About basis of the honeycomb lattice

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Lattice
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the basis of the honeycomb lattice as presented in a condensed matter physics textbook. Participants explore the definitions and representations of the basis vectors, their relationships to the lattice structure, and the implications of different choices of basis in solid state physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the basis vectors given in the textbook, suggesting an alternative representation based on the binding of atoms.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the nature of the basis vectors, particularly noting that one vector appears to be the negative of another, which raises questions about their role as a basis.
  • A participant clarifies that in solid state physics, the term 'basis' can refer to a combination of atoms rather than strictly to basis vectors, allowing for the possibility of v1 equaling -v2.
  • Some participants assert that all three sets of basis vectors describe the honeycomb lattice when combined with Bravais vectors, noting differences in translation and rotation among them.
  • There is a suggestion that the textbook may contain an error regarding the representation of one of the basis vectors, though this is not universally accepted.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the basis vectors presented in the textbook. Some agree on the validity of multiple representations of the honeycomb lattice, while others question specific details, leading to unresolved disagreements about the accuracy of the textbook's claims.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities in the definitions of basis vectors and their roles in describing the honeycomb lattice, as well as the need for clarity in the textbook's presentation.

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

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

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

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

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

[tex] \vec{v}_1 = (1/6 \ 1/6) , \qquad \vec{v}_2 = (-1/6 \ -1/6)[/tex]

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

But
[tex] \vec{a}_1 = a(1 \ 0), \qquad \vec{a}_2 = a (1/2 \ \sqrt{3}/2)[/tex]

why [tex](\vec{a}_1 + \vec{a}_2)/6 = \vec{v}_1[/tex]?
 
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 [tex]\vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ 1/(2\sqrt{3})], \qquad <br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -1/(2\sqrt{3})][/tex] in the book, right?
 
KFC said:
Thanks for your reply. I get the point now. So, there is a mistake to write [tex]\vec{v}_1 = a [0 \ 1/(2\sqrt{3})], \qquad <br /> \vec{v}_2 = a [0 \ -1/(2\sqrt{3})][/tex] in the book, right?

Err, no. That's what I was referring to as the "1st" set.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K