.  Let the Hamiltonian be

1013: ${\cal H}=J \sum_{<i,j>} \si^z_i \si^z_j+B \sum_i \si^y_i$

1014: where each site has a spin-$1/2$ and

1015: the ferromagnetic interaction $J$ couples nearest neighbor spins on the

1016: lattice.

1017: 

1018: For $B=0$, the system has two exact ground states, one state which

1019: we denote $\Psi_{\uparrow}$ with all spins

1020: up and one state $\Psi_{\downarrow}$ with all spins down.

1021: The gap to the lowest excited state above these two states

1022: is $2Jq$ where $q$ is the coordination

1023: number of the lattice; this state has one flipped spin.  

1024: We define symmetric and anti-symmetric combinations

1025: $\Psi_{S,A}=(1/\sqrt{2})(\Psi_{\uparrow}\pm \Psi_{\downarrow})$.  The states

1026: $\Psi_{S,A}$

1027: are eigenvectors of the operator

1028: $\prod_i \si^y_i$, with eigenvalues $\pm 1$.  This operator,

1029: which flips the spin on every site, commutes with the Hamiltonian for

1030: all $B$.  

1031: 

1032: We now consider the quasi-adiabatic continuation with

1033: ${\cal H}_s=

1034: J \sum_{<i,j>} \si^z_i \si^z_j+s B \sum_i \si^y_i$.  At $s=0$, this

1035: has the exact ground states $\Psi_{S,A}$.

1036: For $sB$ small enough, the two lowest eigenstates of ${\cal H}_s$

1037: are adiabatic continuations of

1038: $\Psi_{S,A}$.  Hence,

1039: the matrix element of the operator $\partial_s {\cal H}_s=

1040: B \sum_i \si^y_i$

1041: between these two states vanishes for all $B$, since

1042: $\partial_s {\cal H}_s$ commutes with $\prod_i \si^y_i$ and these

1043: two states are eigenstates of $\prod_i \si^y_i$ with different eigenvalues.

1044: 

1045: Above these two states, there is a gap to the rest of the spectrum.  It is

1046: known that for small enough $B$, the gap will remain open for all $s$ with

1047: $0\leq s\leq 1$.  Thus, we can perform the continuation.  The

1048: vanishing of the matrix elements of $\partial_s \cH_s$ between the

1049: two low energy states implies that $Q_0(s)$ is equal to the identity

1050: matrix.  We consider the

1051: continuation of the operator $\si^z_i$.  The ground state for $B=0$ may be

1052: taken to be $\Psi_S$.  For $B=0$, we have $\langle \Psi_S |

1053: \si^z_{i_1} \si^z_{i_2} ...

1054: \si^z_{i_n} | \Psi_S \rangle=1$ for $n$ even and $-1$ for $n$ odd.

1055: The quasi-adiabatic

1056: continuation $\si^z_i \to \si^z_i(s)$ spreads

1057: out the $\si^z_i$ operators over a distance $l$.  Certainly $l$ is less

1058: than the linear size of the system.

1059: % of order

1060: %the inverse gap, which is of order the correlation length $\xi$.  

1061: Then $\langle \Psi_{S,s} |

1062: \si^z_{i_1}(s) \si^z_{i_2}(s) ... \si^z_{i_n}(s) |\Psi_{S,s}

1063: \rangle$,

1064: again equal to $1$ or $-1$, up to some error, depending on whether $n$ is even

1065: or odd.  Here, $\Psi_{S,s}=V(s)\Psi_S$.

1066: The error is exponentially small in $l/\xi$.  We conjecture that

1067: the operators $\si^z_{i_1}(s)$ correspond to {\it block spin} operators: they

1068: are equal to plus or minus $1$ depending on whether the average spin over a

1069: correlation volume is positive or negative.

1070: 

1071: If we instead consider the Hamiltonian

1072: ${\cal H}_s=J \sum_{<i,j>} \si^z_i \si^z_j+

1073: s B \sum_i \si^z_i$, the operator $\partial_s {\cal H}_s$ will have 

1074: non-vanishing

1075: matrix elements between the states $\Psi_{S,A}$, and thus we must start

1076: with states $\Psi_{\uparrow},\Psi_{\downarrow}$ to perform the continuation

1077: if we want to have $Q_0(s)$ be equal to the identity.

1078: In this case, $\si^z_i(s)=\si^z_i$ and $\langle \Psi_{\uparrow,s} | 

1079: \si^z_{i_1}(s)

1080: \si^z_{i_2}(s) ... \si^z_{i_n}(s) | \Psi_{\uparrow,s} \rangle=(+1)^n$, 

1081: where we have assumed that the sign of $B$ is such that $\Psi_{\uparrow,s}$

1082: is the ground state, rather than $\Psi_{\downarrow,s}$.  For the opposite

1083: sign of $B$, the correlation function is instead $(-1)^n$.

1084: 

1085: The two cases, depending on the different ways to add the magnetic field

1086: transverse or parallel to the $z$-axis, lead to different ground

1087: state correlation functions.  In the second case, the correlation

1088: function of the continued operator

1089: is not a very interesting result; the unit operator would have

1090: the same correlation function.  However, in the first case, the ability

1091: to find a continuation of the operator with the given correlation functions

1092: is a much more interesting result.  There are long-range correlations

1093: in the operator, since $\langle \Psi_{S,s}|

1094: \si^z_{i_1}(s) \si^z_{i_2}(s) |\Psi_{S,s} \rangle-

1095: \langle \Psi_{S,s}|

1096: \si^z_{i_1}(s) |\Psi_{S,s} \rangle \langle \Psi_{S,s} | 

1097: \si^z_{i_2}(s) |\Psi_{S,s}\rangle$ is

1098: non-vanishing even when sites $i_1,i_2$ are far from each other, and

1099: in particular even when

1100: the distance between $i_1,i_2$ much larger than $l$.  This

1101: implies\cite{H0402} the presence of another state close in energy to the

1102: ground state when the magnetic field is added in the transverse

1103: direction.

1104: 

1105: However, we would like to show the ground state degeneracy

1106: in another way, based directly on continuing the states

1107: $\Psi_{S,A}$.  This way will be very valuable for

1108: more complicated systems such as the quantum Hall system.

1109: We will consider a more general class of Hamiltonians ${\cal H}_s$:

1110: we consider arbitrary Hamiltonians which are sums of local

1111: terms, and which commute with $\prod_i \si^y_i$.

1112: We show that, under the assumption that the gap between the

1113: two lowest states and

1114: the rest of the spectrum remains open, the energy difference

1115: between the continuation of the two lowest

1116: states is exponentially small.  As long

1117: as that gap remains open, it is possible to adiabatically continue

1118: these two states, giving states $\Psi_{S,s}=V(s)\Psi_{S}$ and

1119: $\Psi_{A,s}=V(s)\Psi_{A}$ as eigenstates

1120: of ${\cal H}_s$.  Here, we rely on the fact that ${\cal H}_s$

1121: commutes with $\prod_i \si^y_i$ and thus has vanishing

1122: matrix elements between the states.

