Problem plotting Kronig Penney Model dispersion curves

In summary: A = bk_{2}, and k_{1} and k_{2} are constants depending on the potential barrier height and the energy of the particle. In summary, Vivek is seeking help with a computer program he is writing in C to compute the band structures for a 1D crystal modeled as an infinite array of rectangular potential barriers. He is able to plot the energy versus wavenumber graph correctly, but when he tries to superimpose the free particle parabola, it does not intersect the band curves as expected. He suspects this is due to numerical approximations and propagation errors, but has not been able to fix it. He is seeking suggestions and has provided
  • #1
maverick280857
1,789
4
To the moderator: I'm not sure if this should go here or in the Computational Physics forum. Please shift it there if you think that's the appropriate place for it.

Hi everyone

Merry Christmas!

I'm writing a computer program in C, to explicitly compute the band structures for a 1D crystal modeled as an infinite array of rectangular potential barriers of width 2a and distance between nearest walls of two successive barriers 2b, i.e. the Kronig Penney Model.

My program correctly plots the energy versus (normalized) wavenumber graph in the extended wavenumber scheme, but when I try to superimpose the free particle parabola on this graph (i.e. the parabolic graph of energy versus wavenumber for a free particle), it is not found to intersect the band curves at points of the form [itex]n\pi[/itex] where [itex]n[/itex] is an integer. (I call gnuplot from within my C program to plot this curve.)

The plot generated by the program is as shown in the attachment.

I think this is because of some numerical approximations and propagation errors, but I haven't been able to fix it. As you can see from the plot, the two curves do intersect at [itex]\pi[/itex] (or very nearly so) but that's just it.

I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions. I can post my algorithm/code here if you wish.

Thanks in advance,
Cheers
Vivek.
 

Attachments

  • computational.jpg
    computational.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 1,718
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Vivek,

I'd love to help but need a bit more information about how you're calculating energy from the wavenumber. Are you using an explicit formula? I'm not a physicist by training, so please excuse me if there is a closed form for the energy as a function of parameters that I just don't know about.

It may also be helpful if you post the code.

Jerry
 
  • #3
Ok this is how I do it. The condition for existence of bands is

[tex]\cos\chi = f(\epsilon)[/tex]

where [itex]\chi[/itex] is proportional to the wavenumber [itex]\kappa[/itex], and [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is the ratio of the energy of the particle [itex]E[/itex] to the height of the potential barrier [itex]V_{0}[/itex]:

[tex]\epsilon = \frac{E}{V_{0}}[/tex]

Now, I iterate over [itex]\epsilon[/itex]. For every value of [itex]\epsilon[/itex], I compute [itex]f(\epsilon)[/itex]. If [itex]f(\epsilon) \in [-1, 1][/itex], then a real value of [itex]\chi[/itex] exists and I find [itex]\chi = \cos^{-1}[f(\epsilon)][/itex]. ([itex]V_{0}[/itex] is fixed)

By definition of the arccos function, this value of [itex]\chi[/itex] lies in the principal value interval [itex][0, \pi][/itex], so it has to be adjusted according to the band it belongs to, for purposes of plotting the curve in the extended wavenumber scheme (otherwise everything gets mapped to the principal value interval as [itex]\chi[/itex] is not monotonically increasing).

The parabola is [itex]\epsilon = C\chi^2[/itex] (the proportionality constant C is related to the height of the well, the mass of the particle and the ratio of the a/b, where a and b are as defined in my first post.)
 
  • #4
Hi Maverick,

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand it right, the pairs [tex](\chi, \epsilon)[/tex] satisfying the equation

[tex]\cos \chi = f(\epsilon)[/tex]

should lie on the parabola [tex]\epsilon = C\chi^2[/tex]. So far so good? The jpg you attached indeed shows a discrepancy much higher than one would expect due to numerical error for computing arc-cosine of [tex]f(\epsilon)[/tex]. The most obvious question is then: how do you compute [tex]f(\epsilon)[/tex]?

If this depends on, say, the eigenvalue from some boundary-value problem that you in turn find via the shooting method, some matrix calculation, etc., the problem may lie in that your computed value of [tex]f(\epsilon)[/tex] is too far off the mark. To correct this you may need to work on your numerical method, find a better discretization, etc.

Please do supply more information regarding this point.

Jerry
 
  • #5
mercurial said:
Hi Maverick,

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand it right, the pairs [tex](\chi, \epsilon)[/tex] satisfying the equation

[tex]\cos \chi = f(\epsilon)[/tex]

should lie on the parabola [tex]\epsilon = C\chi^2[/tex]. So far so good?

No, that's not right. These are two independent curves:

[tex]C_{1}: (\chi, \epsilon) = (\cos^{-1}[f(\epsilon)], \epsilon)[/tex]

[tex]C_{2}: (\chi, \epsilon) = (\chi, C\chi^2)\qquad{ \mbox{ (C = constant) } }[/itex]

It is only at points of the form [itex]\chi = n\pi[/itex] where n is an integer, do the two curves intersect. This is as far as the theory tells us.

