Are Eigenfunctions of a Hamiltonian on a lattice always Bloch functions?

0xDEADBEEF
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
It is common knowledge in Physics that eigenstates share the symmetries of the Hamiltonian.

And it is trivial to show that this is true for the eigenspaces. Let g be an element of a symmetry group of Hamiltonian H, M_g its representation, \left| \phi \right> an eigenvector and \lambda the corresponding eigenvalue. If g is an element from a symmetry group of H it is given that:

M_gHM_{g^{-1}}\left|\phi\right>=\lambda\left|\phi\right>
Thus
HM_{g^{-1}}\left|\phi\right> = \lambda M_{g^{-1}}\left|\phi\right>

So we see that the eigenspace for \lambda is closed under the operations of M_g
Is there some theorem, that I can decompose this eigenspace into eigenstates of M or how do I proceed from here? This is important for Bloch functions and crystallography. I read something about Schur's lemma being involved.

So to phrase a proper question:
Is every Eigenfunction of a Hamiltonian,invariant up to a scale factor of unity magnitude under the operation of the Hamiltonian's symmetry groups? And if this is so how do I show this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok I think I have answered my question using spherical harmonics. It is really only the eigenspaces that are invariant. But then I don't know how to argue that on a lattice the eigenfunctions must be Bloch functions.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top