1123: 

1124: To compute

1125: the difference in energies for given $s$, we compute

1126: $\langle \Psi_{A,s} |{\cal H}_s |\Psi_{A,s} \rangle-

1127: \langle \Psi_{S,s}  |{\cal H}_s |\Psi_{S,s} \rangle=

1128: \langle \Psi_{A} |V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s) |\Psi_{A} \rangle-

1129: \langle \Psi_{S} |V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s) |\Psi_{S} \rangle$.

1130: Thus, $V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s)$ defines

1131: the continuation of the operator $\cH_s$ from $s$ back to $0$ and

1132: $\t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s)$ defines a quasi-adiabatic

1133: continuation from $s$ back to $0$:

1134: $\langle \Psi_{S,s} | {\cal H}_s | \Psi_{S,s} \rangle$

1135: is approximately equal to

1136: $\langle \Psi_{S} | \t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s) | \Psi_{S} \rangle$.

1137: The error in this continuation

1138: is exponentially small in $l/\xi$.  The operator

1139: ${\cal H}_s$ is a sum of local operators, while the operator

1140: $\t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s)$ is a sum of terms spread

1141: out over length scale $l$.  The only operators $O$ such that

1142: $\langle \Psi_{A}| O |\Psi_{A} \rangle-

1143: \langle \Psi_{S}| O |\Psi_{S} \rangle\neq 0$ are operators which

1144: flip every spin in the system and thus have non-vanishing

1145: matrix elements between $\Psi_{\uparrow}$ and $\Psi_{\downarrow}$.

1146: Thus all {\it local} operators have vanishing matrix elements

1147: between the two states $\Psi_{\uparrow}$ and $\Psi_{\downarrow}$.  

1148: In particular, if the length scale

1149: $l$ is smaller than the system size $L$, then

1150: $\langle \Psi_{A}| \t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s) |\Psi_{A} \rangle=

1151: \langle \Psi_{S}| \t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s) |\Psi_{S} \rangle$.

1152: Thus we can pick $l$ just smaller then the system size to

1153: show that 

1154: $\langle \Psi_{A}| V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s) |\Psi_{A} \rangle-

1155: \langle \Psi_{S}| V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s) |\Psi_{S} \rangle$

1156: is of order $||{\cal H}_s|| \exp(-L/\xi)\sim L^d \exp(-L/\xi)$.

1157: Here, the bound for this system is not a very tight bound: one

1158: expects the level splitting to be exponentially small in

1159: $(L/\xi)^d$ instead.

1160: 

1161: The key steps in this argument were that $(1)$: matrix

1162: elements of operators which commute with $\prod_i \si^y_i$ vanish

1163: between $\Psi_{S}$ and $\Psi_{A}$; and $(2)$: all

1164: local operators have the same expectation values in state

1165: $\Psi_A$ as in state $\Psi_S$.

1166: 

1167: \subsection{Quantum Hall Effect}

1168: 

1169: We now turn to the case of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

1170: Consider a system with no disorder on a torus at filling factor

1171: $p/q$, with $p$ and $q$ coprime.  The magnetic translation

1172: group implies at least a $q$-fold degeneracy of the ground

1173: state\cite{WNtop}.  Assume that in the absence of disorder

1174: there is a $q$-fold degenerate ground state, with a gap

1175: to the rest of the spectrum.  Now, consider adding disorder to the

1176: system, defining ${\cal H}_s={\cal H}_0+s \int dx dy

1177: U(x,y) \Psi^{\dagger}(x,y) \Psi(x,y)$, where $U(x,y)$ is

1178: a disorder potential and ${\cal H}_0$ is the clean Hamiltonian.

1179: Wen and Niu argued\cite{WNtop} that to first order in $s U(x,y)$ the

1180: splitting between the $q$-fold degenerate states was exponentially

1181: small.  We will use the continuation to show that the splitting

1182: is exponentially small for non-vanishing disorder strength

1183: under the sole assumptions that

1184: the gap to the rest of the spectrum remains open and

1185: that at $s=0$ all local operators have the same expectation value

1186: up to exponentially small terms in the $q$ lowest states

1187: and that at $s=0$ all local operators have exponentially small

1188: matrix elements between the $q$ lowest states.  We note

1189: that since these last statements involve only $s=0$ they

1190: can be checked in specific model systems without disorder, and

1191: in fact were checked

1192: in \cite{WNtop} when they showed the exponentially small

1193: splitting of the $q$ lowest states in linear perturbation theory.

1194: 

1195: Suppose, then that for $0\leq s \leq 1$ there are

1196: $q$ states, $\Psi_{n,s}$ for $n=0...q-1$,

1197: and a gap to the rest of the

1198: spectrum.  We wish to show that these states are close

1199: in energy.  Thus, we compute

1200: $ \langle \Psi_{m,s} | {\cal H}_s |\Psi_{m,s} \rangle-

1201: \langle \Psi_{n,s} | {\cal H}_s  |\Psi_{n,s} \rangle$,

1202: for some $m,n=0...q-1$.

1203: As above, $V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s V(s)$ defines

1204: the continuation of the operator $\cH_s$ from $s$ back to $0$, and

1205: $\t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s)$ defines a quasi-adiabatic

1206: continuation from $s$ back to $0$.

1207: 

1208: However, unlike the case of the

1209: quantum Ising model, we do not have any symmetries to make

1210: matrix elements of ${\cal H}_s$ and $\partial_s {\cal H}_s$ vanish

1211: between the low lying states.  Thus, we do not have any control on

1212: the matrix $Q_0(s)$.

1213: Then,

1214: $\langle \Psi_{m,s} | {\cal H}_s | \Psi_{m,s} \rangle$

1215: is equal to

1216: $\langle \Psi_{m,0} | Q_0(s)^{\dagger} \t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s) Q_0(s) | \Psi_{m,0} \rangle$,

1217: up to an error of order $||{\cal H}_s|| \exp(-l/\xi)$.  Since we

1218: are continuing from non-zero $s$ to $s=0$, now the matrix $Q_0$ acts

1219: within the low energy sector of $\cH_0$.

1220: 

1221: However, this matrix $Q_0(s)$ causes no problem.  As before, for $l<L$,

1222: $\t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s)$ is a local operator, and then

1223: under the assumptions above, the expectation value

1224: $\langle \Psi_{m,0} | Q_0(s)^{\dagger} \t V(s)^{\dagger} {\cal H}_s \t V(s) Q_0(s) | \Psi_{m,0} \rangle$ is independent of $Q_0(s)$, up to

1225: exponentially small corrections, thus giving the desired result.

1226: 

1227: \subsection{Local Rotor Model}

1228: The next example is a system with a continuous symmetry.  We take the

1229: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_s= k(s)^{-1}\sum_i \Pi_i^2 + k(s)\sum_{<i,j>}

1230: z_i \overline{z_j}$, where $z_i$ is a continuous complex field with

1231: $|z_i|=1$, and $\Pi_i$ is a

1232: momentum with $[z_i,\Pi_i]=i z_i$.  The parameter $k(s)$ is an $s$-dependent

1233: stiffness of the field $z$.

