SciPost Submission Page
Scaling of disorder operator at deconfined quantum criticality
by Yan-Cheng Wang, Nvsen Ma, Meng Cheng, Zi Yang Meng
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Meng Cheng |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202208_00008v1 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2022-08-25 |
| Date submitted: | 2022-08-03 15:56 |
| Submitted by: | Cheng, Meng |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
We study scaling behavior of the disorder parameter, defined as the expectation value of a symmetry transformation applied to a finite region, at the deconfined quantum critical point in (2+1)$d$ in the $J$-$Q_3$ model via large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations. We show that the disorder parameter for U(1) spin rotation symmetry exhibits perimeter scaling with a logarithmic correction associated with sharp corners of the region, as generally expected for a conformally-invariant critical point. However, for large rotation angle the universal coefficient of the logarithmic corner correction becomes negative, which is not allowed in any unitary conformal field theory. We also extract the current central charge from the small rotation angle scaling, whose value is much smaller than that of the free theory.
List of changes
Responding to the comment of referee 1, we have updatd Fig.4 and Fig.9 in the revised manuscript.
Responding to the comment of referee 2, we added a sentence in the revised manuscript to point out that the quantification of the error bar in $s(\theta)$ is certainly a nontrivial issue.
Published as SciPost Phys. 13, 123 (2022)
Author: Meng Cheng on 2022-08-17 [id 2737]
(in reply to Report 2 on 2022-08-09)We thank the referee for his/her comments. We have corrected the typo " chis-quare" in the caption of Fig. 4 in the revised manuscript.
Regarding errors bars in Fig. 4(b), since the fitting deviations $\Delta(l)$ is the difference between the fitting curves and the raw data of the disorder operator, they are an auxiliary quantities to show the quality of the fittings. Their errorbars entirely come from those of the raw data of the disorder operators as shown in Fig.4 (a). Therefore, we do not see any reason to add error bars for $\Delta(l)$ and keep the Fig.4 (b) as is.