Fermi Surface squashed by potentials

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of the Fermi surface in the context of potentials affecting electron states in a solid, particularly focusing on how these potentials influence the energy levels and the shape of the Fermi surface in k-space. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and models related to the Nearly Free Electron Model and Brillouin zones.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that with one valence electron and two spin states, a half-filled Brillouin zone leads to questions about the behavior of the Fermi surface as energies are pushed down near zone boundaries.
  • Another participant suggests examining a specific potential, ##V(x,y)=A \cos(x)\cos(y)##, to find directions of constant potential and their implications in reciprocal space.
  • A repeated inquiry about the relationship between the energy shifts and the radius of the Fermi surface, questioning why a decrease in energy leads to a squashing effect rather than a repulsion of the surfaces.
  • One participant reflects on their previous misunderstanding and proposes that near the Brillouin zone boundary, the lower energy band shifts the Fermi surface to higher k values, especially under stronger potentials.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on why the Fermi surface shifts to higher k values despite the downward energy shift caused by perturbations.
  • A metaphor is introduced comparing the Fermi surface to an irregularly shaped plate, suggesting that lower energy levels at certain points lead to a shift in the overall surface shape.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of energy shifts on the Fermi surface, with some proposing that the surface shifts to higher k values while others question the reasoning behind this. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations of the effects of potentials on the Fermi surface.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the potentials and their specific effects on the Fermi surface, as well as the implications of the Nearly Free Electron Model in this context.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
Taken from my textbook:

fermisea1.png


My understanding is that:

  • One valence electron, 2 spin states -> Half-filled Brillouin zone
  • Seeking inspiration from "Nearly Free Electron Model": gaps open up at zone boundaries
  • States nearer to zone boundaries get pushed down in energy further

Since a fermi surface is a surface of constant energy in k-space, shouldn't the surfaces nearer to the zone boundaries that get pushed down in energies get repelled even more? It seems that surfaces nearer to the boundaries get closer even! Why are the fermi seas like these below?

fermisea2.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a simple potential with this symmetry as an example: ##V(x,y)=A \cos(x)\cos(y)##. Can you find a direction along which the potential is constant? To which lines do these directions in reciprocal space? What happens at the cell boundary?
 
DrDu said:
Take a simple potential with this symmetry as an example: ##V(x,y)=A \cos(x)\cos(y)##. Can you find a direction along which the potential is constant? To which lines do these directions in reciprocal space? What happens at the cell boundary?
cosxcosy.png


The surfaces of constant potential are the circles* about (0,0). Given this is the fermi surface, these surfaces are the reciprocal space. Still doesn't answer my question about "pushed down in energy -> decrease in radius, squashed inwards"?
 
bumpp
 
Sorry, I was on the wrong track and had no time to think about your problem recently. Now I think I understand the behaviour. Near the BZ boundary, the lower energy band will be lowered as compared to the free electron case, so the Fermi surface will be shifted to higher k values. At stronger potentials, it will even protrude into the second BZ or even farther.
 
DrDu said:
Sorry, I was on the wrong track and had no time to think about your problem recently. Now I think I understand the behaviour. Near the BZ boundary, the lower energy band will be lowered as compared to the free electron case, so the Fermi surface will be shifted to higher k values. At stronger potentials, it will even protrude into the second BZ or even farther.

I get the downward shift in energy due to a perturbation. Why will the fermi surface be shifted to higher k values?
 
The fermi surface is a surface of constant energy. If the levels split, this constant energy value will be reached at higher values of k. Think of an irregularly shaped plate: where the rim is lower, soup will ooze out more.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
81K