1234: 

1235: We pick a quasi-adiabatic continuation using $k(s)=k_0 (k_1/k_0)^s$, so

1236: $k(0)=k_0$ and $k(1)=k_1$, thus $\partial_s {\cal H}_s=

1237: \ln(k_1/k_0)

1238: [-k(s)^{-1} \sum_i \Pi_i^2

1239: +k(s)\sum_{<i,j>} z_i\overline{z_j}]$.  We choose the initial

1240: $k_0$ to be large compared to the final $k_1$.

1241: We assume that we $k_1$ is sufficiently large that the system

1242: is still in a phase with gapless excitations and algebraic

1243: correlations.  In this phase, we can compute the

1244: density of states by writing $z=\exp(i\phi)$ for some $\phi$

1245: with a Gaussian action for $\phi$.

1246: At low energy, the system acquires relativistic

1247: invariance, and thus in $d$ dimensions the density of single particle

1248: states at energy $E$ is of order $E^{d-1}$.  The

1249: matrix element of $\phi$ between the ground state and such a

1250: single particle state is of order $E^{-1/2}$, and thus the

1251: integrated density of states created by $\phi$ is

1252: $D(E)\propto E^{d-1}$.

1253: The integrated density

1254: of states below energy $E$ created by $\partial_s {\cal H}_s$ instead

1255: is $KD(E)\sim \ln(k_0/k_1) E^{2d+2}$.  Then,

1256: $\alpha/2=d+1$ and we are in a marginal case: the error in

1257: the continuation is of order $\log(L/l)$.

1258: 

1259: \subsection{Emergent Discrete Gauge Theories}

1260: 

1261: We now turn from these theories with local operators to emergent

1262: gauge theories.  We consider the Hamiltonian of the emergent $Z_2$

1263: gauge theory in the introduction.

1264: 

1265: For $J_1=J_2=0$, we have 4 exactly degenerate ground states on a torus, and a

1266: gap to the rest of the spectrum.  For non-zero $J_1,J_2$, the deformed

1267: Hamiltonian is still local $\cH_s=\sum_{\v i} \cH_s^{\v i}$, where $\cH_s^{\v

1268: i}$ is a local operator defined near the site $\v i$.  We can use the same

1269: reasoning used in FQH states to show that $\cH_s$ still has 4 exactly

1270: degenerate ground states on a torus.  

1271: However, here we will use a slightly different approach.  Continuing $\cH_s$

1272: from $s$ back to 0, we find that 

1273: \begin{equation*}

1274: \<\Psi_{m,s}|\cH^{\v i}_s|\Psi_{n,s}\> =

1275: \<\Psi_{m,0}|V^\dagger(s)\cH^{\v i}_sV(s)|\Psi_{n,0}\>, 

1276: \end{equation*}

1277: where $|\Psi_{n,s}\>$, $n=1,...,4$, are the 4 low lying states of $\cH_s$.

1278: Due to the energy gap separating the 4 low lying states with rest of states,

1279: the operator $V^\dagger(s)\cH^{\v i}_sV(s)$ is almost a local operator.  More

1280: precisely, up to an error of order $e^{-l/\xi}$ and a unitary rotation $Q_0(s)$

1281: between the 4 low lying states $|\Psi_{n,0}\>$, 

1282: $V^\dagger(s)\cH^{\v i}_sV(s)$ can be replaced

1283: by a truncated operator $H^{\v i}$ which only acts on sites within a distance

1284: $l$ from the site $\v i$.  Thus we have 

1285: \begin{equation*}

1286: \<\Psi_{m,s}|\cH^{\v i}_s|\Psi_{n,s}\> = 

1287: \<\Psi_{m,0}|Q_0(s)^\dagger H^{\v i} Q_0(s)|\Psi_{n,0}\>

1288: +O(e^{-l/\xi}).  

1289: \end{equation*}

1290: Since $Q_0(s)|\Psi_{n,0}\>$ are the ground states of the exactly soluble model

1291: (\ref{HZ2}), they from a irreducible representation of the algebra of the

1292: large-closed-string operators (\ref{acr}).  We can choose the length

1293: $l$ over which the operators are smeared to be one

1294: quarter of the linear size $L$ of the system.  In this case $H^{\v i}$ will be

1295: local enough that we can choose the positions large-closed-string operators to

1296: avoid any overlap between $H^{\v i}$ and the closed-string operators.  So

1297: $H^{\v i}$ commutes with the closed-string operators.  As a result, $H^{\v i}$

1298: must be proportional to the identity operator within the irreducible

1299: representation.  This way, we have shown that $\<\Psi_{m,s}|\cH^{\v

1300: i}_s|\Psi_{n,s}\>\propto \delta_{mn}$ up to an error $e^{-L/4\xi}$, which

1301: implies that $\<\Psi_{m,s}|\cH_s|\Psi_{n,s}\>\propto \delta_{mn}$ up to an

1302: error $L^2e^{-L/4\xi}$.  So the energy splitting between the 4 low lying

1303: states is less than $L^2e^{-L/4\xi}$ for the deformed Hamiltonian $\cH_s$.

1304: 

1305: %using the same arguments as for the quantum Hall case, it is

1306: %possible to show that the splitting between the 4 lowest energy

1307: %states on a torus is exponentially small, under the

1308: %assumption that the gap to the rest of the spectrum

1309: %remains open.  

1310: 

1311: We can also continue any closed-string or dual closed-string

1312: operators $S(C_\text{closed})$ and

1313: obtain

1314: \begin{equation*}

1315: \<\Psi_{m,0}|S(C_\text{closed})|\Psi_{n,0}\> =

1316: \<\Psi_{m,s}|V(s)S(C_\text{closed})V^\dagger(s)|\Psi_{n,s}\>, 

1317: \end{equation*}

1318: Then there exist dressed

1319: closed string operators $S^\text{dre}(C_\text{closed})$

1320: that have a width $l$ such that

1321: \begin{align*}

1322: &\<\Psi_{m,s}|Q_0(s)^\dagger S^\text{dre}(C_\text{closed}) Q_0(s)|\Psi_{n,s}\> 

1323: \nonumber\\

1324: =&

1325: \<\Psi_{m,s}|V(s)S(C_\text{closed})V^\dagger(s)|\Psi_{n,s}\>

1326: +O(e^{-l/\xi}) , 

1327: \end{align*}

1328: Here $Q_0(s)$ is a unitary rotation between the 4 low lying states

1329: $|\Psi_{n,s}\>$ and $Q_0(s)$ is independent of the closed-string operators.

1330: This implies that the dressed string and dual string operators

1331: $S^\text{dre}(C_\text{closed})$ have the same algebra among the low energy

1332: states of the perturbed Hamiltonian as the original operators

1333: $S(C_\text{closed})$ do for the original Hamiltonian (up to an error

1334: $\exp(-l/\xi)$).

1335: 

1336: The above also implies that the expectation of the dressed closed-string

1337: operators in the ground state of the perturbed Hamiltonian satisfies the zero

1338: law (\ref{zlaw}), up to an error of order $|S| \exp(-l/\xi)$, where $|S|$ is

1339: the string length. We see that the error is exponentially small for long

1340: strings since $l$ can be chosen to be a fraction of $|S|$.

