Phonon contribution to specific heat of solids

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the phonon contribution to the specific heat of solids, particularly through the lens of Debye's model. Participants explore the implications of the model at various temperature regimes, including low, intermediate, and high temperatures, and discuss the assumptions and approximations made in the model.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the low temperature heat capacity follows a T^3 dependence, while metals exhibit a T dependence at even lower temperatures, as derived from Debye's model.
  • There is a discussion about the linear dispersion relation assumed for all branches in Debye's model, with some questioning its validity at all temperatures.
  • One participant highlights the need for a Debye cut-off wave vector to ensure the correct number of modes is accounted for, while another elaborates on the implications of this cut-off in relation to the first Brillouin zone.
  • Some participants express understanding of how the Debye model captures both low and high temperature behaviors, attributing this to the excitation of modes at low k values and the contribution of each mode at high temperatures.
  • Questions arise regarding the physical significance of the Debye wave vector and the rationale behind approximating the first Brillouin zone as a sphere.
  • Clarifications are sought on the relationship between the number of allowed wave vectors and the number of ions in the crystal, with some participants discussing the mapping of wave vectors outside the first Brillouin zone back into it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the basic principles of Debye's model and its applicability at different temperature regimes, but there are ongoing questions and clarifications regarding specific assumptions and implications, indicating that some aspects of the discussion remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the linear dispersion relation and the necessity of the Debye cut-off wave vector. The discussion also touches on the implications of approximating the first Brillouin zone as a sphere, which may not fully capture the complexities of the model.

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
The low temperature heat capacity was experimentally shown to go as T^3 for low temeperatures (and as T for even lower temperatures for metals). This result came out of Debye's model after he modified Einstein's model, relaxing some of his assumptions. I have a few questions on Debye's model that I wish to better understand.

(Ref. Ashcroft and Mermin P.458)

He assumes that the dispersion relation for all branches can be approximated by a linear disperson ##\omega = ck##. Now, this would make sense to me at low k values, however this approximation is used to obtain the specific heat capacity for any ##T##.

There is also the Debye temperature introduced and a Debye cut-off wave vector introduced so that we obtain the correct number of modes. I didn't really understand why we needed this. I see that we approximate the 1st Brillioun zone by a sphere with a radius such that it contains the same number of allowed modes (with radius equal to magnitude of Debye cut off wave vector). This sphere extends outside the 1st B.Z.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Debye model gives you both the correct low and high temperature behaviour, because at low temperatures, only the modes with low k will be excited while at high T, each mode will contribute kT to heat capacity independent of it's frequency.
At intermediate temperatures, there will be some differences. It is a nice model, as it can be solved analytically.
 
Hi DrDu,
DrDu said:
The Debye model gives you both the correct low and high temperature behaviour, because at low temperatures, only the modes with low k will be excited while at high T, each mode will contribute kT to heat capacity independent of it's frequency.
I see, I believe this answers my first question. It gives the low T behaviour correctly since then we are in the acoustic branch region and for small enough k, the phonon dispersion satisfies w=ck? Is that right? And then for high T, we get the result obtained through the purely classical result since this was independent of the frequency of the oscillator, so the approximation of w=ck gives us the correct low and high T behaviour. I think I understand that now, thanks very much.

Do you have any comments with regard to my second question? What does the Debye wave vector correspond to and what is the physics behind the Debye sphere (spherical cow approximation to 1st B.Z) spilling out of the 1st B.Z?

Thanks!
 
It's quite simple: Once you assume the linear dispersion relation for all k vectors, you have to make sure that you still get 3N degrees of freedom. So you need a cut-off.
 
Ok so since all phonon wavevectors outside the 1st Brillouin zone can be mapped into the 1st Brillouin zone, this zone contains all distinct wavevectors. The 1st Brillouin zone is approximated as a sphere of radius ##k_D## such that all distinct allowed k vectors are equal to or below ##k_D##. So the cut off is a way to make sure we don't overcount the number of modes? Is that right? (Each mode has with it an associated wave vector, why is that the there are N allowed wavevectors for N ions in the crystal?) In 3D, each wavevector per mode can be decomposed, thereby giving the 3N degrees of freedom you mentioned. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K