Compute subband structure of graphene

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaac.Wang88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphene Structure
Isaac.Wang88
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
There’re 2 ways to calculate the subband structure of graphene nanoribbon using tight-binding model, for Zigzag chain:
The first one is to diagonize the Hamiltonian $H = H_0 + H_10*exp(i*k_x) + H_01*exp(-i*k_x)$ and obtains the eigenvalues.
The second method is just diagonize the Hamiltonian in Untitled-1.jpg.
The Hamiltonians derived by the methods above are slightly different, but they have the same graph of the dispersion relation.
The question is, when I change the hopping energy t to t*exp(i*φ), here φ is any value you like, the graph plotted by the first method has been shifted horizontally while the graph of the second method remains the same. This is why it confuses me, I don’t know what’s wrong in here…

P.S. The attached figures are my dispersion relation of armchair nanoribbon when φ=pi/4, number of atoms N=16 using those two methods respectively. I don’t know why the plot has been shifted horizontally by using the first method…

Thank you very much
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 539
  • 1.png
    1.png
    5 KB · Views: 478
  • 2.png
    2.png
    5 KB · Views: 511
Last edited:
Isaac.Wang88 said:
There’re 2 ways to calculate the subband structure of graphene nanoribbon using tight-binding model, for Zigzag chain:
The first one is to diagonize the Hamiltonian $H = H_0 + H_10*exp(i*k_x) + H_01*exp(-i*k_x)$ and obtains the eigenvalues.
The second method is just diagonize the Hamiltonian in Untitled-1.jpg.
The Hamiltonians derived by the methods above are slightly different, but they have the same graph of the dispersion relation.
The question is, when I change the hopping energy t to t*exp(i*φ), here φ is any value you like, the graph plotted by the first method has been shifted horizontally while the graph of the second method remains the same. This is why it confuses me, I don’t know what’s wrong in here…

P.S. The attached figures are my dispersion relation of armchair nanoribbon when φ=pi/4, number of atoms N=16 using those two methods respectively. I don’t know why the plot has been shifted horizontally by using the first method…

Thank you very much
Isaac.Wang88 said:
There’re 2 ways to calculate the subband structure of graphene nanoribbon using tight-binding model, for Zigzag chain:
The first one is to diagonize the Hamiltonian $H = H_0 + H_10*exp(i*k_x) + H_01*exp(-i*k_x)$ and obtains the eigenvalues.
The second method is just diagonize the Hamiltonian in Untitled-1.jpg.
The Hamiltonians derived by the methods above are slightly different, but they have the same graph of the dispersion relation.
The question is, when I change the hopping energy t to t*exp(i*φ), here φ is any value you like, the graph plotted by the first method has been shifted horizontally while the graph of the second method remains the same. This is why it confuses me, I don’t know what’s wrong in here…

P.S. The attached figures are my dispersion relation of armchair nanoribbon when φ=pi/4, number of atoms N=16 using those two methods respectively. I don’t know why the plot has been shifted horizontally by using the first method…

Thank you very much
thanks for nice answer,can you tell me that when we are changing from armchair to zigzag ,what will happen?
How we can the magnetic term in my Hamiltonian ,which is of the order of n by n matrix in block form.
regards
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top