Is the wavefunction constant in the tight-binding model?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Model
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

I've been reading about the tight-binding model, and I have some questions. Let's say we have the Hamiltonian H for our lattice, and it satisfies

Hψ = Eψ,

where ψ is a vector containing the wavefunction for each atom in the lattice. When I solve the above equation e.g. numerically, I get the eigenvectors ψ. In my case the ψ's just contain numbers, but does this mean that the waverfuncion for each atom is constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it doesn't mean the wavefunction is a constant.
Say you have two atoms in the unit cell, and one orbital for each atom. Then your Hamiltonian is 2x2, and your wavefunction is a two component vector. The values of these components indicate the relative contribution of each atom. If \phi_i(r) are your basis orbitals, then your wavefunction is

u_k(r) = c_1 \phi_1(r) + c_2 \phi_2(r)

Note that this is the solution for the periodic part of the Bloch wavefunction, so there is a long range exp(ik*r) phase factor.
 
Ok, so the two eigenvectors I get have the above form. Does each eigenvector (and corresponding eigenvalue) corresponding to a single particle state? I.e., eigenvector #1 is for the single particle state at atom #1 and eigenvector #2 is for the single particle state at atom #2?

I really appreciate this. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Yes they refer to single particle states. But the second part is wrong.

If you have two eigenvectors, they will be of form (a, b) and (-b, a), as required by orthogonality. The first state (a,b) will be a single particle state that has a contribution a from atom 1 and a contribution b from atom 2. You will not get "eigenvector #1 is for the single particle state at atom #1 and eigenvector #2 is for the single particle state at atom #2?" unless b = 0, which will only happen if your Hamiltonian is diagonal. Both eigenvectors will have contributions on both atoms for realistic tight binding models.
 
Thank you. That clarified it for me.
 
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