The Effect of Diatomic Unit Cell on Polyacetylene Band Structure

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on how the alternating bond lengths in polyacetylene affect its band structure compared to a naive model of a uniform one-dimensional carbon chain. The introduction of a diatomic unit cell is likened to phonon behavior, suggesting that it may create additional complexity in the electronic dispersion relation. In the tight binding model, two bands arise due to the periodic potential, but with equal bond lengths, these bands would touch at the Brillouin zone boundary. Only when bond lengths differ do the bands separate, impacting the electrical properties. The conversation seeks to clarify the implications of these structural details on the dispersion curve and band behavior.
Ichimaru
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Question Statement

Polyacetylene can be modeled naively as a one dimensional chain of carbon atoms each separated by a lattice constant 'a'. Taking the electrons in such a system to be nearly free and applying a weak periodic perturbation we can derive a dispersion relation giving a curve such as the one shown on page 6 here: http://web.mit.edu/course/6/6.732/www/new_part1.pdf

Now with more detail: Polyacetylene actual has an alternating structure of double bond (length 0.9a) then single bond (length 1.1a). This gives it a lattice constant of 2a and a basis of (0) and (0.9a). How does this affect the shape and values of the dispersion curve? What are the differing electrical properties of the naive and more detailed models?

Attempt at solution

This seems like it would be similar to the introduction of a diatomic unit cell for phonons in a crystal lattice. When considering phonons the introduction of a second atom in the unit cell gives an extra branch in the dispersion relation. However I don't understand how this applies in the case of electron bands. We would have two bands anyway as a result of the periodic potential (in the tight binding model there will be two complete bands, in our weak binding model there are only two at the Brillouin sone boundaries). So what would the effect be?

Thanks very much for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The simplest tight binding model considers just one p orbital on each atom ( this is called a Hueckel model in chemistry). If bonds were equal there would be only one atom per unit cell and only one tight binding band. With a two atom basis, there will be two bands, but, as long as bond lengths are equal, the two bonds would touch at the Brillouin boundary. In fact, you only have reduced the size of the brillouin zone and folded back part of the band. Only when bond lengths become unequal, the two bands will be separated at the Brillouin zone boundary. Now try to consider the corresponding weakly perturbed free electron model.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top