What is the Relation Between Wave Vectors in Bloch's Theorem?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Modey3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between wave vectors in the context of Bloch's theorem, specifically focusing on the differences between wave vectors used in the Fourier series for wave functions and potentials in solid state physics. The conversation touches on the implications of the Born-Von Karman boundary conditions and the periodicity of the lattice.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes confusion regarding the wave function's Fourier series and the potential's Fourier series, questioning the relationship between the wave vectors K and q.
  • Another participant explains that K represents summation over all reciprocal lattice vectors and is of the form n1*b1+n2*b2+n3*b3, where n's are integers and b's are reciprocal lattice vectors.
  • A participant challenges the assertion that wave vectors satisfying the Born-Von-Karman boundary conditions necessarily satisfy the periodicity of the lattice, providing an example of a simple cubic lattice.
  • Another participant clarifies that both q's and K's belong to k-space but emphasizes the need to be cautious in visualizing their relationship, noting that q's are confined to the first Brillouin zone while K's relate to the potential's periodicity.
  • A participant raises concerns about wave vectors with wavelengths that satisfy the Born-Von-Karman conditions but do not meet the periodicity of the lattice, suggesting that this creates a contradiction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between wave vectors K and q, particularly regarding the implications of the Born-Von-Karman boundary conditions and lattice periodicity. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the relationship between wave vectors and the definitions of periodicity and boundary conditions. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

Modey3
Messages
135
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I've been self teaching myself solid state physics by reading Ashcroft and Mermin. What confuses me is that for the wave function in the lattice is written as the Fourier series of waves obeying the Born-Von Karman Boundary Conditions while the potenial is written as the Fourier series of waves in the reciprocal lattice. Look on page 137 in Ashcroft and Mermin to see what I mean. Is there any difference in the wave vectors used in both Fourier series. Actually two different summation indices are used (K for the wavefunction and q for the potential) I would think that since a wave is in the reciprocal lattice it should obey the Born-Von-Karman BC's. I'm just not getting a feel for how K and q are related. Thanks for any help.

Modey3
 
Physics news on Phys.org
K is summation over all reciprocal lattice vectors. So it is always of the form n1*b1+n2*b2+n3*b3 where n's are integers and b's are reciprocal lattice vectors. If you look at the previous page the allowed wave vectors are not of the same form but satisfy the peridiocity of the reciprocal lattice.
 
Thanks for the response. Isn't it true though that a wave vector that satifies the Born-Von-Karman BC's doesn't nessarily satisfy the periodicity of the lattice. For instance consider a simple cubic lattice. The allowed wave vectors that satisfy the periodicity of the lattice are pi/a, 2*pi/a, 3*pi/a etc... The Born-Von-Karman BC's don't restrict the wave vectors to these values. In fact according to the Born-Von-Karman BC you could have a wave vector (0.5)*pi/a which doens't satisfy periodicity. Thanks

Modey3
 
q's and K's belong to k-space... both of them. But you must be careful when you create a picture. q's are all in first Brillouin zone (remember that its linear size goes like 1/a). K's are equivalent to R's in reciprocal lattice... now you should understand that while Born&Von-Karman have made a restriction to R variability, differently they could not perform the same on K's which are ruled by potential periodicity.
I suggest you to postpone the demonstration and come back to relations like (8.29).
Keep in mind continously a common analogue: the string of a guitar! It's the same, but you have physically to repeat the chord backward and foreward until you got suitable boundary conditions!
 
Okay, thanks for everyones responses. The only problem I have is that a wave with a wavelength of 2a, 3a, or greater satisfy the Born-Von-Karman, but do not satisfy the periodicity of the lattice since psi(r) doesn't equal psi(r+R) for a wavelength of 3a. In this case R could be equal to a. Thanks for any help.

Modey3
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K