Graphene wavefunction expressed in tight binding form

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of wavefunctions in graphene using the tight binding approximation. Participants explore the nature of these wavefunctions, particularly in relation to their spinorial components and how they propagate within the material. The conversation touches on both theoretical aspects and potential connections to continuum models.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the wavefunction for individual atoms in graphene has two spinorial components in real space and how these components propagate.
  • Another participant clarifies that the wavefunction typically describes the entire system and suggests that the inquiry might be about Wannier functions, which are more localized than the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the tight binding model can be related to the continuum model by expanding the Hamiltonian around the Dirac cones, providing specific mathematical formulations for both models.
  • Participants discuss the spinor nature of the wavefunction and its relation to the sublattices of graphene, noting that the components of the spinor may depend on the function \(f(\mathbf{k})\), though it remains unclear if they can be expressed in closed form.
  • Links to external papers are provided by participants as potential resources for further information on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the interpretation of wavefunctions in the context of tight binding and continuum models, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of wavefunctions and their representations, which may not be universally agreed upon. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the relationship between tight binding and continuum models.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying condensed matter physics, particularly in the context of graphene and wavefunction representations in theoretical frameworks.

PRB147
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Does the wavefunction for A or B atom have the spinorial components (2 components)?
In the framework of tight binding approximation, does the wavefunction for atom A (or B) has two spinorial components(2 components) in "real space"? If so how does this spinorial component propagate in the graphene?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the wavefunction for an individual atom in graphene. The wavefunction describes the behavior of the whole system, and in a condensed matter system, the real space wavefunction for a given wave vector ##\mathbf{k}## is delocalized over lots of atoms.

Do you maybe mean Wannier functions? These are usually more localized than the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian for a condensed matter system.
 
TeethWhitener said:
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the wavefunction for an individual atom in graphene. The wavefunction describes the behavior of the whole system, and in a condensed matter system, the real space wavefunction for a given wave vector ##\mathbf{k}## is delocalized over lots of atoms.

Do you maybe mean Wannier functions? These are usually more localized than the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian for a condensed matter system.
Thank you very much for your help, I mean is the tight binding wavefunction (lattice coefficient) at atom A (or B) two-component spinor? If so, how the spinorial lower component propagate? If not, how tight binding wavefunction match the continuum model? In continuum model, the wavefunction evolves between atom A and atom B in two-component spinor form.
 
Ok just to clarify, what the literature calls the continuum model of graphene is the tight binding model, but where you expand the Hamiltonian around the Dirac cones. So the tight binding Hamiltonian looks like
$$H = \begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon & -tf(\mathbf{k}) \\
-tf^*(\mathbf{k}) & \epsilon \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
where
$$f(\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{\mathbf{\delta}}\exp{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{\delta}}$$
and the ##\mathbf{\delta}## are the nearest neighbor vectors in real space.
Expanding to first order about the Dirac cone at ##\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{K}## gives:
$$H_{\xi} = \hbar v_F \begin{pmatrix}
0 & \xi k_x-ik_y \\
\xi k_x+ik_y & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
where we've picked up the valley index ##\xi## which is ##+1## near ##\mathbf{K}## and ##-1## near ##\mathbf{K'}##.
The continuum model allows us to write down the wavefunction explicitly:
$$\psi_{\pm,\xi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\pm\xi e^{i\xi\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}\\
\end{pmatrix} e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}$$
The spinor nature of this wavefunction doesn't change when you switch to the full tight binding model. (When you say the A/B atoms, I think you're referring to the sublattices of graphene with which each component of the spinor is associated.) But the components of the spinor become functions of ##f(\mathbf{k})##, and I'm not sure if they can be written in closed form.

Did that get a little closer to what you were talking about?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PRB147

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K