1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Invariance of U_harm of crystal to rotation

  1. Aug 27, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    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.

    2. Relevant 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)

    3. 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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2012 #2
    I figured it out
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook