The nearly free electron model, solved using perturbation theory, reveals that a band gap opens up at each Brillouin zone boundary. Why is a point just below $k=\pi/a$ lowered in energy and a point just above $k=\pi/a$ raised in energy? Why is it not the other way around? I have followed the mathematics (of perturbation theory) from Steve Simon's book and also from David Tong's lecture notes. But this point is not addressed there. Any clue?
-
$\begingroup$ If you draw what the dispersion relation would look like you would see several strange things, at least one of which is non-physical. The slope of the curve has to increase before decreasing to be flat at the boundary. In reality the slope always decreases from the free-electron value. There is no band gap. The bands must cross ... I don't know how to interpret that. There is a strange singularity in energy where the bands cross. The crossing resembles a massless particle Etc. $\endgroup$– garypCommented Aug 26, 2022 at 18:56
1 Answer
As a quick review, the Bloch Hamiltonian for the free electron model with (arbitrary) lattice spacing $a$ is $$H_k:= \frac{1}{2}(-i\nabla+k)^2$$ which has eigenvectors and eigenvalues $$u_{nk}(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}e^{2\pi i nx/a}\qquad E_{nk}= \frac{(k+2\pi n/a)^2}{2}$$ For most values of $k$, these eigenvalues are non-degenerate. However, there are two points in the Brillouin zone for which this isn't true; the first is at $k=0$, where $E_{n0} = E_{(-n)0}$, and the second is at $k=\pm \pi/a$ (which we identify as the same point), where $E_{n(\pm \pi/a)}= E_{m(\pm \pi/a)} $ whenever $n+m=\mp 1$.
When we add in a generic perturbation, it is the lifting of these degeneracies which corresponds to the opening of a gap. For example, we might add a cosinusoidal perturbation $$V(x) = -\lambda\cos(2\pi x/a) = -\frac{\lambda}{2} (e^{2\pi i x/a}+e^{-2\pi i x/a})$$
The naive first order corrections to the energy eigenvalues are easily seen to vanish: $$\langle u^{(0)}_{nk},Vu^{(0)}_{nk}\rangle = \frac{1}{a}\int_0^a V(x)\mathrm dx = 0$$ When computing the first order corrections to the energy eigenvectors, we immediately run into a problem:
$$u_{nk}^{(1)} = -\sum_{m\neq n}\frac{\langle u_{mk},V u_{nk}\rangle}{E_m^{(0)}-E_n^{(0)}} u_{mk}$$
The aforementioned degeneracies cause the naive correction to blow up, rendering our perturbative expansion invalid. When we're near one of the $k$'s where these degeneracies arise, we should use degenerate perturbation theory instead.
To be specific, we might consider the degeneracy between $u_{0,\pi/a}$ and $u_{1,\pi/a}$. The correct approach is to choose eigenfunctions $\psi_\pm$ which are linear combinations of the degenerate $u$'s but which also diagonalize the perturbation. The $2\times 2$ block of $V$ corresponding to our degenerate subspace is $$\tilde V = \pmatrix{0 & -\lambda/2\\-\lambda/2 & 0}\qquad \tilde V_{nm} = \langle u_{n(\pi/a)},V u_{m(\pi/a)}\rangle$$ Clearly this is diagonalized by $$\psi_{\pm} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u_{0,\pi/a} \pm u_{1,\pi/a})$$ and so the first order corrections to our energies are $$E^{(1)} = \mp\frac{\lambda}{2}$$ and the appropriate eigenvectors are to zeroth order $$\psi_+ = \frac{1 + e^{2\pi ix/a}}{\sqrt{2a}} \qquad \psi_- = \frac{1-e^{2\pi ix/a}}{\sqrt{2a}}$$
Why is a point just below $k=\pi/a$ lowered in energy and a point just above $k=\pi/a$ raised in energy?
I don't think that's the right way to look at it. It's not that $u_{0,\pi/a}^{(0)}$ is pushed down in energy while $u_{1,\pi/a}^{(0)}$ is pushed up. Instead, the symmetric linear combination $\psi_+$ is pushed down while the antisymmetric linear combination $\psi_-$ is pushed up.
The reason for this is not hard to see:
The red dots are the ions. Note that in $\psi_+$, the probability density for the electron is maximized right on top of the ions. Because $V(0)<0$, the energy of this state is lowered by the perturbation. On the other hand, in $\psi_-$ the probability density for the electrons is maximized at $\pm a/2$, and because $V(\pm a/2)>0$, the energy of this state is raised by the perturbation.
This is an illustration of a very general rule from perturbation theory - when you have a degenerate subspace $\mathscr D$, then there's no unique choice of basis for $\mathscr D$. When we turn on a perturbation, we can reasonably expect the perturbed eigenfunctions to be small corrections to some basis of $\mathscr D$, but certainly not every basis of $\mathscr D$. In our case, at $k=\pi/a$ we see that the perturbed eigenstates are not given by small corrections to $u_0$ and $u_1$, but rather to $\psi_\pm$. The states which are pushed up or down in energy are not $u_0$ or $u_1$, but $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$.
-
$\begingroup$ I understand that there is a gap and two unequal eigenvalues are associated with symmetric and antisymmetric linear combinations. Recall the diagram in the extended zone scheme. I am asking that in that diagram, why is the energy raised (w.r.t the free electron value) for $k=(\pi/a) +\delta$ and lowered for $k=(\pi/a)-\delta$ [for $\delta$ being small and +ve]. Why is it not the opposite? Are you saying that diagram itself is misleading (because the states that are pushed up or down in energy do are not plane wave states with fixed $k$)? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2022 at 20:22
-
$\begingroup$ @Solidification Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I will update my answer in a bit with a clearer discussion of this point, though. The extended zone diagram is essentially constructed by “unfolding” the reduced zone diagram. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2022 at 23:16