Dear Richard,
sorry for the long delay. We started analyzing your data and producing right after we had received it, but somehow we missed the right opportunity to give feedback. We were also a bit overloaded in the last two weeks.
In any case, I am very pleased by the agreement between your QMC data and our DMFT data for the cubic lattice evident in the attached figure. In fact, I would assume that most of the disagreement might be due to discretization errors in the QMC data. Do you agree?
Unfortunately, we do not really understand your NN spin correlation data, especially the weak deviations from 1/T dependences and the independence of U at large T. We could find the expected relations between this correlation data and the AF-induced enhancement in D only by making shifting your data in unreasonable ways.
We do not expect you to contribute valuable 3d data (obtained in collaboration with Trivedi) to our project. In fact, we treat this data as highly confidential and do not show it publicly. I think the main point of our collaboration should be antiferromagnetism in 2 dimensions, in particular with respect to the enhancement of D by AF correlations, as well as the significance of DMFT in this case. Of course we should also discuss the 3d case in some way, either verbally of (if/once your 3d paper is available as preprint) even in a separate figure.
By the way, we just had Jan Kunes as a visitor who mentioned a DMFT-QMC comparison for the triangular lattice done in collaboration with you. This lattice type could also be relevant for our comparison; however, the paper does not contain double occupancies. I think that a comparison between square and triangular lattices could even be relevant experimentally, because the differences could essentially be attributed to AF fluctuations present only on the square lattice.
I will now turn to Thereza's mail.
Best regards
Nils
On 10.06.2010, at 19:33, <scalettar@physics.ucdavis.edu>
<scalettar@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
Dear Nils,
I attach plots of the nn spin correlation and double occupancy for 3D
hubbard at half filling. The double occupancy plot contains both
data from my runs (indicated by "rts") and Thereza. Again, Thereza
has more data for other U values (up to at least U=9).
You can see my nn spin correlation data is getting noisy at low T.
There is one data point in particular at U=6 and T=0.25 that looks
nutty.
Again, I will look up the 2D nn spin correlation data from my files.
We should discuss what you see this paper as covering.
Richard Scalettar
Professor and Vice Chairman, Physics Department
University of California, Davis 95616
phone 530-554-1605
fax 530-752-4717
email scalettar@physics.ucdavis.edu
http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/<nupndn3.ps><c10vsT1.ps>
Nils Blümer
Institut für Physik, KOMET 337 Room: 03 134, Staudingerweg 7
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Phone: (+49) 6131 / 392 22 77
55099 Mainz, Germany FAX: (+49) 6131 / 392 09 54
http://komet337.physik.uni-mainz.de/Bluemer/
