Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComment on Comment on: On the reality of residual entropies of glasses and disordered crystals [J. Chem. Phys. 129, 067101 (2008)]
89
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
P. D. Gujrati
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
By using very general arguments, we show that the entropy loss conjecture at the glass transition violates the second law of thermodynamics and must be rejected.
rate research
Read More
In a recent Letter, Berciu and Bhatt have presented a mean-field theory of ferromagnetism in III-V semiconductors doped with manganese, starting from an impurity band model. We show that this approach gives an unphysically broad impurity band and is thus not appropriate for (Ga,Mn)As containing 1-5% Mn. We also point out a microscopically unmotivated sign change in the overlap integrals in the Letter. Without this sign change, stable ferromagnetism is not obtained.
The Letter by N. Y. Yao et. al. [1,2] presents three models for realizing a many-body localized discrete time-crystal (MBL DTC): a short-ranged model [1], its revised version [2], as well as a long-range model of a trapped ion experiment [1,3]. We show that none of these realize an MBL DTC for the parameter ranges quoted in Refs. [1,2]. The central phase diagrams in [1] therefore cannot be reproduced. The models show rapid decay of oscillations from generic initial states, in sharp contrast to the robust period doubling dynamics characteristic of an MBL DTC. Long-lived oscillations from special initial states (such as polarized states) can be understood from the familiar low-temperature physics of a static transverse field Ising model, rather than the nonequilibrium physics of an eigenstate-ordered MBL DTC. Our results on the long-range model also demonstrate, by extension, the absence of an MBL DTC in the trapped ion experiment of Ref. [3].
This is a reply to the comment from Khemani, Moessner and Sondhi (KMS) [arXiv:2109.00551] on our manuscript [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 030401 (2017)]. The main new claim in KMS is that the short-ranged model does not support an MBL DTC phase. We show that, even for the parameter values they consider and the system sizes they study, the claim is an artifact of an unusual choice of range for the crucial plots. Conducting a standard finite-size scaling analysis on the same data strongly suggests that the system is in fact a many-body localized (MBL) discrete time crystal (DTC). Furthermore, we have carried out additional simulations at larger scales, and provide an analytic argument, which fully support the conclusions of our original paper. We also show that the effect of boundary conditions, described as essential by KMS, is exactly what one would expect, with boundary effects decreasing with increasing system size. The other points in KMS are either a rehashing of points already in the literature (for the long-ranged model) or are refuted by a proper finite-size scaling analysis.
We provide some analytical tests of the density of states estimation from the localization landscape approach of Ref. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 056602 (2016)]. We consider two different solvable models for which we obtain the distribution of the landscape function and argue that the precise spectral singularities are not reproduced by the estimation of the landscape approach.
The recent paper by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) argues that the widely used two-component Ginzburg-Landau (GL) models are not correct, and further concludes that in the regime which is described by a GL theory there could be no disparity in the coherence lengths of two superconducting components. This would in particular imply that (in contrast to $U(1)times U(1)$ superconductors), there could be no type-1.5 superconducting regime in U(1) multiband systems for any finite interband coupling strength. We point out that these claims are incorrect and based on an erroneous scheme of reduction of a two-component GL theory. We also attach a separate rejoinder on reply by Kogan and Schmalian. In their reply Phys. Rev. B 86, 016502 (2012) to our comment Phys. Rev. B 86, 016501 (2012) Kogan and Schmalian did not refute or, indeed, discuss the main points of criticism in the comment. Unfortunately they instead advance new incorrect claims regarding two-band and type-1.5 superconductivity. The main purpose of the attached rejoinder is to discuss these new incorrect claims.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