The most obvious question is then: how do you compute [tex]f(\epsilon)[/tex]?

[itex]f(\epsilon)[/itex] has piecewise continuous definitions for [itex]0 \leq \epsilon \leq 1[/itex] and [itex]\epsilon \geq 1[/itex]. It is generally of the form

[tex]f(\epsilon) = \cosh(k_{1}(1-\epsilon)^{1/2})cos(k_{2}\epsilon^{1/2}) + \frac{1-2\epsilon}{2\epsilon^{1/2}(1-\epsilon)^{1/2}}\sinh(k_{1}(1-\epsilon)^{1/2})sin(k_{2}\epsilon^{1/2})[/tex]

where the [itex]k_{i}[/itex]'s are constants. When [itex]\epsilon > 1[/itex] the expression for [itex]f(\epsilon)[/itex] is obtained by replacing the square root of [itex]1-\epsilon[/itex] by the square root of [itex]\epsilon-1[/itex] and cosh replaced by cos (I will post the exact expressions later as I don't have them before me right now--but they're just the boundary conditions for the wavefunction).
 
  • #6
I just had a thought. When these potential barriers become delta functions in the limit a --> 0 and V0 --> infinity with V0*2a = constant, the matching condition reduces to a simpler form and it is possible to show analytically that the two curves C1 and C2 intersect at points of the form [itex]\chi = n\pi[/itex].

But does this have to be true for a rectangular potential barrier array as well? In other words, do the band curves and the free particle parabola have to intersect each other at the end of every band?

This question is more appropriate for the Quantum Physics forum I guess.
 
  • #7
Maybe this thread is helping you talk yourself through the points until you locate the source of the problem. I really should read up on the Kronig Penny model myself. Do the parameters [tex]a, V_0[/tex] appear in the constants [tex]k_i[/tex] in your expression for [tex]f(\epsilon)[/tex], or do their values "fall out" in the limit subject to replacing the potential barriers with delta functions?
 
  • #8
The full function is:

[tex]
f(\epsilon) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
\cosh[rA] + \frac{A}{2}\sinh[rA] & \mbox { for } \epsilon = 0\\

\cosh[rA(1-\epsilon)^{1/2}]\cos[A\epsilon^{1/2}] + \frac{(1-2\epsilon)}{2\epsilon^{1/2}(1-\epsilon)^{1/2}}\sinh[rA(1-\epsilon)^{1/2}]\sin[A\epsilon^{1/2}] & \mbox { for } 0 < \epsilon < 1\\

\cos[rA(\epsilon-1)^{1/2}]\cos[A\epsilon^{1/2}] + \frac{(1-2\epsilon)}{2\epsilon^{1/2}(\epsilon-1)^{1/2}}\sin[rA(\epsilon-1)^{1/2}]\sin[A\epsilon^{1/2}] & \mbox { for } \epsilon > 1\\


\end{array}
\right.
[/tex]

[tex]\chi & = & \kappa \times 2b(1+r)[/tex]
[tex]\epsilon & = & \frac{E}{V_{0}}[/tex]
[tex]r & = & \frac{a}{b}[/tex]
[tex]A & = & 2b\sqrt{\frac{2mV_{0}}{\hbar^2}}[/tex]

The matching condition is

[tex]f(\epsilon) = \cos[\kappa\times 2b(1+r)] = \cos \chi[/tex]
 

1. What is the Kronig Penney Model and why is it important in physics?

The Kronig Penney Model is a theoretical model used in solid state physics to study the energy dispersion of electrons in a periodic potential. It is important because it provides a simplified yet accurate understanding of the behavior of electrons in a crystal lattice, which is essential in understanding the electronic properties of materials.

2. How are the dispersion curves plotted in the Kronig Penney Model?

The dispersion curves in the Kronig Penney Model are typically plotted by graphing the energy of the electrons as a function of the crystal momentum. This results in a band structure, where the energy levels form distinct bands separated by energy gaps.

3. What factors affect the shape of the dispersion curves in the Kronig Penney Model?

The shape of the dispersion curves in the Kronig Penney Model is affected by several factors, including the strength of the periodic potential, the lattice spacing, and the energy of the incident electrons. These factors can lead to variations in the band structure and the formation of energy gaps.

4. How does the Kronig Penney Model explain the conductivity of materials?

The Kronig Penney Model can explain the conductivity of materials by considering the behavior of electrons in the energy bands. In conductors, there are partially filled energy bands, allowing for the movement of electrons and the flow of current. In insulators, there are fully occupied energy bands and large energy gaps, making it difficult for electrons to move and resulting in low conductivity.

5. What are some limitations of the Kronig Penney Model?

Although the Kronig Penney Model is a useful tool in understanding the behavior of electrons in a crystal lattice, it has some limitations. It assumes a perfect, infinite periodic potential and does not account for the effects of impurities or defects in the lattice. Additionally, it does not consider the effects of electron-electron interactions, which can play a significant role in the behavior of materials.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
884
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Back
Top