1341: 

1342: 

1343: %Finally, since the continuation is a unitary transformation, it preserves the

1344: %commutation and anti-commutation relations (\ref{acr}).  Thus, the continued

1345: %string and dual string operators have the same algebra among the ground states

1346: %of the perturbed Hamiltonian as the original operators do for the original

1347: %Hamiltonian.

1348: 

1349: Our final task is to show the invariance of certain states under a deformed

1350: gauge transformation for $J_2\neq 0$.  First consider $J_1,J_2=0$.  The

1351: Hamiltonian has the 4 ground states which are invariant under the local gauge

1352: transformation $W_{\v I}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{xf}).  We can create gauge

1353: invariant excited states by acting on the 4 ground states by open dual string

1354: operators.  Following Eq.~(\ref{ds}), we define an open dual string operator

1355: as $\t S(\t C)=\prod_{\v i\text{ cross }\t C}\si^z_{\v i}$, where now the dual

1356: string

1357: $\t C$ is open, with two endpoints.  The states created by acting with $\t S(\t

1358: C)$ are still invariant under the local $Z_2$ gauge transformations, since

1359: $[\t S(\t C),W_{\v I}]=0$.  They are excited states which introduce $Z_2$

1360: gauge flux at the endpoints of the open string.  By acting on the ground state

1361: with the open dual strings, we can create all gauge invariant states, and for

1362: $U\gg g$, these are the lowest energy excited states.  Continuing to non-zero

1363: $J_1$ at $J_2=0$ still leaves these states invariant under the local $Z_2$ gauge

1364: transformation.  Continuing to non-zero $J_2$ breaks the local $Z_2$ gauge

1365: invariance.  However, these states are invariant under the deformed

1366: local $Z_2$ gauge transformation $W_{\v I}(s)$.

1367: To see this, we use the continuation to show that $\langle

1368: \Psi_{\rm low,s}| W_{\v I}(s) |\Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle=1$, up to exponentially small error in $l/\xi$.  Since

1369: $W_{\v I}(s)$ is unitary, this implies the gauge invariance of the ground

1370: state under the deformed gauge transformation up to exponentially small error.

1371: The gauge invariance, up to the same small error, of the states created by

1372: acting on the ground state with operators $\t S(\t C,s)=\t V(s) \t S(\t C,s)

1373: \t V(s)^{\dagger}$ then follows from the exact commutator $[\t S(\t C,s),W_{\v

1374: I}(s)]=0$.  The size of the deformed gauge group is, however, much smaller

1375: than the original: if the linear system size is $L$, there are $(L/l)^d$

1376: different local gauge transformations rather than $L^d$ as is the case at

1377: $J_2=0$.

1378: 

1379: \subsection{Emergent Continuous Gauge Theories}

1380: 

1381: Our final problem is the theory with the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry,

1382: Eq~(\ref{strnetH}).  The absence of a gap makes it much more difficult

1383: to obtain results on this system.  We will obtain only one result,

1384: the existence of a deformed $U(1)$ gauge invariance of the system.

1385: 

1386: We consider some gauge transformation acting on a site,

1387: $W_{\v I,\phi}=e^{i \phi Q_{\v I}}$.  When $J_2=0$, the ground state

1388: has an exact gauge invariance: $\langle \Psi_{0}| W_{\v I,\phi} |\Psi_0

1389: \rangle=1$.  If

1390: we continue to non-zero $J_2$, the ground state breaks the gauge invariance.

1391: However, we claim that the expectation

1392: value of the continued operator, $\langle \Psi_{0,s}|W_{\v I,\phi}(s) |

1393: \Psi_{0,s} \rangle$,

1394: is still close to unity.

1395: Unlike the $Z_2$ case, this does {\it not} follow simply from the results

1396: derived previously as there is no gap, and the low energy density of states

1397: is too high to use the results for gapless systems.  However, it is still

1398: possible to show this result.  We only very briefly sketch the argument,

1399: leaving a more detailed presentation for future work.

1400: The idea is as follows: at $J_2=0$, the system

1401: has gauge non-invariant states at an energy of order $U$ above the ground state.

1402: Under the continuation, at finite $t_q$, the operator $\t V(s)$ will take

1403: the ground state at $s=0$ into some state which is a mix of ground and

1404: excited states.  That is, the expectation value 

1405: $\langle \Psi_{0,s} | W_{\v I,\phi}(s) | \Psi_{0,s}

1406: \rangle=\langle \Psi_0 | Q(s)^{\dagger} W_{\v I,\phi}

1407: Q(s)| \Psi_0

1408: \rangle$, where the unitary matrix $Q(s)=\tilde V(s)^{\dagger}V(s)$

1409: mixes the ground state with the excited states.  However, since all the

1410: low-lying excited states at $J_2=0$ are gauge-invariant, it is no longer

1411: necessary to show that $Q(s)^{\dagger} W_{\v I,\phi} Q(s)$ is close to

1412: $W_{\v I,\phi}$; 

1413: it suffices to show that we do not mix in the states which

1414: are not gauge invariant under $W_{\v I,\phi}$ and

1415: all such states are at energy of order $U$ above the ground state.  At

1416: infinitesimal $s$, the mixing into such states is exponentially small, since

1417: the energy $U$ acts like a gap; however, one has some mixing into

1418: the low-lying gauge-invariant states.  As $s$ increases, one mixes

1419: into progressively higher energy states, until eventually one

1420: begins to excite the gauge non-invariant states.  However, if $t_q$

1421: is sufficiently big (roughly of order $U^{-1}$) the mixing into the

1422: gauge non-invariant states can be bounded at $s=1$, thus obtaining

1423: the desired result.

1424: 

1425: Now consider the excited states.  At $J_2=0$,

1426: the gauge invariant

1427: excited states of the system can be obtained by acting on the

1428: ground state with operators of the form $O=\prod_{i} e^{i \phi_{i}

1429: L^z_i}$, where the phase $\phi_{i}$ is some arbitrary function of the

1430: leg.  These operators commute with $W_{\v I,\phi}$ and therefore at

1431: non-zero $J_2$ the

1432: continued operators commute with the continued gauge transformation:

1433: $[O(s),W_{\v I,\phi}(s)]=0$.  Therefore, there are a class of excited

1434: states for non-zero $J_2$, namely the excited states created by

1435: acting on the ground state with the operators $O(s)$, which are

1436: also gauge invariant under the deformed

1437: gauge transformation, up to the same error.

1438: 

1439: As in the $Z_2$ case, the size of the deformed gauge group is much smaller

1440: than the original gauge group.  The original gauge group had

1441: $L^d$ different generators, while the deformed group has only

1442: $(L/l)^d$ such generators.

1443: A more careful analysis should be able to then use this deformed

1444: gauge invariance to show that the gapless photon is protected.  This is also

1445: a job for the future.

