Talk:Bloch's theorem

message: Stevenj: I think 134.99.136.28 was correct in capitalizing the nouns in the title of Bloch's paper: "Über die Quantenmechanik der Elektronen in Kristallgittern". Nouns are written with capital letters in German. O. Prytz 13:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't realize that. —Steven G. Johnson 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding capitalization

message: I've learned that there are s,p and d bloch waves in transition metals. And that the rules for dipole radiation are very similar to 
free atoms with s,p,d orbitals. How is the connection? Tight binding model? Would this improve this article? Arnero 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tight-binding approximations are just a simple approximate expansion basis for the Bloch eigenfunctions in electronic systems.  It doesn't have anything conceptually to do with Bloch's theorem per se.  For example, you could just as easily use a tight-binding approximation in a non-periodic structure where Bloch's theorem does not apply. —Steven G. Johnson 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tight binding

message: The derivation of the Bloch theorem is added. I am a new wikipedian and not very proficient in the wiki markup language and the formula is not very satisfactory. Could anyone help with that? Thank youTschijnmotschau (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The derivation

message: The original derivation failed to properly divide k by 2pi, because the normalization convention for the reciprocal lattice vectors is that a_i \dot b_j = 2 \pi \delta_{ij}.  I fixed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.253.191 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states the convention it uses earlier in the proof ("These are three vectors b1, b2, b3 (with units of inverse length), with the property that ai · bi = 1, but ai · bj = 0 when i ≠ j."). That edit introduced an error. I don't mind switching conventions, but it has to be done in the entirety of the article.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article seems to have a crysis of identity... I'll investigate tonight after I get back from work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 68.55.253.191 that it's better to use a_i \dot b_j = 2 \pi \delta_{ij}, because the whole article is generally using angular wavevectors not normal wavevectors. I changed it here. I think everything is correct and consistent now, does everyone agree? --Steve (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree physical wavevectors with a.b = 2π δ_ij is the better convention. I'm just not sure the exponentials now have the correct factors. I said I would check tonight, but I'm tired from a very long day at work. I'll check them all tomorrow to make sure. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected 2 pi error 

message: e, i and r are not defined. </BR>
The names of the Greek letters are missing too. </BR>
They are not linked to the Greek Alphabet. </BR>
botwork </BR>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added e and i at the top. I don't see any reason to link the greek letters. The fact that ψ is called "psi" not "funny-looking greek letter" is a good thing to know but it's off-topic when discussing Bloch waves. (Just my opinion.) --Steve (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Definitions For The Formula and etc. 

message: Dear all,
It seems to me that the last pair of images, in the figure comparing two expressions of the same Bloch state, shows two identical decompositions. The same image must have been taken twice by mistake !
LaurentV (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The image detail page :File:BlochWaves1D.svg has source code, but I'm very confused what you think the problem is. Are you referring to the fact that the bottom-left plot and bottom-right plot are the same curves? There's supposed to be the same curves. That's the whole point. Or are you talking about something else? Can you explain more specifically? Thanks. --Steve (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both users were referring to the use of the same plot in the bottom-left and bottom-right of that figure. Reinforcing what was said by Steve, they are supposed to be the same, there is no mistake. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small mistake : wrong image in the "Applications and consequences" section 

message: Interesting I think you are right, I left a message to Sbyrnes321 to check if he is willing either to fix the image or to share the dataset to rebuild the graph. 
comment added by flyredeagle
:The image detail page :File:BlochWaves1D.svg has source code, but I'm very confused what you think the problem is. Are you referring to the fact that the bottom-left plot and bottom-right plot are the same curves? There's supposed to be the same curves. That's the whole point. Or are you talking about something else? Can you explain more specifically? Thanks. --Steve (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both users were referring to the use of the same plot in the bottom-left and bottom-right of that figure. Reinforcing what was said by Steve, they are supposed to be the same, there is no mistake. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dataset of the image 

message: The graph with the caption, 
"Solid line: A schematic of the real part of a typical Bloch state in one dimension. The dotted line is from the eik·r factor. The light circles represent atoms."
is not right. 98.115.95.31 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first graph is wrong?