Wave function at high symmetry point

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the properties of wave functions at high symmetry points in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically addressing whether the wave function at the \(\Gamma\) point can always be a real function. Participants explore this question under different conditions, including the presence or absence of spin-orbit coupling and the implications of time reversal symmetry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to prove that the wave function at the \(\Gamma\) point can always be a real function, noting that this does not hold for general \(k\) points.
  • Another participant argues that the statement is generally incorrect, particularly when spin-orbit coupling is considered, which necessitates the use of complex orbitals.
  • It is suggested that if spin-orbit coupling is ignored, the complex conjugate of the Bloch wave at the \(\Gamma\) point is also a solution to the Schrödinger equation, indicating that real and imaginary parts can be treated separately.
  • A participant introduces the concept of time reversal symmetry, explaining that in the absence of spin-orbit coupling, wave functions can be chosen to be real, leading to degeneracies at certain points.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of maintaining wave functions as Bloch waves and discusses the conditions under which the periodic function \(u_k(r)\) can be real.
  • One participant notes that the choice of using complex exponentials instead of real functions like sine or cosine affects the necessity of complex \(u_k\).
  • A later reply summarizes the understanding that without spin-orbit coupling, certain wave functions are degenerate, allowing for the construction of real-valued eigenstates under specific conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which wave functions can be real at high symmetry points, particularly regarding the role of spin-orbit coupling and time reversal symmetry. There is no consensus on a definitive proof or conclusion regarding the original question.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the effects of spin-orbit coupling and time reversal symmetry, which are not universally agreed upon. The implications of boundary conditions on the choice of wave functions are also noted but remain unresolved.

jianglai
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How to prove that wave function at [itex]\Gamma[/itex] point can always be a real function? I know it is not true for general k point, but for [itex]\Gamma[/itex] and other high symmetry point like X, is there a simple proof?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is hard to prove as it is wrong in general. E.g. once spin orbit coupling cannot be neglected, the orbitals have to be chosen complex.
 
Hmm. If we ignore spin-orbit then this seems easy. Note that the complex conjugate of the Bloch wave at gamma is also a solution of the Schrödinger equation. That means the real and imaginary parts are separately solutions. A similar argument should work at other high-symmetry points if -k = k + K where K is a reciprocal lattice vector.
 
A clean discussion involves the assumption and discussion of time reversal symmetry. If there are no spin orbit coupling effects, time reversal will be represented by complex conjugation and the single particle wavefunctions in a periodic potential can always be chosen real as then E(k)=E(-k) so that instead of the solutions [itex]\psi_k(x)=u_k(x)\exp(ikx)[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{-k}=(\psi_k(x))^*[/itex] real valued combinations can be chosen. For k=0, only one real function will be obtained.
If spin orbit coupling is taken into account, time reversal is no longer just complex conjugation so that it does not always guarantee real valuedness. This is known as Kramers degeneracy.
 
DrDu said:
A clean discussion involves the assumption and discussion of time reversal symmetry. If there are no spin orbit coupling effects, time reversal will be represented by complex conjugation and the single particle wavefunctions in a periodic potential can always be chosen real as then E(k)=E(-k) so that instead of the solutions [itex]\psi_k(x)=u_k(x)\exp(ikx)[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{-k}=(\psi_k(x))^*[/itex] real valued combinations can be chosen. For k=0, only one real function will be obtained.
If spin orbit coupling is taken into account, time reversal is no longer just complex conjugation so that it does not always guarantee real valuedness. This is known as Kramers degeneracy.

That's right, but I think we want to keep our wave-functions as Bloch waves. In other words, we're really aking where in k-space we can choose the periodic function u_k(r) to be real. I guess you could do what you said for all k if you wanted to work with stationary boundary conditions (in opposition to the conventional Born-von Karmen).
 
sam_bell said:
That's right, but I think we want to keep our wave-functions as Bloch waves. In other words, we're really aking where in k-space we can choose the periodic function u_k(r) to be real. I guess you could do what you said for all k if you wanted to work with stationary boundary conditions (in opposition to the conventional Born-von Karmen).

I think it also works with Born- von Karman boundary conditions. So basically the only reason why we have to use complex u_k is because we insist on complex exp(ikx) instead of sin(ikx) or cos(ikx).
 
Thank you both for the reply! I think I get a sense of it now. Without spin-orbital coupling, for any [itex]k[/itex], [itex]\psi_{nk}(r)[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{nk}(r)^* = \psi_{-nk}(r)[/itex] are degenerate (in [itex]H[/itex]). But Bloch state are simultaneous eigenstates for both [itex]H[/itex] and translation [itex]T_R[/itex], and only at [itex]-k = k + G[/itex] are [itex]\psi_{nk}(r)[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{-nk}(r)[/itex] degenerate in [itex]T_R[/itex] as well, which means we can take a linear combination of them and get rid of the imaginary part. For a general [itex]k[/itex] however, [itex]\psi_{nk}(r)+\psi_{-nk}(r)[/itex] would be a real-valued eiginstate of [itex]H[/itex] that's not a Bloch state.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't have formulated it better!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K