100 is not equivalent to 110 in FCC … SB

___
Stefano Baroni, Trieste -- http://stefano.baroni.me

On 27 Sep 2021, at 19:55, Jacopo Simoni via users 
<[email protected]> wrote:


Hi thanks for the reply. I need to compute a sort of finite temperature 
electron-phonon coupling, so I needed to go into the code and I wrote my own 
routine to do that, I am debugging the code and I noticed that the result at 
different but equivalent q points, let's say X=(1,0,0) and X=(1,1,0) in FCC are 
not the same as I should expect.
Then I noticed that the wave function (evq) in reciprocal space differs (that 
is expected) but I do not understand  the relation between the two, that was 
why I was asking the previous question. In the meantime I found a mistake in 
the way I was computing the potential derivative, that is probably the main 
source of my problem. I was wondering also what does the routine 
symdyn_munu_new exactly do? Why does the dynamical matrix have to be 
symmetrized in the basis of the modes ?

Thanks in advance,
Jacopo Simoni, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 00:20, Lorenzo Paulatto 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello Jacopo,
instead of answering your question, I may ask you what you actually want to do, 
because chances are that your problem has already been met by others.

E.g. there are ways to eliminate this phase, or to neutralize it to compute the 
derivative w.r.t. the wave vector. But more often, when you have an observable 
quantity that comes from a sum over the k-points, the phases will cancel out in 
the total, if done correctly. It is actually a good way to check that your 
formulas are correct.

Hth

--
Lorenzo Paulatto

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 21:28 Jacopo Simoni via users 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:
So this means the phase factor is of the form e^{iG(k)r} where G(k) is the 
translation vector in rec. space such that
G(k)+q+k=q'+k' (inside the first Brillouin zone)
the phase factor is therefore dependent on the k vector and in reciprocal space 
the wave functions of the two equivalent q points are shifted by the vector 
G(k) ?
Is there a variable in the code corresponding to this vector G or to the phase 
factor itself ?


On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 03:42, Paolo Giannozzi 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:00 AM Jacopo Simoni via users 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:

This wave function appears different from the wave function at an equivalent q 
point, for instance if I look at evq at q=(0,0,1), this is different from evq 
at (1,1,0) that are equivalent by translation of a G vector (I am thinking here 
at a FCC periodic lattice). The two functions just differ by a phase factor or 
I am missing something ?

They differ by a phase factor; moreover, in the presence of degenerate 
eigenvalues, you have no guarantee that the eigenvectors in the degenerate 
subspace are the same. Finally, the ordering of k+G components is not 
necessarily the same in the two cases

Paolo

Thanks in advance,
Jacopo Simoni, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX 
(www.max-centre.eu<http://www.max-centre.eu>)
users mailing list 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users


--
Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche,
Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy
Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222

_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX 
(www.max-centre.eu<http://www.max-centre.eu>)
users mailing list 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu)
users mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to