Abstract:To analyze the electronic band structure of a two-dimensional (2D) crystal under a commensurate perpendicular magnetic field, tight-binding (TB) Hamiltonians are typically constructed using a magnetic unit cell (MUC), which is composed of several unit cells (UC) to satisfy flux quantization. However, when the vector potential is constrained to the Landau gauge, an additional constraint is imposed on the hopping trajectories, further enlarging the TB Hamiltonian and preventing incommensurate atomic rearrangements. In this paper, we demonstrate that this constraint persists, albeit in a weaker form, for any linear vector potential ($\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r})$ linear in $\mathbf{r}$). This restriction can only be fully lifted by using a nonlinear vector potential. With a general nonlinear vector potential, a TB Hamiltonian can be constructed that matches the minimal size dictated by flux quantization, even when incommensurate atomic rearrangements occur within the MUC, such as moiré reconstructions. For example, as the twist angle $\theta$ of twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) approaches zero, the size of the TB Hamiltonian scales as $1/\theta^4$ when using linear vector potentials (including the Landau gauge). In contrast, with a nonlinear vector potential, the size scales more favorably, as $1/\theta^2$, making small-angle TBG models more tractable with TB.
Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics,Quantum Gases,Mathematical Physics,Computational Physics,Quantum Physics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: in two - dimensional crystals (especially twisted bilayer graphene with a moiré superstructure), when using the tight - binding model to calculate the electronic band structure, the large size of the Hamiltonian matrix caused by the traditional linear vector potential (such as Landau gauge) limits the computational efficiency and the scope of application. Specifically:
1. **Limitations of the linear vector potential**:
- When using the linear vector potential (for example, Landau gauge), in order to satisfy the magnetic flux quantization condition, an additional commensurability constraint needs to be imposed on the transition path, which significantly increases the size of the tight - binding Hamiltonian matrix.
- These constraints not only limit the complexity and diversity of the system but also make it difficult to handle incommensurate atomic rearrangements (such as moiré reconstruction).
2. **Advantages of the nonlinear vector potential**:
- The paper proposes that using the nonlinear vector potential can completely remove these constraints, so that the size of the tight - binding Hamiltonian matrix is only determined by the magnetic flux quantization condition, without the need for additional commensurability constraints.
- For some complex systems (such as small - angle twisted bilayer graphene), using the nonlinear vector potential can reduce the size of the Hamiltonian matrix from \( \mathcal{O}(1/\theta^4) \) to \( \mathcal{O}(1/\theta^2) \), greatly improving the computational feasibility and efficiency.
3. **Specific application scenarios**:
- Taking twisted bilayer graphene (TBG) as an example, when the twist angle \( \theta \) approaches zero, using the linear vector potential will cause the Hamiltonian matrix size to increase sharply, while using the nonlinear vector potential can significantly reduce the matrix size and make the calculation feasible.
In summary, this paper aims to optimize the construction method of the Hamiltonian matrix in the tight - binding model by introducing the nonlinear vector potential, thereby improving the computational efficiency and expanding its application scope, especially when dealing with complex and incommensurate structures.
### Formula display
- Magnetic flux quantization condition:
\[
\Phi=\frac{qB|V|}{h}
\]
where \( B \) is the magnetic field strength, \( V \) is the volume of the lattice unit cell, \( q \) is the charge amount, and \( h \) is Planck's constant.
- Nonlinear vector potential form:
\[
A(r)=\frac{\hbar}{q}(VT)^{-1}AV^{-1}r+\nabla\Lambda(r)
\]
where,
\[
\Lambda(r)=-\frac{\hbar}{q}((VT)^{-1}ATi(r))\cdot\{r\}_{VT}-\frac{\hbar}{2q}(\{r\}_{VT})^T(VT)^{-1}AV^{-1}\{r\}_{VT}
\]
- Hamiltonian matrix kernel:
\[
H_k = -\sum_{j\in J,m = 1}^{N_{hop}}t_mc^\dagger_{k,(\{j+\Delta_m\}_T,n'_m)}c_{k,(j,n_m)}\exp\left(-ik\cdot(VT\lfloor j+\Delta_m\rfloor_T)+\pi(\lfloor j+\Delta_m\rfloor_T)^TT^TAT(\lfloor j+\Delta_m\rfloor_T)+\pi\Phi(\{j+\Delta_m\}_T+V^{-1}r_{n'_m})^T\begin{pmatrix}-1\\1\end{pmatrix}(j+V^{-1}r_{n_m})+\pi\Phi(\lfloor j+\Delta_m\rfloor_T)^TT^T\begin{pmatrix}-1\\1\end{pmatrix}(\{j+\Delta_m\}_T+V^{-1}r_{