Re: 3D certitudes (=doubts cleared up)

On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 13:49 -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote:

> This has nothing to do with MPB vs. Meep, or any other computational 
> package.  It is a matter of physics (or mathematics).  MPB is giving the 
> correct answer to the physical question you are asking, and any other code 
> will give the same answer to the same question.
> 

I understand that, I just suppose that if I want to simulate a slab of
finite thickness, having pmls can be an advantage. In fact I haven't
been very clear but what I want to simulate ultimately is a slab of
finite thickness. I had obtained results that I didn't understand but
these misunderstandings are, I believe, all related to band folding. I
just hadn't figured it out before. And I was trying things which were a
bit of a nonsense I reckon. Sorry for that!
Many thanks for your help,

Regards,
V. Paeder

_______________________________________________
mpb-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mpb-discuss