Invariance of U_harm of crystal to rotation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the harmonic energy of a crystal, represented by the equation U_harm, is solely dependent on the symmetric strain tensor epsilon_ij and is unaffected by pure rotational displacement fields u(r). The energy expression is derived from Ashcroft & Mermin's equations, specifically equation 22.72, and involves the dynamical matrix D_ij(R). The analysis confirms that the contribution from antisymmetric terms vanishes, reinforcing the conclusion that U_harm is invariant to rotations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of crystal dynamics and energy expressions
  • Familiarity with strain tensors and their symmetric properties
  • Knowledge of the mathematical framework for tensor calculus
  • Proficiency in interpreting equations from Ashcroft & Mermin
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the symmetric strain tensor epsilon_ij in detail
  • Explore the implications of the dynamical matrix D_ij(R) on crystal energy
  • Investigate the role of antisymmetric terms in energy calculations
  • Learn about applications of harmonic energy in material science
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in solid-state physics, materials science, and crystallography who are analyzing crystal energy and strain relationships.

sam_bell
Messages
65
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that because a pure rotational displacement field u(r) has no effect, that the energy of a crystal only depends on the symmetric strain tensor epsilon_ij.

Homework Equations



As in Ashcroft & Mermin (22.72), the energy of a crystal as a function of displacement field u_i(r) and dynamical matrix D_ij(R) (R = direct lattice vector) is:
U_harm = 1/2 Integral[dr Sum[ijkl, (du_j/dx_i)(du_l/dx_k)E_ijkl ]]
where
E_ijkl = -1/2 Sum[R, R_i D_jl(R) R_k] (ijkl indices go over x,y,z)

We need to show that this only depends on the strain in the symmetric combination
epsilon_ij = 1/2( du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i ) (Ashcroft & Mermin 22.77)

The Attempt at a Solution



For simplicity, consider the 2D case. Then u(x,y) = (-ay, ax) for small a is an infinitesimal rotation of the plane. Writing (22.72) for the crystal energy, we get

0 = U_harm = 1/2 Integral[dr (du_y/dx)(du_y/dx) E_xyxy + (du_y/dx)(du_x/dy)E_xyyx + (du_x/dy)(du_y/dx)E_yxxy + (du_x/dy)(du_x/dy)E_yxyx]
= 1/2 Integral[dr a^2(E_xyxy - E_xyyx - Eyxxy + E_yxyx) ] = 0

Or, E_xyxy - E_xyyx - Eyxxy + E_yxyx = 0.

Now, we rewrite du_y/dx = eps_xy + ant_xy = 1/2(du_y/dx+du_x/dy) + 1/2(du_y/x-du_x/dy), and similarly du_x/dy = eps_xy - ant_xy as symmetric and antisymmetric parts. Then we can substitute in (22.72):

U_harm = 1/2 Integral[dr (du_y/dx)(du_y/dx) E_xyxy + (du_y/dx)(du_x/dy)E_xyyx + (du_x/dy)(du_y/dx)E_yxxy + (du_x/dy)(du_x/dy)E_yxyx + (remaining terms)]
= 1/2 Integral[ dr, (eps_xy + ant_xy)(eps_xy + ant_xy)(E_xyxy) + (eps_xy + ant_xy)(eps_xy - ant_xy)(E_xyyx + E_yxxy) + (eps_xy - ant_xy)(eps_xy - ant_xy)(E_yxyx) + (remaining terms)]
= 1/2 Integral[ dr, eps_xy^2 (E_xyxy + E_xyyx + Eyxxy + E_yxyx) + (eps_xy ant_xy)(2 E_xyxy - 2 E_yxyx) + ant_xy^2(E_xyxy - E_xyyx - Eyxxy + E_yxyx) + (remaining terms)]

Now the coefficient of ant_xy^2 vanishes, but I can't see why the coefficient for eps_xy*ant_xy would vanish. The goal is to remove all dependence on antisymmetric terms. I see no reason from what I read in Ashcroft & Mermin that E_xyxy = E_yxyx generally.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured it out
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K