1446: 

1447: The compactness of the gauge group was important here.  Consider a non-compact

1448: $U(1)$ theory, with Lagrangian $(1/2)(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}- \partial_{\nu}

1449: A_{\mu})^2+(\lambda/2) (\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2+M A_\mu A^\mu$.  The term in

1450: $\lambda$ is a gauge fixing term and $M$ is a term which breaks the gauge

1451: symmetry.  With this quadratic action, it is easy to verify that a non-zero

1452: $M$ opens a gap.  Why doesn't the continuation work here?  The reason is that

1453: this theory has no gap to the gauge non-invariant states, unlike the compact

1454: cases before, despite the gauge fixing term.  The gauge fixing term does not

1455: open a gap to the gauge non-invariant states in this case, instead it adds

1456: {\it gapless} longitudinal and scalar photons to the theory.  To say it

1457: differently, in a compact theory, the charge is quantized and the open string

1458: states have a minimum possible energy because they necessarily terminate in an

1459: end with a charge that is a multiple of the charge quantum.  In a non-compact

1460: theory, the charge may be arbitrarily small. So the energy cost is also

1461: arbitrarily small.

1462: 

1463: \section{Discussion}

1464: The standard wisdom is that as long as gaps remain open, a system

1465: does not have a quantum phase transition and thus the long-distance

1466: structure of correlation functions remains the same.  We have shown

1467: a precise form of this statement.  We have found that, by appropriately

1468: dressing operators, the long-distance structure can in fact be

1469: preserved to a much greater degree than one might have expected.

1470: In particular, we have shown the presence of the zero law (\ref{zlaw})

1471: for gauge theories in the deconfined phase, and we propose this

1472: as a test of confinement.  Further, we have considered the stability

1473: of topological order under perturbations of the Hamiltonian, and shown

1474: that the order is robust unless the gap to the rest of the spectrum

1475: (local excitations) closes.

1476: 

1477: Topologically ordered states are described by emergent gauge theories at low

1478: energies. The topological order is closely tied to the emergent gauge

1479: invariance of the low energy gauge theories. From the point of view of the low

1480: energy gauge theory, our result shows that the  emergent low energy gauge

1481: invariance is topological. It cannot be broken by any local perturbations in

1482: the parent bosonic model. We hope this result will shed light on the true

1483: meaning of gauge invariance and gauge theory.

1484: 

1485: The continuation is also useful for systems without emergent local gauge

1486: structure, and may have a wider applicability.  For example, an outstanding

1487: question is to prove that in some neighborhood of the AKLT

1488: point\cite{AKL8799,AKL8877}, a spin-$1$ chain remains gapped\cite{haldane}.

1489: The continuation might be useful in doing this, or at least in showing, under

1490: the assumption of the existence of a gap, the persistence of string

1491: order\cite{string} throughout the Haldane phase.

1492: 

1493: 

1494: {\it Acknowledgments---}

1495: MBH was supported by DOE contract W-7405-ENG-36.  

1496: XGW was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR--04--33632,

1497: NSF-MRSEC Grant No. DMR--02--13282, and NFSC no. 10228408.

1498: 

1499: \appendix

1500: \section{Proof of Locality and Approximation Results}

1501: 

1502: \subsection{Locality Result}

1503: To show Eq.~(\ref{le}),

1504: we use the finite group velocity result, proven in \cite{LR7251,H0431}.

1505: This result uses

1506: the finite-range conditions on the Hamiltonian above to

1507: bound the commutator

1508: $||[A(t),B(0)]||$, where $A(t)=\exp(i{\cal H}_s t)A\exp(-i{\cal H}_s t)$.  One

1509: can

1510: show that this commutator is exponentially small for times $t$ less than

1511: $c_1 l$ where $l$ is the distance between $A$ and $B$ and $c_1$ is

1512: some characteristic inverse velocity which depends on $J$, $R$, and

1513: the lattice structure.

1514: The specific bound is that

1515: $||[A(t),B(0)|| \leq ||A|| ||B|| \sum_j g(t,d(A,j))$,

1516: where the sum ranges over sites $j$ which

1517: appear in operator $B$ and where the function $g$ has the property that

1518: for $|t|\leq c_1 l$,

1519: $g(c_1 l,l)$ is exponentially decaying in $l$ for large $l$ with

1520: decay length $\xi_C$ for some constant $\xi_C$ which is of order $R$.

1521: Recall that $d(A,j)$ is the minimum over sites $i$ acted on by

1522: $A$ of the distance $d(i,j)$.

1523: 

1524: Before giving the proof of Eq.~(\ref{le}), we give a physical description.  

1525: The finite group

1526: velocity result has a very simple interpretation.  Consider a local operator

1527: $A$.  Under time evolution, we get an operator $A(t)$ which ``spreads out"

1528: over space as time passes.  The finite group velocity result implies that

1529: for finite $t$ the operator $A$ is still local up to some

1530: length $t/c_1$ (here $c_1^{-1}$ is some characteristic velocity of

1531: the system) in the following sense: the

1532: commutator of $A(t)$ with any operator $B$ is exponentially small

1533: if $B$ is at least distance $t/c_1$ from $A(0)$.  This applies

1534: in particular for $A=u_s$.  Thus, in the definition

1535: (\ref{weq}) of $U$, the operators $u_{s'}^+(i\tau)$ are local in the same

1536: sense: Eq.~(\ref{tdef}) gives $\tilde u_{s'}^+(i\tau)$ as an integral over

1537: $t$ of $u_{s'}(t)$ and for $t>>t_q$ the integral is cut off exponentially,

1538: while for $t\sim t_q$ the $u_{s'}(t)$ are local up to length of order

1539: $t_q/c_1$.  Then, we define $O(s)$ by the unitary transformation

1540: $\t V(s)$.  We view this unitary transformation as defining a fictitious

1541: time evolution with time parameter $s$ and Hamiltonian given by

1542: the exponent of Eq.~(\ref{weq}).  We have just established that this

1543: exponent is local and we can then apply the finite group velocity

1544: result to this evolution to show that $O(s)$ is also local.  The rest

1545: of this subsection consists of a few precise error bounds following

1546: these statements.

1547: 

1548: We compute the

1549: commutator $[\tilde u^{i+}_s(i\tau),O_j]$ where $O_j$ is some operator

1550: which acts only on site $j$, and

1551: where $\tilde u^{i+}_s(i\tau)$ is defined following Eq.~(\ref{tdef})

1552: taking $A=u^i_s$.

1553: We separate the integral over times $t$ into

1554: times with $t<c_1 l$, where $l=d(i,j)-R$, and times with

1555: $|t|>c_1 l$.  For the first set of times, we have

1556: $(2\pi)^{-1} \int_{|t|\leq c_1 l} {\rm d}t (it+\tau) ||[u_s(t),O_j]||\leq

1557: (2\pi)^{-1} ||u^i_s|| ||O|| \exp(-l/\xi_C)$.  For the

1558: second set of times, we have

1559: $(2\pi)^{-1} \int {\rm d}t (it+\tau) ||[u_s(t),O_j]||\leq

1560: \pi^{-1} ||u^i_s|| ||O|| (\sqrt{2 \pi }t_q/ c_1 l)

1561: \exp[-(c_1 l/t_q)^2/2]$.  Thus, for large $l$,

1562: we find $||[\tilde u^{i+}_s(i\tau),O_j]||$ is exponentially decaying in $d(i,j)$

1563: with decay length $\xi_C$.  Note that 

1564: $\exp(-l/\xi_C)\approx \exp[-(c_1 l /t_q)^2/2]$ for

1565: $l\approx 2 (t_q/c_1)^{2}/\xi_C$.

