Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The quantum mechanics of particles in a periodic potential: Bloch’s theorem

John Singleton

Published Aug 30, 2001• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract In this chapter we shall set up the formalism for dealing with a periodic potential; this is known as Bloch’s theorem. The next three chapters are going to appear to be hard work from a conceptual point of view. However, although the algebra looks complicated, the underlying ideas are really quite simple; after some reflection, you should be able to reproduce the various derivations yourself.

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780198506454.003.0002

Related papers

Quantum mechanics

Stephen W. McKnight, Christos Zahopoulos

The behavior of classical macroscopic particles – from baseballs to planets – is governed by Newtonian mechanics as we have described in the first chapters of this book. The behavior of very small particles, on the other hand, is governed by an entirely different collection of equations and rules that go under the name of “quantum mechanics” and these particles are referred to as quantum particles. These rules have analogies to classical mechanics, but are fundamentally different and somewhat mysterious as we discussed in Chapter 8. The fundamental principles of quantum mechanics cannot be proven to be correct. They were developed based on the results of experimental observation, by analogy with classical mechanics, and through the consideration of logical implications of the formalisms used. There is no way to derive the fundamental elements of quantum mechanics, any more than one could predict from first principles that Newtonian forces should add as vectors. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is among the most rigorously tested theories in science, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have, so far, always been in agreement with experiment. In this chapter, we will present quantum mechanics as a series of postulates and examine their implications in application to simple one-dimensional systems. In the next chapter we will examine quantum effects in real systems including atoms, molecules, crystals, and artificially engineered nano-structures. Postulates of quantum mechanics QM Postulate 1: A quantum particle is described by a wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) which is a function of spatial coordinates and time. All physically determinable quantities can be derived from the wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) ; quantities which cannot be found from the wave function are not physically meaningful. Note that some things that one could ask about a quantum particle, for example the exact position and simultaneous exact momentum of a particle, are not derivable from the wave function and are therefore considered indeterminate (or uncertain ). These are things which cannot ever be known about a particle, and, as such, they are meaningless to contemplate.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 10, 2015•0 citations

Cahpter 7. Quantum mechanics

Paul Yates

The ideas involved in quantum mechanics can be expressed quite concisely, yet a detailed study of individual quantum mechanical systems seems to rely heavily upon mathematics. In some ways this is unfortunate, as there is a danger that the underlying concepts may be lost in this detail. However, it is essential to be able to apply these ideas if we are to obtain results that are of use, and which may be compared with experimental data. In this chapter, we will deal with the mathematics needed for some of the simpler concepts before looking at more complicated situations that need more specialized tools.

CRC Press eBooks•Feb 27, 2007•0 citations

One-Dimensional Periodic Potential in Quantum Mechanics

Vladimir K. Ignatovich

An elegant mathematical method is demonstrated with the help of simplest one-dimensional problems of quantum mechanics. This method is then applied to calculation of scattering on one-dimensional periodic systems. Generalization of the method for calculation of scattering in three dimensional periodic media and for spinor particles is pointed out.

