Exchange interaction in solid state physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exchange interaction in solid state physics, specifically focusing on the mathematical formulations involving Fourier transforms and their implications. Participants explore when to use different forms of the equations related to the exchange interaction and the conditions under which certain simplifications can be made.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two forms of the equation for the exchange interaction, questioning when to use each and under what conditions the absolute value can be applied.
  • Another participant suggests that the questions are fundamentally about Fourier transforms rather than exchange interactions, recommending a textbook for better understanding.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the exchange interaction can sometimes depend only on the absolute value of the argument, indicating a physical rationale behind this choice.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of including a square root in the transformation and the necessity of consistency in inverse transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of Fourier transforms to the topic of exchange interactions, with some asserting that the questions posed are elementary and others maintaining that they are pertinent to the exchange interaction context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to the mathematical formulations.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of definitions and assumptions regarding the mathematical forms presented, as well as the physical interpretations of the exchange interaction. The dependence on specific conventions in Fourier transforms is also noted but not fully resolved.

Petar Mali
Messages
283
Reaction score
0
[tex]I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}I(\vec{k})e^{i\vec{k}(\vec{n}-\vec{m})}[/tex]

[tex]I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\vec{k}}I(\vec{k})e^{i\vec{k}(\vec{n}-\vec{m})}[/tex]

In which cases is better to use first and in which second relation? [tex]N[/tex] is number of knottes of lattice.

And when I can say [tex]I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=I(|\vec{n}-\vec{m}|)[/tex]?

And is it a way to show

[tex]\sum_{\vec{k}}I(\vec{k})=\sum_{-\vec{k}}I(\vec{k})[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
please i am anew member can you explain the meanings of the symbols
 
This has nothing to do with exchange interactions, and is a problem of Fourier transforms. These are elementary questions, so I suggest a textbook, which will explain far better and in greater detail than anyone here can.
 
genneth said:
This has nothing to do with exchange interactions, and is a problem of Fourier transforms. These are elementary questions, so I suggest a textbook, which will explain far better and in greater detail than anyone here can.

[tex]I[/tex] is exchange interaction.

[tex] I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=I(|\vec{n}-\vec{m}|)[/tex]

Sometimes [tex]I[/tex] depends only of absolyte value of argument. This is physical reasons and do not have any relationship with Fourier transform in general. [tex]I[/tex] is sometimes tensor [tex]I^{\beta}_{\alpha}[/tex].

In physics is not always the same think to work with

[tex] I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}I(\vec{k})e^{i\v ec{k}(\vec{n}-\vec{m})}[/tex]

or with

[tex] I(\vec{n}-\vec{m})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\vec{k}}I(\vec{k} )e^{i\vec{k}(\vec{n}-\vec{m})}[/tex]

I just whant to know when is better to do with first or with second relation?

Thanks
 
It does not matter which convention you use, as long as you use the appropriate inverse transformation. If you include the square root, you should also include it in the inverse transformation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K