1566: 

1567: Now, here is the trick.  We regard Eq.~(\ref{weq}) as defining the

1568: ``time" evolution of states, where the parameter $s'$ is an effective

1569: time parameter and 

1570: $D=i\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau 

1571: \exp[-(\tau/t_q)^2/2]

1572: [\tilde d_{s'}^+(i\tau)-

1573: h.c.]$ is some effective $s'$-dependent ``Hamiltonian", so

1574: that $\t V(s)={\cal S}'\exp[-i\int_{0}^s {\rm d}s' D]$.

1575: We write

1576: $D=\sum_i D^i$, where $D^i=\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau

1577: \exp[-(\tau/t_q)^2/2]

1578: [\tilde u_{s'}^{i+}(i\tau)-

1579: h.c.]$.

1580: Then, $||[D^i,O_j]||\leq ||O_j|| F(d(i,j))$, where

1581: the function $F(l)$ is 

1582: exponentially decaying as $\exp[-l/\xi_C]$ for

1583: large $l$ and decaying as $(\sqrt{2\pi}t_q/c_1 l)\exp[-(c_1 l/ t_q)^2/2]$

1584: for small $l$.

1585: 

1586: This exponential decay is in fact good enough to prove the finite group

1587: velocity result\cite{LR7251} using $D$ as an effective

1588: Hamiltonian; it is not necessary that $D^i$ act only

1589: on sites within some finite range, but an exponential decay also suffices.

1590: Following\cite{H0431}, define $G_i$ by the differential equations, for $s>0$,

1591: $\partial_s G_i(s)=\sum_j G_j(s) F(d(i,j))$ with initial conditions 

1592: $G_i(0)=2$ if $i \in S_O$ and $G_i(0)=0$ otherwise.  Then, one can show that

1593: $||[O(s),O_j]||\leq ||O|| ||O_j|| G_j(s)$.  Solving the equations for $G_j$, one

1594: arrives at the bound (\ref{le}).

1595: 

1596: One can define the operator $O_{trunc}$ by 

1597: setting $\t V_{\rm trunc}(s)={\cal S}'\exp[-i\int_{0}^s {\rm d}s'

1598: {\rm Tr}_{j,d(O,j)\geq l}(D)]$, where the trace is the trace of operator 

1599: $D$

1600: over sites $j$ with $d(O,j)\geq l$.  Then, set $O_{trunc}(s)=\t V_{trunc}(s)

1601: O \t V_{trunc}(s)^{\dagger}$, getting Eq.~(\ref{otb}).

1602: 

1603: \subsection{Approximation Result}

1604: The idea behind the proof of the approximation result is that,

1605: for any site $i$, the difference between $\tilde u_s^{i+}(i\tau)$ and

1606: $u_s^{i+}(i\tau)$ can be made small by taking large enough $t_q$.

1607: Here, $u_s^{i+}$ is the positive energy part of $u_s$ and $\tilde u_s^{i+}$

1608: is defined following Eq.~(\ref{tdef}) with $A=u_s^i.$  The difference

1609: between these two is closely related to $e^i$, as given below.

1610: Eq.~(\ref{weq}) involves summing over all sites $i$, but sites $i$ which are

1611: sufficiently far from $O$ will turn out to have little effect on defining

1612: $O(s)$.  Thus, the task in this subsection is to figure out how much difference

1613: there is between 

1614: $\tilde u_s^{i+}(i\tau)$ and $u_s^{i+}(i\tau)$, and then sum that error over

1615: sites near enough to $O$, giving the difference between the quasi-adiabatic

1616: continuation and the adiabatic continuation.  Since the adiabatic continuation

1617: preserves expectation values, this will give an estimate in the error in

1618: the expectation values.  We now do this carefully.

1619: 

1620: The proof of Eq.~(\ref{ce})

1621: involves defining an additional operator and using triangle inequalities.

1622: We define

1623: \begin{eqnarray}

1624: \label{lqo}

1625: \t V_l(s)

1626: ={\cal S}'\exp\{-\int_0^{s}

1627: {\rm d}{s'}

1628: \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau 

1629: \sum_i \exp[-(\tau/t_{q_i})^2/2]

1630: \times \\ \nonumber

1631: [\tilde u_{s'}^{i+}(i\tau)-

1632: h.c.]

1633: \},

1634: \end{eqnarray}

1635: where now $t_{q_i}$ may depend on $i$ and we define $\tilde u_{s}^{i+}(i\tau)$ by

1636: $\tilde u_s^{i}(t)=u_s^i(t) \exp[-(t/t_{q_i})^2/2]$, again using the

1637: $t_{q_i}$ which depend on $i$.

1638: 

1639: We then pick $t_{q_i}=t_q$ for $d(i,O)\leq 2 l$, and

1640: $t_{q_i}=t_q+c_1[d(i,O)-2 l]$ otherwise.  Define

1641: $O_l(s)=\t V_l(s) O \t V_l(s)^{\dagger}$.

1642: Thus, $\t V_l(s)$ has a $t_{q_i}$ which increases the further one

1643: gets from operator $O$.  While the operator $\t V(s)$ would create

1644: local excitations everywhere acting on a ground state, $\t V_l(s)$ only

1645: creates local excitations near $O$.

1646: 

1647: Using a triangle inequality,

1648: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} |Q_0(s) O(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger}-O_{\rm adiab}(s)|

1649: \Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle|

1650: \leq

1651: |\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} |Q_0(s) O(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger}-

1652: Q_0(s) O_l(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger} |\Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle|

1653: +|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} |

1654: Q_0(s) O_l(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger} -O_{\rm adiab}(s)| \Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle|$.

1655: The difference between $\t V_l(s)$ and $\t V(s)$ is the excitations

1656: far from $O$.  That is, if for small $s$ $\t V(s) V(s)^{\dagger}=

1657: 1+s \sum_i e^i+...$ and $\t V_l(s) V(s)^{\dagger}=1+s \sum_i e^i_l+...$, then $e^i_l$ and

1658: $e^i$ differ only for $i$ far from $O$.

1659: However, for $i$ far from $O$, the $e^i$ 

1660: commute through $O$ (as discussed physically

1661: before) and so it is possible to bound the difference

1662: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} |Q_0(s) O(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger}-

1663: Q_0(s) O_l(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger} |\Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle|$.

1664: Precisely,

1665: to bound the first difference, we note that the difference between the definition

1666: of $O_l(s)$ and $O(s)$ has to do terms $u_s^i$

1667: with sites $i$ which are at least a distance

1668: $2 l$ from $O$.  Using the locality bound, one can bound

1669: the commutator of $O(s)$ and $O_l(s)$ with $\tilde u_s^i$ for these sites.

