Talk:Tight binding

Point that could use correcting

The article, while very slightly helpful right now, really needs the actual derivation of the energy levels. I cannot, for the life of me, find this anywhere. I'm going to go try ashcroft and mermin, but otherwise I'm stuck :(

Point that could use clarification

I'm under the impression that there's some relationship between this article and the article Linear combination of atomic orbitals. But neither article explains that relationship. Could someone add that information if they know it? Or, if appropriate, merge the two articles? --Steve (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning about this right now, I'll reword this article when I understand this model better. There are some blatent mistakes where they make it sound like the wavefunctions and the atomic orbitals are the same thing. I'll rewrite some of this later.Bridger.anderson (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Besides poor organization, bad grammar, and failure to define notation, this entire article is a mess. As one example, the statement is made that this approach is an approximation to the Hamiltonian, while in fact it is only an approximation to the wavefunction. Brews ohare (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be added that the viewpoint of this article, that the tight-binding wavefunction is to be seen as an approximate implementation of Wannier functions, is overly restrictive, because, like the LCAO method, the tight-binding method is not restricted to periodic lattices, while Wannier functions are so restricted. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people teach tight-binding as an finding approximate solutions to the true Hamiltonian, and I've seen people teach it as approximating the Hamiltonian and then writing down its exact solutions. Either presentation can be correct, it's a rather meaningless distinction anyway. --Steve (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)