The Relationship Between Dielectric Function and Joint Density of States

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jet10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dielectric Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the imaginary part of the dielectric function, denoted as ε₂, and the joint density of states (JDOS). It is established that ε₂ is almost directly proportional to JDOS, with exact proportionality occurring when the matrix element for transitions is independent of k-space position. For anisotropic materials, the matrix element's dependence on the polarization vector alters the relationship, requiring consideration of the coupling between conduction and valence bands. Additionally, the factor of 1/E² in the ε₂ equation suggests that JDOS is almost proportional to E²ε₂.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dielectric functions, specifically ε₂
  • Knowledge of joint density of states (JDOS)
  • Familiarity with k-space and its significance in solid-state physics
  • Concepts of anisotropic versus isotropic materials
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of the dielectric function for anisotropic materials
  • Study the impact of matrix elements on electronic transitions in solid-state physics
  • Explore the role of polarization vectors in determining electronic properties
  • Examine the relationship between energy (E) and the joint density of states in various materials
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, materials scientists, and researchers in solid-state physics focusing on electronic properties and the behavior of dielectric materials.

jet10
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi. I have been looking at some lecture notes. What is not so clear for me is, how the imaginary part of the dielectric function is related to the joint density of states. Is the "amplitude" of the epsilon2 directly proportional to JDOS? or is JDOS some kind of derivative of epsilon2?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Epsilon_2 is *almost* directly proportional to the JDoS. It is exactly proportional if the matrix element for the transition is independent of the position in k-space on the surface that defines the energetically allowed transition. For most purposes in crystals, the matrix element is only weakly dependent, and people like to just move it outside of the integral and replace it with an averaged matrix element.
 
Thanks for your clear answer. Just one more question. I see that the formula for Epsilon in books are normally given for isotropic material. What changes in the integral of the formula if we want to know Epsilon in a certain direction for anisotropic material? There is a polarisation vector e in the matrix element for the transition <c|e.p|v>. I guess that for anisotropic material, the matrix element will depend on which e or which direction I take, whereas for isotropic material, it doesn't matter. Is this right?
 
Yes, the coupling between the conduction and valence band will be anisotropic. You also have to include the coupling between the valence band states.
 
Ok. Thanks very much for the help!
 
genneth said:
Epsilon_2 is *almost* directly proportional to the JDoS. It is exactly proportional if the matrix element for the transition is independent of the position in k-space on the surface that defines the energetically allowed transition. For most purposes in crystals, the matrix element is only weakly dependent, and people like to just move it outside of the integral and replace it with an averaged matrix element.

I noticed that there is a factor of 1/E^2 in the \varepsilon_2 equation. Since \varepsilon_2 is dependent on E, isn't the JDOS rather *almost* proportional to E^2\varepsilon_2?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K