Why Is k' Introduced in the Bloch Theorem Derivation?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the introduction of k' in the derivation of Bloch theorem, specifically questioning its necessity and the consistency of notation. The professor introduced k' as k + G to simplify the argument of the exponential in the wave function. However, confusion arises when k' is later referred to simply as k, leading to questions about the coefficients in the Fourier series. It is clarified that k and k' can be treated as interchangeable dummy indices in the context of summation. The overall aim is to understand the implications of these notations in solving the Schrödinger equation.
patric44
Messages
308
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
some questions about the derivation of Bloch theorem
Relevant Equations
in the attachments
hi guys
our solid state professor gave us a series of power point slides that contains the derivation of Bloch theorem , but some points is not clear to me , and when i asked him his answer was also not clear :
bloch.png

in the first part i understand the he represented both the potential energy and the electron plane wave as a Fourier series
but when he multiplied both together in the last equation he introduced k' why is that ! sinse k=k+G as it wil repreat in the next parabolic dispersion and subsequently he changed the index of Ck ⇒ Ck'-G isn't that also k ?
in the next page he set again k=k+g and took the exponential as a common factor but yet leaves the "C" coefficent as k-G
why he keep alternating between k'-G , k ...
and the jump from
$$ Ψ(r) ⇒Ψk(r) $$
is not very clear to me ?

- and how i suppose to solve this Schrodinger equation i mean its no longer a differential eq ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
patric44 said:
Homework Statement:: some questions about the derivation of Bloch theorem
Relevant Equations:: in the attachments

hi guys
our solid state professor gave us a series of power point slides that contains the derivation of Bloch theorem , but some points is not clear to me , and when i asked him his answer was also not clear :
View attachment 260161
in the first part i understand the he represented both the potential energy and the electron plane wave as a Fourier series
but when he multiplied both together in the last equation he introduced k' why is that ! sinse k=k+G as it wil repreat in the next parabolic dispersion and subsequently he changed the index of Ck ⇒ Ck'-G isn't that also k ?
He just introduced ##\vec{k'} \equiv \vec{G} + \vec{k} ## so that the argument of the exponential would be ##i \vec{k'} \cdot \vec{r} ## (he wanted that argument to be as simple as possible). So basically he replaces ##\vec{k}## by ##\vec{k'} - \vec{G}##.
 
  • Like
Likes gh136
nrqed said:
He just introduced ##\vec{k'} \equiv \vec{G} + \vec{k} ## so that the argument of the exponential would be ##i \vec{k'} \cdot \vec{r} ## (he wanted that argument to be as simple as possible). So basically he replaces ##\vec{k}## by ##\vec{k'} - \vec{G}##.
i know that , why did he changed that into k in the next page as you can see when he took the e^ikr as a common factor .
and if he is considering k' = k+G = k then why didn't he drop it from the coefficient C ?
that is my question
 
patric44 said:
i know that , why did he changed that into k in the next page as you can see when he took the e^ikr as a common factor .
and if he is considering k' = k+G = k then why didn't he drop it from the coefficient C ?
that is my question
Ok, your questions were not very clear.

In the next page, he just renamed ##\vec{k}' \rightarrow \vec{k} ##. Since the sum is over the vectors, one can rename them, they are dummy indices.
 
  • Like
Likes patric44

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K