Siberian Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 2008•0 citations

Star products and geometric algebra

Peter Henselder

Considering physics as it is done today one notices that physics separates into two formally and conceptually different parts. There is on the one hand classical physics that deals with macroscopic phenomena and there is on the other hand quantum physics that deals with microscopic phenomena. Penrose [96] described this situation as a disturbing analogy to ancient Greece, where two different sets of laws for earth and heaven were applied. So immediately the question arises if one really has to use different formalisms on different scales or if it is possible to describe physics in a unified way. In order to investigate this question one first has to consider how classical and quantum physics are related. Quantum mechanics results from classical physics by a procedure called quantization and classical physics is reobtained by taking the classical limit. Both procedures are heavily plagued by problems [61, 100]. In the first chapter the mathematical problems of quantization will be addressed and it will be described how the star product formalism circumvents these problems. The star product formalism has the advantage that there is no formal break if one goes from classical physics to quantum physics. This formal advantage and the resulting beauty is then used as a guiding principle for the further development. The first question that arises is if the spin can be described in the star product formalism. That this is indeed possible is shown in the second chapter. As a starting point the spin description with pseudoclassical mechanics as it was developed by Berezin is used. One can then construct a fermionic star product and apply it for deformation quantization of pseudoclassical mechanics. In analogy to the bosonic star product formalism one obtains spin Wigner functions that act as spin projectors. Besides the nonrelativistic case it is also possible to formulate Dirac theory with star products. The Clifford algebra of the gamma matrices is hereby described as a deformed version of a four dimensional Grassmann algebra. The fermionic star product in combination with the bosonic Moyal product leads to a supersymmetric star product formalism that can be used to describe supersymmetric quantum mechanics and in the relativistic case to describe the supersymmetric structure of Dirac theory. The other direction of generalization of the star product formalism is the application of star products in quantum field theory that is described in chapter three. After constructing a suitable normal product it is shown that the algebraic structures of perturbative quantum field theory appear also in the star product formalism, which is an expression of the algebra morphism of the operator and the star product formalism. But moreover the quantum group structure that was recently found in perturbative quantum field theory is shown to be a natural algebraic structure of the star product. The essential advantage of deformation quantization is that the classical limit has a well defined meaning. In the context of the spin description with star products this leads to the question of the classical limit of spin, or equivalently to the question of the physical status of pseudoclassical mechanics. In chapter four it is shown that this question is solved if one realizes that the fermionic sector together with the fermionic star product describe the underlying geometric structure. The deformation of a Grassmann algebra leads to a Clifford calculus that is equivalent to geometric algebra. The formulation of geometric algebra in the star product formalism is given in chapter four. One sees there that geometric algebra as the most fundamental geometric formalism that unifies all geometric structures that appear in physics can be described in a supersymmetric manner that parallels the bosonic star product structures. Having obtained a formulation of geometry with fermionic star products this formalism is then applied in the fifth chapter to physical problems. As examples for the application of geometric algebra in classical physics the rigid body and the Kepler problem are considered. In both cases the formalism of geometric algebra gives the most elegant formulation of the problem. In the quantum case one can then combine the fermionic star product formalism that describes the underlying geometric structure with the bosonic star product that describes the noncommuative structure of quantum mechanics. The result is a noncommutative version of geometric algebra that leads to a natural appearance of spin terms. The same idea applied on the phase space leads to the split in supersymmetric partner systems. Geometric algebra gives in this way a natural geometric foundation of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. Similarly one can interpret the hidden BRST-structure of classical mechanics that was found by E. Gozzi and M. Reuter in the path integral formalism from a star product point of view.

•Dec 13, 2007•8 citations

Quantum mechanics of periodic systems

J. C. Garrison

The quantum description of a periodic system can be naturally embedded in an auxiliary problem with an extended configuration space. Standard methods applied to the solution of the extended Schrödinger equation yield the results usually obtained by the use of group theory or extensions of Floquet’s theorem. This method is used to prove Bloch’s theorem and to construct a multimode Floquet method for the semiclassical theory of lasers interacting with atoms.

American Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 1999•9 citations

The Schrodinger Equation

Iraj R. Afnan

In this chapter we turn to a solution of the Schrodinger equation for a simple one dimensional potential as a tool for understanding the meaning of the wave function with an introduction to symmetry and conservation laws.

