Topological question from Ashcroft-Mermin

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a passage from the Ashcroft-Mermin textbook regarding topological concepts in solid state physics, specifically related to periodic boundary conditions in one and three dimensions. Participants seek clarification on the implications of these boundary conditions and their topological representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the passage refers to "periodic" boundary conditions, noting that while 1D conditions are easily visualized, 3D conditions cannot be represented in real space but still yield correct results.
  • Another participant draws a parallel between the topological impossibility of joining opposite sides of a square in 2D and the situation in 3D, suggesting that this relates to the concept of a torus.
  • There is a request for proof regarding the assertion that the resulting topology is a torus, with a challenge to consider other possible 3D objects.
  • A later reply asserts that joining opposite faces of a cube results in a 3-torus, which cannot be represented in 3D space without self-intersection, but can be embedded in higher dimensions.
  • Another participant mentions that the limitations of representation in 3D space are similar to those encountered with other topological structures, such as a Klein bottle or a 3-sphere.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the topology resulting from the boundary conditions, with some agreeing on the concept of a torus while others question this interpretation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific topological implications and representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of visualizing certain topological constructs within the confines of Euclidean 3-space, highlighting the limitations of spatial intuition in understanding these concepts.

hagopbul
Messages
397
Reaction score
45
TL;DR
about chapter 2
Hello :

doing some reading in physics and some of it is in solid state physics , in Ashcroft- mermin book chapter 2 page 33 you read

" Thus if our metal is one dimensional we would simply replace the line from 0 to L to which the electron were confined by a circle of circumference L. In three dimensions the geometrical embodiment of the boundary condition , in which three pairs of opposite faces on the cube are joint , becomes topologically impossible to construct in three dimensional space "

the above is not very clear to me could some one provide references to above paragraph or a short explanation

Best Regards
HB
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe they are talking about "periodic" boundary conditions. In 1D it is easy to picture in real space as described. For 3D periodic boundary conditions no such real structure should be contemplated. The construct however still works and gives the correct density of states. Just don't try to picture it in your head, you will get agita.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bsmile
It is like:
two pairs of opposite sides on the square are joint , becomes topologically impossible to construct in two dimensional space
because that is topologically a torus, which can be constructed in 3D but not 2D.
 
could you prove it is tours ? it is 3cubes why tours not hexagon or other 3d object ?
 
hagopbul said:
could you prove it is tours
No, I can't even prove the 2D case.
 
hagopbul said:
Summary:: about chapter 2

" Thus if our metal is one dimensional we would simply replace the line from 0 to L to which the electron were confined by a circle of circumference L. In three dimensions the geometrical embodiment of the boundary condition , in which three pairs of opposite faces on the cube are joint , becomes topologically impossible to construct in three dimensional space. Nevertheless the analytic form of the boundary condition is easily generalized "
I have added the next line from Ashcroft and Mermin. Your question is not salient to the physics of Born-von Karman boundary conditions. Not to worry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hagopbul and Keith_McClary
Joining opposite faces of a cube produces a 3-torus, a perfectly well defined topology. The limitation is simply that it cannot be represented (embedded) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space. However, it is easily embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space. This is similar to the situation of a Klein bottle. Trying to represent it 3-space requires self intersection, which is not feature of the actual Klein bottle (which can be embedded with no problems in 4-space).

Also, note that something as simple as 3-sphere cannot be embedded in Euclidean 3-space, so there is no problem here other than that our intuitions are guided by Euclidean 3-space.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K