Ohm's Law derivation from Drude Model

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Ohm's law from the Drude model, focusing on the forces acting on electrons and the assumptions made in the model. Participants explore the definitions of collision forces, relaxation time, and the implications of averaging in the context of classical mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the definition of the collision force, particularly how the change in momentum is equated to the momentum itself.
  • Another participant clarifies that the Drude model is an average approximation and that the collision force is modeled as a first-order approximation, with the relaxation time being a free parameter determined experimentally.
  • A different participant suggests that the assumption of the average momentum being zero after a collision is based on the idea that electrons may stop or scatter in random directions.
  • Further contributions highlight that the scattering time is a phenomenological parameter and that higher-order terms in the force expansion can be neglected under certain conditions.
  • Some participants emphasize that the Drude model is not exact and that more sophisticated models are necessary for accurate predictions in solid-state devices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the Drude model is an approximation and not exact, but there are multiple competing views regarding the implications of the assumptions made in the model and the nature of the collision forces.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the assumptions made about momentum changes during collisions and the simplifications inherent in using the Drude model for electron transport. The discussion acknowledges that the model may not accurately reflect quantum mechanical behaviors.

iLIKEstuff
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding the derivation of Ohm's law from the drude model.

So you start with a simple sum of forces:

\Sigma F_x = - e \: E + F_{collision} = 0 (my understanding is that there are only two forces in Drude's model: those from electron-ion collisions and applied external electric field forces)

Now I'm confused about how F_{collision} is defined. The text I'm reading states

\bar F_{collision} = \frac{\Delta p_x}{\Delta t} \approx \frac{-mv}{\tau} (there is a bar over the F, which I'm assuming means averaged)

where tau is the relaxation time

It seems like they did something like this:

F=\frac{dp}{dt}=\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t} =\frac{p}{t} =\frac{mv}{t}

This is the part i don't understand. how does \Delta p = p ?

Sure you can do that for say position:

\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} = \frac{x}{t}

but you must assume that the initial position and time were at x=0 and t=0 respectively. For momentum, how can you assume that the initial momentum is 0?

The derivation then continues with simple algebraic rearrangement.

- e \: E + \frac{-mv}{\tau} = 0 \: \: \Rightarrow \: \: eE = \frac{-mv}{\tau} \: \: \Rightarrow \: \: v=\frac{-eE \tau}{m} , where v is the drift velocity

Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The Drude model is not at all "exact" in any way; the whole idea is to model what happens "on average" for a single particle in the electron gas and use that to model properties of the bulk. Hence, the details of every single collision is irrelevant.

\bar F_{collision} = \Delta p_x/\Delta t \approx \frac{-mv}{\tau} is just a common way of modelling collisions in classical mechanics. In this case it is not meant to be an exact description of what is happening, it is merely a good approximation where \tau is just essentially a free parameter with the dimension of time that has to be determined using experiments (i.e. \tau does not neccesarily have anything to do with the time it takes for a single, real, collsion, and the latter would obviously need to be modeled using QM and can't be described using classical mechanics).

\Delta p_x/\Delta t is just a first order approximation to dp/dt which would be exact if the momentum was changing in a linear fashion during the collision (this type of model is often introduced by considering a rubber ball hitting the floor). The reason why this works is because \Delta p is NOT the total momentum but the CHANGE in momentum that takes place during the time \Delta t=\tau.
 
Last edited:
The equality \Delta p = p is, IIRC, made assuming that during a collision, the electron stops, or that any given electron might come out of a collision event in a random direction, so that the average p after a collision is 0.
 
In reality, the scattering time is just a phenomenological fitting parameter. You know that the collision force is going to be some function of the velocity, and so you expand it in a Taylor series, F = a_0 + a_1*v + higher order terms. However, you know that F=0 when v=0, and so the zeroth-order term must vanish. If you then assume that the velocity is small, then you can neglect the higher order terms and just get a term that is linear in v.

And, as others have noted, the Drude model is nowhere near exact. I can tell you from personal experience that more detailed models for carrier transport and scattering in solids are extremely important for a lot of solid state devices.
 
Last edited:
Manchot said:
And, as others have noted, the Drude model is nowhere near exact. I can tell you from personal experience that more detailed models for carrier transport and scattering in solids are extremely important for a lot of solid state devices.

Exactly, see this post...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111335

My advisor, a couple of his collaborators and I at one time may have been the experts in transport theory in crystalline systems, I believe I did the only work in exact transport in anisotropic (tetragonal) lattices.

Drude is a reasonable 1st order estimate in cubic materials, you have to get into solving the Boltzmann Equation for really good estimates.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K