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks•Apr 14, 2011•0 citations
Abstract In this chapter we shall set up the formalism for dealing with a periodic potential; this is known as Bloch’s theorem. The next three chapters are going to appear to be hard work from a conceptual point of view. However, although the algebra looks complicated, the underlying ideas are really quite simple; after some reflection, you should be able to reproduce the various derivations yourself.
The behavior of classical macroscopic particles – from baseballs to planets – is governed by Newtonian mechanics as we have described in the first chapters of this book. The behavior of very small particles, on the other hand, is governed by an entirely different collection of equations and rules that go under the name of “quantum mechanics” and these particles are referred to as quantum particles. These rules have analogies to classical mechanics, but are fundamentally different and somewhat mysterious as we discussed in Chapter 8. The fundamental principles of quantum mechanics cannot be proven to be correct. They were developed based on the results of experimental observation, by analogy with classical mechanics, and through the consideration of logical implications of the formalisms used. There is no way to derive the fundamental elements of quantum mechanics, any more than one could predict from first principles that Newtonian forces should add as vectors. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is among the most rigorously tested theories in science, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have, so far, always been in agreement with experiment. In this chapter, we will present quantum mechanics as a series of postulates and examine their implications in application to simple one-dimensional systems. In the next chapter we will examine quantum effects in real systems including atoms, molecules, crystals, and artificially engineered nano-structures. Postulates of quantum mechanics QM Postulate 1: A quantum particle is described by a wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) which is a function of spatial coordinates and time. All physically determinable quantities can be derived from the wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) ; quantities which cannot be found from the wave function are not physically meaningful. Note that some things that one could ask about a quantum particle, for example the exact position and simultaneous exact momentum of a particle, are not derivable from the wave function and are therefore considered indeterminate (or uncertain ). These are things which cannot ever be known about a particle, and, as such, they are meaningless to contemplate.
The ideas involved in quantum mechanics can be expressed quite concisely, yet a detailed study of individual quantum mechanical systems seems to rely heavily upon mathematics. In some ways this is unfortunate, as there is a danger that the underlying concepts may be lost in this detail. However, it is essential to be able to apply these ideas if we are to obtain results that are of use, and which may be compared with experimental data. In this chapter, we will deal with the mathematics needed for some of the simpler concepts before looking at more complicated situations that need more specialized tools.
Considering physics as it is done today one notices that physics separates into two formally and conceptually different parts. There is on the one hand classical physics that deals with macroscopic phenomena and there is on the other hand quantum physics that deals with microscopic phenomena. Penrose [96] described this situation as a disturbing analogy to ancient Greece, where two different sets of laws for earth and heaven were applied. So immediately the question arises if one really has to use different formalisms on different scales or if it is possible to describe physics in a unified way. In order to investigate this question one first has to consider how classical and quantum physics are related. Quantum mechanics results from classical physics by a procedure called quantization and classical physics is reobtained by taking the classical limit. Both procedures are heavily plagued by problems [61, 100]. In the first chapter the mathematical problems of quantization will be addressed and it will be described how the star product formalism circumvents these problems. The star product formalism has the advantage that there is no formal break if one goes from classical physics to quantum physics. This formal advantage and the resulting beauty is then used as a guiding principle for the further development. The first question that arises is if the spin can be described in the star product formalism. That this is indeed possible is shown in the second chapter. As a starting point the spin description with pseudoclassical mechanics as it was developed by Berezin is used. One can then construct a fermionic star product and apply it for deformation quantization of pseudoclassical mechanics. In analogy to the bosonic star product formalism one obtains spin Wigner functions that act as spin projectors. Besides the nonrelativistic case it is also possible to formulate Dirac theory with star products. The Clifford algebra of the gamma matrices is hereby described as a deformed version of a four dimensional Grassmann algebra. The fermionic star product in combination with the bosonic Moyal product leads to a supersymmetric star product formalism that can be used to describe supersymmetric quantum mechanics and in the relativistic case to describe the supersymmetric structure of Dirac theory. The other direction of generalization of the star product formalism is the application of star products in quantum field theory that is described in chapter three. After constructing a suitable normal product it is shown that the algebraic structures of perturbative quantum field theory appear also in the star product formalism, which is an expression of the algebra morphism of the operator and the star product formalism. But moreover the quantum group structure that was recently found in perturbative quantum field theory is shown to be a natural algebraic structure of the star product. The essential advantage of deformation quantization is that the classical limit has a well defined meaning. In the context of the spin description with star products this leads to the question of the classical limit of spin, or equivalently to the question of the physical status of pseudoclassical mechanics. In chapter four it is shown that this question is solved if one realizes that the fermionic sector together with the fermionic star product describe the underlying geometric structure. The deformation of a Grassmann algebra leads to a Clifford calculus that is equivalent to geometric algebra. The formulation of geometric algebra in the star product formalism is given in chapter four. One sees there that geometric algebra as the most fundamental geometric formalism that unifies all geometric structures that appear in physics can be described in a supersymmetric manner that parallels the bosonic star product structures. Having obtained a formulation of geometry with fermionic star products this formalism is then applied in the fifth chapter to physical problems. As examples for the application of geometric algebra in classical physics the rigid body and the Kepler problem are considered. In both cases the formalism of geometric algebra gives the most elegant formulation of the problem. In the quantum case one can then combine the fermionic star product formalism that describes the underlying geometric structure with the bosonic star product that describes the noncommuative structure of quantum mechanics. The result is a noncommutative version of geometric algebra that leads to a natural appearance of spin terms. The same idea applied on the phase space leads to the split in supersymmetric partner systems. Geometric algebra gives in this way a natural geometric foundation of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. Similarly one can interpret the hidden BRST-structure of classical mechanics that was found by E. Gozzi and M. Reuter in the path integral formalism from a star product point of view.