Field Emission from Metals: What is the Truth?

grandmessage
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

a number of books and web articles says that the minimum field required is ≈10^7V/cm for electrons field emission/tunneling from the surface of metals.
But fowler-nordheim formula shows that there is still considerable amount of field emission
current density (mA/cm2) even at lower fields of order 10^4V/cm, for the same
tunneling barrier.

What is the truth..??

Any answers would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Two very different things. Field emission from the surface of a metal involves ejecting the electron to the vacuum level, i.e. it becomes entirely free from the metal and goes off into the environment. This a large energy compared to the thermal energy so a electric strong field is needed.

Fowler-Nordheim tunneling refers to tunneling from the metal to either a semiconductor or another metal, i.e. this is material to material NOT material to vacuum. This is usually a much lower energy. You just have to overcome some tunnel barrier like an insulator or the semiconductor's Schottky barrier. If the barrier is thin and/or low, then a strong field is not needed.
 
Hello sir,

Please check the Link here,
Where we can find simplified form of Fowler-Nordheim equation here also they says the minimum field required is 3×10^7 V/cm.
But for a metal of work function ∅=5eV and local electric field(E-local) 10^4V/cm
it gives a minimum filed emission current density 0.1mA/cm^2..
Is this true..??
 
Back up a bit, because there's a bunch of things I don't quite understand here.

First of all, there is no "required field". By definition of tunneling, it can occur even at zero field. It is just that it is highly unlikely that it will occur in that situation. So, in principle, field emission current can occur over a large range of field. It is just that, based on the type of electron detection scheme used, there may not be any significant reading until it gets to some value. This may be what they meant by the "minimum field emission current".

And erst is not correct. Fowler-Nordheim does apply to metal-vacuum interface. If not, the hundreds of papers published in accelerator physics studying high-gradient structures are all wrong. There's also nothing inherent in the FN model that demands that it must be metal-semiconductor or metal-metal interface. In fact, it is this field-emission current that is the leading cause that initiates vacuum breakdown in high-gradient accelerating structures.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top