1670: This gives

1671: $||O(s)-O_l(s)||\leq c_3(s)$, where

1672: \begin{eqnarray}

1673: \label{difb}

1674: c_3(s)=X_3 \sum_{j,d(i,j)\geq 2 l} 

1675: {\rm max}(\exp[-d(j,O)/\xi_C],\\ \nonumber

1676: \exp[-(d(j,O)/l_{q_j})^2/2]),

1677: \end{eqnarray}

1678: for some constant $X_3$ and where $l_{q_j}$ is of order $c_1 t_{q_j}$.

1679: 

1680: We now bound the difference

1681: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} |

1682: Q_0(s) O_l(s) Q_0(s)^{\dagger} - O_{\rm adiab}(s)| \Psi_{\rm low,s} \rangle|$.

1683: To do this, it suffices to bound 

1684: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} Q_0(s) \t V_l(s) -\langle\Psi_{\rm low,s} V(s)|$.

1685: This is equal to

1686: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,0} V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) \t V_l(s) - 

1687: \langle \Psi_{\rm low,0}|$.

1688: The operator $\t V_l(s)$ is equal to

1689: ${\cal S'} \exp\{-\int_0^s {\rm d}s' 

1690: (\partial_{s'} \t V_l(s')) \t V_l(s')^{\dagger} \}$.

1691: This equals

1692: $V(s) 

1693: {\cal S'} \exp\{-\int_0^s {\rm d}s' 

1694: V(s')^{\dagger} [ (\partial_{s'} \t V_l(s'))

1695: \t V_l(s')^{\dagger} - 

1696:  (\partial_{s'} V(s')) V(s')^{\dagger} ] V(s) \}$.

1697: Thus, 

1698: \begin{eqnarray}

1699: \label{grp}

1700: V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) \t V_l(s) \\ \nonumber

1701: =[V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) V(s)] \times \\ \nonumber

1702: {\cal S'} \exp\Bigl\{-\int_0^s {\rm d}s' 

1703: V(s')^{\dagger} e_l(s')

1704: V(s') \Bigr\},

1705: \end{eqnarray}

1706: where

1707: \be

1708: e_l(s')=(\partial_{s'} \t V_l(s'))

1709: \t V_l(s')^{\dagger} V(s') - 

1710:  (\partial_{s'} 

1711: V(s')) V(s')^{\dagger}.

1712: \ee

1713: 

1714:  We have grouped the

1715: operators $V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) V(s)$ together in (\ref{grp}) for a reason:

1716: the matrix $Q_0(s)$ is an operator between the low energy states of

1717: $\cH_s$ so

1718: therefore the operator $V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) V(s)$ is an operator

1719: between the low energy states of $\cH_0$.  Now we turn to the exponential

1720: ${\cal S'} \exp\{-\int_0^s {\rm d}s' 

1721: V(s')^{\dagger} e_l(s')

1722:  V(s') \}$.  We want to show that

1723: this operator is also equal to, up to some bounded error, an operator between

1724: the low energy states of $\cH_0$.

1725: 

1726: Define $P_{high}$ to project onto  the high energy states of $\cH_0$.

1727: Then, we can pick $Q_0(s)$ such that

1728: \begin{eqnarray}

1729: \label{ndd}

1730: |\langle \Psi_{\rm low,0} V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) \t V_l(s) - \langle

1731: \Psi_{\rm low,0}| \\ \nonumber \leq

1732: \int_0^s {\rm d}s' |

1733: \langle \Psi_{\rm low,0} V(s')^{\dagger} e^i_l(s')

1734: V(s') P_{high} |,

1735: \end{eqnarray}

1736: We will bound the integral of Eq.~(\ref{ndd}) below; combining this bound

1737: with Eq.~(\ref{difb}) will give Eq.~(\ref{ce}).

1738: 

1739: Using linear perturbation theory, 

1740: \be

1741: \label{lpt}

1742:  (\partial_{s'} 

1743: V(s')) V(s')^{\dagger}

1744: =-\int_0^{\infty}{\rm d}\tau

1745: [u_s^+(i\tau)-h.c.]+P,

1746: \ee

1747: where

1748: $P$ only has non-vanishing matrix elements between states of the same

1749: energy: $P_{ab}=0$ if $E_a\neq E_b$.

1750: 

1751: The error $e_l(s)=-P+\sum_i e^i_l(s)$ where

1752: \begin{eqnarray}

1753: e^i_l(s)=

1754: -\int_0^{\infty}{\rm d}\tau

1755: [\exp[-(\tau/t_{q_i})^2/2]\tilde u_s^{i+}(i\tau)-u_s^{i+}(i\tau)-h.c.].

1756: \end{eqnarray}

1757: For $s=0, 

1758: e^i_l(s)=e^i_l$ defined above.  

1759: 

1760: We now bound the projection into the high energy sector

1761: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s'} e^i_l(s') P_{\rm high} |$.

1762: We can show by performing

1763: some elementary integrations\cite{H0402} that, for any eigenstate $\Psi_{a,s}$

1764: with energy $E_a>\tau/t_{q_i}^2$,

1765: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s}|

1766: \exp[-(\tau/t_{q_i})^2/2]\tilde u_s^{i+}(i\tau)-u_s^{i+}(i\tau)|\Psi_{\rm a,s}\rangle|

1767: \leq \exp[-(\tau/t_{q_i})^2/2]\exp[-(t_{q_i}E_a)^2/2] |(u_s^i)_{0a}|$,

1768: where

1769: $|(u_s^i)_{0a}|$ is the absolute value of the matrix element of

1770: $u_s^i$ between state $\Psi_{\rm low,s}$ and $\Psi_{a,s}$.

1771: Similarly, for $E_a <\tau/t_{q_i}^2$,

1772: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s}

1773: |\exp[-(\tau/t_{q_i})^2/2]\tilde u_s^{i+}(i\tau)-u_s^{i+}(i\tau)|\Psi_{a,s}\rangle|

1774: \leq \exp[-\tau E_a] 

1775: |(u_s^i)_{0a}|$.  Integrating over $\tau$ and summing over states $\Psi_a$

1776: outside the sector of ground states,

1777: using the bound on density of states, we have

1778: \begin{eqnarray}

1779: |\langle \Psi_{\rm low,s} e^i_l(s)

1780: P_{high}

1781: |^2\leq \int {\rm d}E \rho(E) \times

1782: \\ \nonumber

1783: \{(K/E)2\exp[-(t_{q_i}E)^2]

1784: +K t_{q_i}

1785: \exp[-(t_{q_i}E)^2/2]\sqrt{2\pi})\}^2.

1786: \end{eqnarray}

1787: 

1788: Summing over sites $i$ and using Eq.~(\ref{ndd})

1789: we obtain the bound

1790: $|\langle \Psi_{\rm low,0} V(s)^{\dagger} Q_0(s) \t V_l(s) - \langle

1791: \Psi_{\rm low,0}| \leq

1792: c_2(s)$ where we define

1793: \begin{eqnarray}

1794: \label{teq}

1795: c_2(s)=s \sum_i 

1796: \Bigl( \int {\rm d}E \rho(E) \{

1797: (K/E)2\exp[-(t_{q_i}E)^2]+ \\ \nonumber K t_{q_i}

1798: \exp[-(t_{q_i}E)^2/2]\sqrt{2\pi}\}^2\Bigr)^{1/2}.

