Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Landauer formula in 1D

  1. Apr 3, 2009 #1
    Hi all,

    I have studied the Landauer's formula from the book "Current at the Nanoscale", but a formula made me confused. In the general case, for a nanoscopic transport, the book gives the formula:

    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2986/33768834.jpg [Broken]

    In the following paragragraph it is told:

    "For 1-D case, (current density has no meaning in 1D, so we replace J with I)"

    and then it gives

    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8793/23920600.jpg [Broken]

    From these equations I understand that he used


    for 1D system (I may be wrong!). But in the previous chapters, he gives another function for D(E) in 1D:

    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/734/75994918.jpg [Broken]

    So, what is the point that I'm missing here?

    Thanks in advance,

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2009 #2
    The book is being a little bit sloppy.

    First off, he didn't use

    D(E) = 1/ 2pi --- which makes no sense at all as you figured out.

    The correct formula for density of states in a 1D conductor is given by the formula you secondly gave.

    The point you are missing (or the author is failing to describe) is :

    The current in a 1D conductor where there's only "one mode" can be written as:

    [tex] I = \frac{2e}{h}\int^{ul}_{ur} T ( f^+(E)-f^-(E) )dE[/tex]

    and there's no "density of states" term here because it is implicitly included in the "number of modes" term.

    A more rigorous way of writing this could've been:

    [tex] I = \frac{2e}{h}\int_{ur}^{ul} T(E) M(E) f^+(E)-f^-(E) dE[/tex]

    [tex] M(E) = v_x D(E) / 2L [/tex]

    But I guess the reason the book skips these 'details' is that Landauer gave his formula in the following form:

    [tex] I = \frac{2e}{h} M T \int^{ul}_{ur} f^+(E)-f^-(E) dE[/tex]

    assuming Tranmission and number of modes are constant within the energy range you are biasing the device.
    This becomes the book's formula for M=1.
  4. Apr 10, 2009 #3
    Thank you very much Sokrates.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads for Landauer formula
I How is this formula for the speed of sound derived?