Can lattice deformation preserve DOS and simplify calculations?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rigetFrog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dos Transform
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between lattice deformation and the density of states (DOS) in materials. Participants explore whether it is possible to preserve the DOS while altering the crystal lattice and what implications this might have for simplifying calculations related to electronic structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if the crystal lattice can be deformed while preserving ionic charge density, the cumulative DOS might remain invariant.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism, stating that calculating the DOS typically requires prior knowledge of electronic states and questions the feasibility of the proposed method.
  • A different participant proposes that increasing the lattice constant while preserving ionic charge density would not change the density of states, specifically in terms of states per energy interval.
  • One participant with extensive experience in condensed matter theory challenges the previous claims, asserting that DOS is defined through electronic states and band structure calculations.
  • A participant presents a graphical argument about how the DOS changes with varying lattice constants, suggesting that existing states are split rather than new states created, and questions if this reasoning could simplify DOS calculations or be generalized to surface states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between lattice deformation and DOS. There is no consensus on whether the proposed methods for preserving DOS are valid, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on various assumptions about the relationship between lattice structure and electronic states, and there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and calculations of DOS in the context of lattice deformation.

rigetFrog
Messages
112
Reaction score
4
To calculate the DOS of a material, the electronic structure typically needs to be calculated first. This requires lots of expertise and the accuracy is questionable.

I'm interested in seeing if there's some shortcut to get some general properties of the DOS:

If I could arbitrarily deform the crystal lattice while preserving the ionic charge density (I can also magically change ionic charge to preserve change density), are there any general statements I could say about the final DOS?

I would like to say the cumulative DOS calculated by integrating from -infinity to a specific energy 'E' would be invariant.

Comments anyone?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not aware of any way to calculate the DOS without prior knowledge of the electronic states and I do not think it can be done in the manner you are suggesting.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ok, how bout this.

If we increase the crystal lattice constant, and preserve the ionic charge density (by magically changing the proton and electron charge), then I assert that the density of states would not change. (I'm using units of #states/dE, not #states/(dE*m^3))

Do you agree?
 
Still doesn't seem right, from over 20 years in condensed matter theory, I've never seen the DOS calculated in any other way than using the electronic states via the band structure, matter a fact, that is how it is defined.
 
Ok. I can prove it now.

You've seen that picture plotting the D(E) vs lattice constant, 'a', for the different bands. It shows hows the partial D(E) goes from very sharp at large lattice constant to very broad at small lattice constants.

This process is described by continually splitting of narrow atomic states. No new states are created with decreasing 'a'. Rather, existing degenerate states are split. As long as you're below the upper edge of the band, the total number of states below that energy doesn't change. QED.

Now, any thoughts if I can use this to simplify D(E) calculations?
Can this thought process be generalized to formation of surface states?

(I'm a ~10 year experimentalist whose job description forbids using WIEN2k and am forced to slave away in a lab under threat of lashes. So I spend time dreaming about alternative approaches to the forbidden theory.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
23K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
565
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
19K