1799: \end{eqnarray}

1800: This completes the calculation.

1801: 

1802: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

1803: %\bibliography{/home/wen/bib/wencross,/home/wen/bib/all,/home/wen/bib/publst} 

1804: 

1805: 

1806: \begin{thebibliography}{29}

1807: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1808: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1809:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1810: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1811:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1812: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1813:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1814: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1815:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1816: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1817: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1818: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1819: 

1820: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kalmeyer and Laughlin}(1987)}]{KL8795}

1821: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Kalmeyer}} \bibnamefont{and}

1822:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~B.} \bibnamefont{Laughlin}},

1823:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

1824:   \bibinfo{pages}{2095} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Wen, Wilczek, and

1827:   Zee}}]{WWZcsp}

1828: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1829:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Wilczek}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1830:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zee}},

1831:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}},

1832:   \bibinfo{pages}{11413} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1833: 

1834: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Read and Sachdev}(1991)}]{RS9173}

1835: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Read}} \bibnamefont{and}

1836:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}},

1837:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

1838:   \bibinfo{pages}{1773} (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

1839: 

1840: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(1991)}]{Wsrvb}

1841: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1842:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}},

1843:   \bibinfo{pages}{2664} (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

1844: 

1845: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Fisher}(2000)}]{SF0050}

1846: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Senthil}} \bibnamefont{and}

1847:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

1848:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},

1849:   \bibinfo{pages}{7850} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1850: 

1851: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moessner and Sondhi}(2001)}]{MS0181}

1852: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Moessner}} \bibnamefont{and}

1853:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~L.} \bibnamefont{Sondhi}},

1854:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},

1855:   \bibinfo{pages}{1881} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1856: 

1857: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{Wqoslpub}

1858: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1859:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1860:   \bibinfo{pages}{165113} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}).

1861: 

1862: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{Wlight}

1863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1864:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}},

1865:   \bibinfo{pages}{11602} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}).

1866: 

1867: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sachdev and Park}(2002)}]{SP0258}

1868: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}} \bibnamefont{and}

1869:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Park}},

1870:   \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Physics (N.Y.)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{298}},

1871:   \bibinfo{pages}{58} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balents et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Balents, Fisher, and

1874:   Girvin}}]{BFG0212}

1875: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Balents}},

1876:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

1877:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.}

1878:   \bibnamefont{Girvin}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

1879:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{224412}

1880:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1881: 

1882: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2003{\natexlab{a}})}]{Walight}

1883: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1884:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},

1885:   \bibinfo{pages}{115413} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{a}}).

1886: 

1887: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ardonne et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Ardonne, Fendley,

1888:   and Fradkin}}]{AFF0493}

1889: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Ardonne}},

1890:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Fendley}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1891:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Fradkin}},

1892:   \bibinfo{journal}{Annals Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{310}},

1893:   \bibinfo{pages}{493} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1894: 

1895: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Levin and Wen}(2004)}]{LWstrnet}

1896: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Levin}} \bibnamefont{and}

1897:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1898:   \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0404617}  (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Motrunich and Senthil}(2002)}]{MS0204}

1901: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.~I.} \bibnamefont{Motrunich}}

1902:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Senthil}},

1903:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},

1904:   \bibinfo{pages}{277004} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1905: 

1906: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moessner and Sondhi}(2003)}]{MS0312}

1907: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Moessner}} \bibnamefont{and}

1908:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~L.} \bibnamefont{Sondhi}},

1909:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},

1910:   \bibinfo{pages}{184512} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1911: 

1912: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hermele et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Hermele, Fisher, and

1913:   Balents}}]{HFB0404}

1914: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Hermele}},

1915:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

1916:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Balents}},

1917:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}},

1918:   \bibinfo{pages}{064404} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1919: 

1920: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(1990)}]{Wrig}

1921: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1922:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}},

1923:   \bibinfo{pages}{239} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

1924: 

1925: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen and Niu}(1990)}]{WNtop}

1926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}} \bibnamefont{and}

1927:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Niu}},

1928:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}},

1929:   \bibinfo{pages}{9377} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

1930: 

1931: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2004)}]{Wen04}

1932: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1933:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems -- From the

1934:   Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons}}

1935:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford Univ. Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Oxford},

1936:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1937: 

1938: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wegner}(1971)}]{W7159}

1939: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Wegner}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1940:   Math. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2259}

1941:   (\bibinfo{year}{1971}).

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kogut}(1979)}]{K7959}

1944: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Kogut}},

1945:   \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}},

1946:   \bibinfo{pages}{659} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

1947: 

1948: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kitaev}(2003)}]{K032}

1949: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Kitaev}},

1950:   \bibinfo{journal}{Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{303}},

1951:   \bibinfo{pages}{2} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1952: 

1953: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{Wqoexct}

1954: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

1955:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}},

1956:   \bibinfo{pages}{016803} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{b}}).

1957: 

1958: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wilson}(1974)}]{W7445}

1959: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~G.} \bibnamefont{Wilson}},

1960:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1961:   \bibinfo{pages}{2445} (\bibinfo{year}{1974}).

1962: 

1963: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Anderson}(1984)}]{pwa}

1964: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.}\bibnamefont{Anderson}},

1965:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics, Chapter 3}}

1966:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Addison-Wesley}, \bibinfo{address}{Reading, Mass.},

1967:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1968: 

1969: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lieb and Robinson}(1972)}]{LR7251}

1970: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Lieb}} \bibnamefont{and}

1971:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Robinson}},

1972:   \bibinfo{journal}{Commun. Math. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{28}},

1973:   \bibinfo{pages}{251} (\bibinfo{year}{1972}).

1974: 

1975: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hastings}(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{H0402}

1976: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~B.} \bibnamefont{Hastings}},

1977:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{93}},

1978:   \bibinfo{pages}{140402} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{a}}).

1979: 

1980: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hastings}(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{H0431}

1981: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~B.} \bibnamefont{Hastings}},

1982:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}}

1983:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{b}}).

1984: 

1985: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Affleck et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Affleck, Kennedy,

1986:   Lieb, and Tasaki}}]{AKL8799}

1987: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Affleck}},

1988:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kennedy}},

1989:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~H.} \bibnamefont{Lieb}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1990:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Tasaki}},

1991:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

1992:   \bibinfo{pages}{799} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

1993: 

1994: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Affleck et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Affleck, Kennedy,

1995:   Lieb, and Tasaki}}]{AKL8877}

1996: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Affleck}},

1997:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kennedy}},

1998:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~H.} \bibnamefont{Lieb}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1999:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Tasaki}},

2000:   \bibinfo{journal}{Comm. Math. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{115}},

2001:   \bibinfo{pages}{477} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

2002: 

2003: \bibitem{haldane} F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. {\bf 93A}, 464 (1983).

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \bibitem{string} M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 40},

2007: 4709 (1989); S. M. Girvin and D. P. Arovas, Phys. Scr. T {\bf 27}, 156

2008: (1989); T. Kennedy, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. {\bf 2}, 5737 (1990).

2009: 

2010: 

2011: \end{thebibliography}

2012: 

2013: \end{document}

2014: 

2015: 

2016: 

2017: 

2018: