A The hermicity of a k.p matrix?

lichen1983312
Messages
85
Reaction score
2
I am trying to use the k.p method to study quantum well band structure. One example Hamiltonian look like this [J. Appl. Phys., 116, 033709(2014)]

Hamiltonian.png
where
##{{\hat k}_ \pm } = {{\hat k}_x} \pm i{{\hat k}_y}##
and the matrix elements are function of ##{{\hat k}_i}##
and if quantum well is grown along z direction
the envelop functions have the form
\[F(x,y,z) = {e^{i{{\bf{k}}_\parallel } \cdot {\bf{r}}}}f(z)\]

and therefore

##\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
{{\hat k}_x} = - i\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} \to {k_x}\\
{{\hat k}_y} = - i\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}} \to {k_y}\\
{{\hat k}_z} = - i\frac{\partial }{{\partial z}}
\end{array} \right.##

this Hamiltonian is an hermitian operator, but I am confused about this. For example, if I look at the (1,4) and (4,1) terms and use ${{\hat k}_z}=-i{\partial _z}$, the (1,4) term becomes
##-i{\partial _z}{P_1}##
and the (4,1) term becomes
##- i{P_1}{\partial _z}##

If I use finite difference method to turn these two terms into a matrix block, the factor -i is not going to flip sign and the matrix cannot he a hermitian matrix?

there must be something wrong with my understanding, please help.
 

Attachments

  • Hamiltonian.png
    Hamiltonian.png
    17 KB · Views: 1,342
Physics news on Phys.org
I have to look at the paper first, the matrix is hermitian, but I will say that P_1 and P_2 are constants, not operators if I remember my \vec{k} \cdot \vec{p} theory correctly.
 
Dr Transport said:
I have to look at the paper first, the matrix is hermitian, but I will say that P_1 and P_2 are constants, not operators if I remember my \vec{k} \cdot \vec{p} theory correctly.
Thanks very much, the reference is this one :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4890585
 
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...
Back
Top