A Inequivalent K and K' points in graphene

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter forever_physicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphene Points
forever_physicist
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Good evening to everybody!
I have a question concerning monolayer graphene.
In all the papers I read it is well specified that K and K' in graphene are not equivalent points, but I didn't find anywhere where is the difference between them. Can anybody tell me where this difference is coming from theoretically and how can be detected?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The K and K’ points are inequivalent for the same reason the A and B sublattices of graphene are inequivalent. Here’s a picture:
https://images.app.goo.gl/1PnPU5HPaW4FZawD8
In the momentum space picture, remember that only the first (hexagonal) Brillouin zone is shown; the Brillouin zones actually tile the plane. So with that in mind, it’s clear that (e.g.) the K point occurs at a vertex with two hexagons below it and one hexagon above it, and the K’ point occurs at the mirror image vertex, with one hexagon below and two above. In other words, both K and K’ have threefold rotational symmetry, but they’re inversions of each other.
 
  • Like
Likes forever_physicist
Ok but if this is the case, why when in a DFT calculation we use the Irreducible Brillouin Zone, we only consider K? In principle it is not enough to consider only 1/12 of the hexagon as everybody do, right?
 
The electronic structure (edit: the band energy structure, not the wavefunctions) is going to be the same, but the wavefunction at the K point is related to the wavefunction at the K' point by time reversal symmetry. It's kind of a momentum space analogy to different enantiomers of a molecule: they have the same energy, but they are mirror images of each other. Another way you can think about it is that near the K (K') points, the Hamiltonian ends up having the same form as that of a massless spin 1/2 particle. But the phases of the wavefunction components differ by a sign change. So at the K point, you get a "left-handed"spinor and at the K' point you get a "right-handed" spinor. Here's a pretty good review:
https://cdn.journals.aps.org/files/sample-rmp-revtex4.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes forever_physicist and Spinnor
In band theory,we label all eigenstates with nk. The k point is defined in the first Brillouin Zone of specific structure, due to equivalence of the two k points whose difference is an integer multiple of reciprocal lattice vectors. In the case you mentioned, K minus K‘ is not an integer multiple of reciprocal lattice vectors, so they are not equivalent points. Although they have same eigenvalues because of symmetry, they are absolutely inequivalent points
 
  • Like
Likes forever_physicist
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top