Scattering amplitude of diffracted beam by a crystal

Andreasdreas
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The scattering amplidtude, F, of a, by a crystal, diffracted beam is defined to be:

(1) F=\sum{_\vec{G}}\int n_{\vec{G}}e^{i(\vec{G}-\delta\vec{k})\cdot \vec{r}}\mathrm{d}V

The integral is over all the volumeelements, dV, of the crystal.
n_{\vec{G}} is the local electron concentration of the crystal in dV, \vec{G} is a reciprocal lattice vector and the sum is over the set of all the reciprocal lattice vectors. \vec{r} is the position vector of dV
further -\delta\vec{k}=\vec{k}-\vec{k'} where \vec{k} is the wave vector of the incomming beam and \vec{k'} is the wave vector of the outgoing scattered beam.

The beam could be
fotons, electrons neutrons etc. It is descibed as a plane wave.

It is easy to see that F=n_{\vec{G}}V when \delta \vec{k}=\vec{G}

But how can it be shown that F is negligibly small when \delta \vec{k} differs sginificantly from any \vec{G}?


Homework Equations



I thought some expression for the summation could be used.

Maybe

(2) \sum{_m=0}^{M-1}x^m=\frac{1-x^{M}}{1-x}




The Attempt at a Solution



I can't find a away to make (1) fit into (2). And if i just look at (1) i really am lost.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought of using the fact that the sum only goes over all the reciprocal lattice vectors and not \delta \vec{k}. This means that for \delta \vec{k} to be significantly different from any \vec{G}, then F should be small for the term in the summation that involves \delta \vec{k}.But how can one prove this mathematically?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top