I'm working through some basic theory on periodic potentials, and I would appreciate help in understanding the crystal momentum. Suppose we have a Bravais lattice with lattice vectors $\textbf{R}$. There is an associated reciprocal lattice with lattice vectors $\textbf{K}$ such that $\textbf{K} \cdot \textbf{R} = 2\pi n$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z}$. The relationship between these two lattices ensures that plane waves of the form $e^{i \textbf{K} \cdot \textbf{r}}$ are periodic in the direct lattice. A consequence of Bloch's theorem is that the states $ \langle x|\psi \rangle$ of a particle assume the form

$$ \psi_{n\textbf{k}}(\textbf{r}) = e^{i \textbf{k} \cdot \textbf{r}}u(\textbf{r}), $$


$$ u (\textbf{r} + \textbf{R}) = u(\textbf{r}). $$

For these wavefunctions, $\textbf{p} \equiv \hbar \textbf{k}$ is defined to be the crystal momentum. Canonical momentum is ill-defined for this problem since the crystal breaks translation symmetry. However, for any translation $T_{\textbf{R}}$ within a lattice vector, $[H, T_{\textbf{R}}] = 0$. My questions are:

  1. In the first equation, I currently believe that $\textbf{k}$ can be any vector, and is not necessarily in the set of reciprocal wave vectors (i.e., $\textbf{k} \notin \{\textbf{K}\}$ necessarily). Since this is true, what is $\psi_{n\textbf{k}+\textbf{K}}?$

  2. Suppose a particle has crystal momentum $\textbf{p} = \hbar \textbf{k}$. How do we interpret $\textbf{p}' = \hbar (\textbf{k} + \textbf{K})$?

  3. Although there is no continuous symmetry in the lattice, there is a discrete symmetry of the potential $U(\textbf{r} + \textbf{R}) = U(\textbf{r})$, and therefore of the Hamiltonian. If Noether's theorem does not apply here, what quantity is "conserved" in time, and how do we justify such a conservation in general?

  • $\begingroup$ of the top of my head, $K$ seems like the kernel/null space of momentums, so $k+K$ momentum acting on a state should have same effect as $k$ momentum acting on a state (provided what is stated that $k \notin \{K\}$) $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Aug 9 '14 at 22:44

(1) Since $u(\textbf{r}) = u(\textbf{r}+\textbf{R})$, we can expand this part in terms of reciprocal lattice vectors, $u_k(\textbf{r}) = \sum_\textbf{G}{e^{i\textbf{G}\cdot \textbf{r}}u_\textbf{k-G}}$. We can therefore write:

\begin{equation} \psi_{\textbf k+\textbf K} = e^{i(\textbf k + \textbf K)\cdot \textbf r}\sum_\textbf{G'}{e^{i\textbf{G'}\cdot \textbf{r}}u_{\textbf k-\textbf K- \textbf G'}} = e^{i\textbf k \cdot \textbf r}\sum_\textbf{G'}{e^{i(\textbf{G'}+\textbf K)\cdot \textbf{r}}u_{\textbf k-\textbf K- \textbf G'}}=e^{i\textbf k \cdot \textbf r}\sum_\textbf{G}{e^{i\textbf{G}\cdot \textbf{r}}u_{\textbf k-\textbf G}} = \psi_\textbf k \end{equation} where $\textbf G = \textbf K+\textbf G'$.

(2) You can interpret $\textbf p'$ as being equal to $\textbf p$. This is true because the real space lattice is periodic; $\textbf k$ is always equal to $\textbf k + \textbf K$.

(3) The conserved quantity is $\textbf k$ $\textit mod$ $\textbf K$. You can see that I used this fact in the answer to (2).

You can read just about any solid state physics textbooks for complete justification though my personal favorite is Ziman's Theory of Solids.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah, thank you for clearing up my confusion! It makes sense that you must expand $\psi$ in k-space to get the equality. Could you possibly point me to a proof of how it follows that $\textbf{k}$ is the conserved quantity? I assume it probably consists of expressing the Hamiltonian in k-space as well, and showing that [H, k] = 0, but I could be wrong. $\endgroup$ – Ultima Aug 10 '14 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ Well it is not a conserved quantity per se (only $\textbf k mod \textbf K$). Anyway, Ashcroft and Mermin chapter 8 is pretty good on this front. $\endgroup$ – Xcheckr Aug 10 '14 at 6:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's what I thought. It's not a conserved quantity in time, just a quantity that's invariant under transformations of the form: $$ \textbf{k} \to \textbf{k} + \textbf{K} $$ $\endgroup$ – Ultima Aug 10 '14 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Ultima Why not consider the commutation relation $[H,T_{\textbf{R}}]=0$ plus the Heisenberg equation of motion to claim that $\textbf{k}$ is conserved in time? We can also assume $\textbf{k}$ to be the generator of $T_{\textbf{R}}$. $\endgroup$ – SRS Aug 7 '17 at 5:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.