Nearest-neighbour model of graphene ($E_{\pm }(\mathbf{k})=\pm t|f(\mathbf{k})|$)

Take a planar honeycomb lattice with two sites $A,B$ per primitive cell and one localized atomic orbital per site. In this explicitly idealized tight-binding model, all three nearest-neighbour hopping matrix elements are $-t$, with $t>0$; there is no on-site offset or further-neighbour hopping. Ignore Electron interactions and treat physical spin as a separate degeneracy. Let the bond length be $b$, and choose the three vectors from an $A$ site to its neighbours asThe Bloch state amplitudes on $A,B$ form a two-component vector. A consistent phase convention gives the HamiltonianIts characteristic equation is $E^2=t^2|f{|}^2$, giving the two displayed energy bands. The two-component structure comes from the two sites, rather than two values of physical spin. This is a particularly small matrix model in which a crystal's geometry creates an unexpected low-energy law.

Historically, Philip Russell Wallace used a tight-binding model to investigate the electronic band structure of graphite in 1947. The material in that paper was layered graphite; the single-sheet model here isolates one simpler part of the problem.^[ref]

At either displayed wave vector, the three complex hopping amplitudes add to zero: $1+2\cos (2\pi /3)=0$. Therefore the energy bands touch. There are two inequivalent electronic valleys; other equivalent corners are related by reciprocal-lattice translations. Setting $\mathbf{k}={\mathbf{K}}_{\tau }+\mathbf{q}$ and retaining first-order terms giveswhere ${\sigma }_x,{\sigma }_y$ are Pauli matrices. For example, at ${\mathbf{K}}_{+}$, $f\simeq -3b(q_x-i{q}_y)/2$. The matrix has the form of a massless two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian. Here $v_F$ is a material-model velocity, rather than the vacuum speed of light; this description does not change an Electron's vacuum rest mass. It describes the dispersion relation of electronic excitations near a band crossing.

At ${\mathbf{K}}_{+}$ and positive energy, a normalized eigenvector for $\mathbf{q}=|\mathbf{q}|(\cos \varphi ,\sin \varphi )$ is $(1,e^{i\varphi })/\sqrt{2}$. Its Pauli matrix expectation values give the displayed direction. This pseudospin records the relative amplitudes and phase on the two sublattices. Real spin supplies another label; confusing these two labels would double-count states and misinterpret the two-band Hamiltonian.

Assume zero temperature, the linear Dirac cone, and both real-spin states and both electronic valleys. Define $n$ as excess Electron number per unit area, negative for an excess of electron holes, relative to neutrality. A filled circular region of radius $k_F$ in wave vector space containsThus the excess carrier density grows quadratically with the Fermi energy, unlike the constant density of states of a parabolic two-dimensional band. Differentiating gives the positive density of states per unit area, $D(E)=2|E|/[\pi (\hslash v_F{)}^2]$. Both the geometry of occupied states and the fourfold degeneracy matter to the coefficient.

A massless-cone description permits a nonzero cyclotron effective mass. For a circular constant-energy contour of area $S(E)=\pi E^2/(\hslash v_F{)}^2$, the semiclassical definition givesThe vanishing mass parameter in a Dirac Hamiltonian and the finite cyclotron response away from neutrality are different statements. This makes the temperature dependence of Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations a useful test of the dispersion rather than a measurement of an Electron's vacuum rest mass.