Effective mass in terms of electron states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the effective mass matrix in the context of solid-state physics, specifically using perturbation theory to derive expressions related to electron states and their energies. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and potential errors in the derivation process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a detailed perturbation approach to derive the effective mass matrix, including specific mathematical expressions and assumptions about the Hamiltonian.
  • Another participant questions the complexity of the result and suggests that symmetry might simplify the off-diagonal terms in the perturbation sums.
  • A participant indicates a potential mistake in the derivation and mentions the need for a missing factor and a sign error.
  • Discussion arises about the relationship between the momentum operator and the perturbation terms, with a participant clarifying that the momentum eigenvalues are represented as ##p_i##.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the origin of certain terms in the expressions, particularly the Hermitian conjugate terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the derivation and the presence of errors, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations of the mathematical expressions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential mistakes in the derivation, including missing factors and sign errors, but do not reach a consensus on the implications of these issues.

ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
1,387
I'm trying to figure out the second order extension of the "trick" used on page 92 (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/aqm/solid3.pdf) for the calculation of the effective mass matrix ##m^{\star}_{ij} = \hbar^2 (\partial^2 E/ \partial k_i \partial k_j)^{-1}## on page 94. I think for this one would need to consider the following perturbation:\begin{align*}
\delta H &= \frac{\partial H_{\mathbf{k}}}{\partial \mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{q} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 H_{\mathbf{k}}}{\partial k_i \partial k_j} q_i q_j \\
&= \frac{\hbar^2}{m}\mathbf{q} \cdot (-i\nabla + \mathbf{k}) + \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \delta_{ij} q_i q_j
\end{align*}Then I can equate the second order perturbation expansion to the Taylor expansion of the exact result ##E(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{q})##,\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial \mathbf{k}} \cdot \mathbf{q} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial k_i \partial k_j} q_i q_j &= \langle \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}}| \delta H | \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}} \rangle + \sum_{n \neq n'} \frac{|\langle \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}} | \delta H | \psi_{n', \mathbf{k}} \rangle|^2}{E_{n}(\mathbf{k}) - E_{n'}(\mathbf{k})} \\
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial k_i \partial k_j} q_i q_j &= \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \delta_{ij} q_i q_j + \frac{\hbar^2}{m^2} \sum_{n \neq n'} \frac{|\langle \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}} | \mathbf{q} \cdot -i \hbar \nabla | \psi_{n', \mathbf{k}} \rangle|^2}{E_{n}(\mathbf{k}) - E_{n'}(\mathbf{k})}
\end{align*}where I canceled the first order terms from both sides, and also dropped the fourth order terms in ##q_i## from the second term. Then\begin{align*}
\hbar^2 \left(\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial k_i \partial k_j} \right)^{-1} &= \frac{m}{2}\left[ \delta_{ij} - \frac{1}{m} \sum_{n\neq n'} \frac{\langle \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}} | p_i | \psi_{n',\mathbf{k}} \rangle \langle \psi_{n',\mathbf{k}} |p_j | \psi_{n,\mathbf{k}} \rangle}{E_n(\mathbf{k}) - E_{n'}(\mathbf{k})} \right]
\end{align*}What's wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just as a bewildered observer, what do you think is wrong with this result? Seems like a complicated second order perturbation matrix answer to a complicated problem. I assume once the perturbation sums are computed the off diagonal terms go away because of symmetry perhaps?
 
I'm trying to get to this result:

1648734934772.png
 
I see now, you made a mistake somewhere :rolleyes:. I’m still trying to see how ##p_i## comes about. Then all one needs is the missing factor of ##m^2## and the sign error…..
 
It's because ##\mathbf{q} \cdot -i\hbar \nabla = q_i p_i##. The expression in post #3 is also the inverse matrix and I don't know where the Hermitian conjugate (##\mathrm{h.c.}##) terms come from.
 
Okay, I see ##k## and ##q## In the development. What’s ##p##?
 
I have ##p_i## as the crystal momentum eigenvalues.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K