tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post3858627240400221287..comments2024-03-18T17:18:38.829+10:00Comments on Condensed concepts: A concrete example of a quantum critical metalRoss H. McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-44548899348685895152016-11-14T15:06:13.971+10:002016-11-14T15:06:13.971+10:00Thanks for the question.
There are important diff...Thanks for the question.<br /><br />There are important differences between our Hubbard model and theirs. Ours is homogenous (all the t hoppings are the same), at half filling, and we solve in the infinite-dimensional limit. Theirs has in homogenous t, is not at half filling, and is two-dimensional. this is why the phase diagrams are different.Ross H. McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-3183676764357227972016-11-12T10:21:01.673+10:002016-11-12T10:21:01.673+10:00Hi Ross, I hope this is not a trivial question but...Hi Ross, I hope this is not a trivial question but I am not very familiar with non-finite Hubbard calculations. Is it possible to make a connection between your phase diagram and the pairing gap found in finite Hubbard systems? For instance Tsai/Kievelson finds a pairing gap in a broad region around U/t=8 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevB.77.214502). From what I understand pairing mechanisms like this are hoped to be the basis of the high TC superconductivity in cuprates. Yet this region is Mott insulating in your phase diagram. Is there a way to relate the results of these two approaches? Thanks - and I really appreciate your blog. Just found it recently and it is very good. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com