About basis of the honeycomb lattice

  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Lattice
KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there, I am reading the book "Condensed Matter Physics" second edition by Michael P. Marder. It stated in page 9 that one basis of the the honeycomb lattice is

<br /> \vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ 1/(2\sqrt{3})], \qquad<br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -1/(2\sqrt{3})]<br />

which is based on figure 1.5(B) in page 10. But in that case when two (vertical) atoms are bind together, so should this basis be

<br /> \vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ \sqrt{3}/2], \qquad<br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -\sqrt{3}/2]<br />

By the way, why the primitive vectors are given as that in 1.6a and 1.6b

<br /> \vec{v}_1 = (1/6 \ 1/6) , \qquad \vec{v}_2 = (-1/6 \ -1/6)<br />

it said (\vec{a}_1 + \vec{a}_2)/6 = \vec{v}_1

But
<br /> \vec{a}_1 = a(1 \ 0), \qquad \vec{a}_2 = a (1/2 \ \sqrt{3}/2)<br />

why (\vec{a}_1 + \vec{a}_2)/6 = \vec{v}_1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is confusing. How can v1, v2 be a basis when v1 = -v2?? You should scan the page and put it up (double-check the Forum rules first .. I'm not an expert). Few people are so eager to help that they would go to the library and check out the book. You have to make the helpers' life easy.
 
sam_bell said:
This is confusing. How can v1, v2 be a basis when v1 = -v2?? You should scan the page and put it up (double-check the Forum rules first .. I'm not an expert). Few people are so eager to help that they would go to the library and check out the book. You have to make the helpers' life easy.

Sorry for the confusing ... and sorry also the book has been returned to the library and I don't have one now. But one thing I could explain here, in solid state physics, in some book 'basis' mean the combination of atoms only, nothing to do with the basis vector, so it is possible to have v1=-v2 in that case.
 
All three bases describe a honeycomb lattice, when combined with Bravais vectors a1, a2. The second set (v1 = a[0, sqrt(3)/2] and v2 = a[0, -sqrt(3)/2]) is translated by a[1/2,0] relative to the first. The third set (v1 = a1/6 + a2/6 and v2 = -a1/6 -a2/6) is rotated by 60 degrees relative to the first.
 
sam_bell said:
All three bases describe a honeycomb lattice, when combined with Bravais vectors a1, a2. The second set (v1 = a[0, sqrt(3)/2] and v2 = a[0, -sqrt(3)/2]) is translated by a[1/2,0] relative to the first. The third set (v1 = a1/6 + a2/6 and v2 = -a1/6 -a2/6) is rotated by 60 degrees relative to the first.

Thanks for your reply. I get the point now. So, there is a mistake to write \vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ 1/(2\sqrt{3})], \qquad <br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -1/(2\sqrt{3})] in the book, right?
 
KFC said:
Thanks for your reply. I get the point now. So, there is a mistake to write \vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ 1/(2\sqrt{3})], \qquad <br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -1/(2\sqrt{3})] in the book, right?

Err, no. That's what I was referring to as the "1st" set.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top