I Fermi-Liquid - amount of electrons available for the interaction

annaphys
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
I have attached the pages in Kittel's book (pages 417-420) regarding my question. My question is simply based off of the second to last photo, where e_f = 5*10^4 K and e_1 = 1K.

e_2<e_f and |e_2|<e_1. So how can (e_1/e_f)^2 be less than 1? The energy of the free flowing electron is assumed to be greater than e_f.
 

Attachments

  • Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.19.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.19.png
    43.8 KB · Views: 362
  • Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.27.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.27.png
    60.1 KB · Views: 390
  • Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.47.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.47.png
    61.6 KB · Views: 406
  • Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.57.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2020-03-26 um 14.06.57.png
    3.2 KB · Views: 371
Physics news on Phys.org
If you read the bottom of the first page, you will see that they are measuring ##\epsilon_1## and ##\epsilon_2## from ##\epsilon_F##, which they set to zero. Then on the third page they make a shell argument and use the actual value of ##\epsilon_F##.
 
Either way e_1 > e_f, though.
 
annaphys said:
Either way e_1 > e_f, though.

I can understand your difficulty, but ##\epsilon_1## is still a small quantity.

It would be more clear if he first introduced variables that are measured from the lowest valence electron level, such as ##\epsilon'_1##, ##\epsilon'_2##, and ##\epsilon_F##, which are all large quantities. Then he could introduce the electron energies measured from the Fermi energy: ##\epsilon_1=\epsilon'_1 - \epsilon_F##, and ##\epsilon_2 =\epsilon'_2 -\epsilon_F,##. That way the shell argument would still use the ratio ##\frac{\epsilon_1}{\epsilon_F}##, which you can see also equals ##\frac{\epsilon'_1-\epsilon_F}{\epsilon_F}##.
 
Ah, got it. So e_1 is just the small difference, and not the complete distance from the origin, right?

Another question, what does this fraction actually tell us? I would assume it would give us the amount of electrons that have enough energy to interact with e_1 to get then e_3 and e_4 outside the fermi sphere, but it is a number much smaller than one. Or is it simply the percentage of electrons that could allow for e_3 and e_4 to be outside of the sphere?
 
annaphys said:
Ah, got it. So e_1 is just the small difference, and not the complete distance from the origin, right?
Yes, that is correct, but with a small caveat. This is in reciprocal space and thus the points are vectors, and we know energy is a scalar. For this model, the mapping is $$E=\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m},$$ where ##k## is the radial distance from the origin.

annaphys said:
Another question, what does this fraction actually tell us? I would assume it would give us the amount of electrons that have enough energy to interact with e_1 to get then e_3 and e_4 outside the fermi sphere, but it is a number much smaller than one. Or is it simply the percentage of electrons that could allow for e_3 and e_4 to be outside of the sphere?
I don't immediately see the difference between your two options. Upon a first reading, they both seem equivalent (except for a conversion from a fraction to a percentage) and basically correct . The final term ##(\frac{\epsilon_1}{\epsilon_F})^2## gives us an idea of the fraction of the total valence electrons that an electron of energy ##\epsilon_1## can interact with. Thus showing us why there isn't much electron-electron scattering in crystalline conductors.
 
  • Like
Likes annaphys
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top