Thomas-Fermi approximation and the dielectric function

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept of the 'static limit' in the Thomas-Fermi approximation, emphasizing that while frequency approaches zero, a finite wavenumber remains relevant due to the nature of the Fourier transform of static potentials. It highlights that static charge distributions, like Coulomb potentials, can still exhibit a range of wavenumbers despite being static. The validity of the Thomas-Fermi approximation for impurity scattering in metals is questioned, as electrons at the Fermi level seem incompatible with the approximation's requirements. However, it is suggested that the approximation may still apply if the change in wavenumber during scattering is significantly smaller than the Fermi wavenumber. Overall, the discussion underscores the nuances in applying the Thomas-Fermi approximation in different contexts.
industrygiant
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
1)What exactly is meant by the 'static limit' where the frequency is taken to zero, but the wavenumber is finite? I am getting confused because if the frequency is zero, then surely the probing electrons/photons/whatever have no wavelength, so how can the wavenumber be finite and non-zero?

2) Regarding the Thomas-Fermi approximation, in my textbook (Kittel) it says that it is valid for electron wavenumbers much smaller than the fermi wavevector - so larger wavelengths than the fermi wavelength. If I am looking at impurity scattering in a metal, then surely you cannot apply the TF approximation since the electrons will all be at the Fermi level and so the wavenumber of the scattered electrons will equal that of the fermi wavevector. However I have seen the TF used for graphene particularly, so how is that a valid assumption?

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider the potential of a static charge (a Coulomb potential in vacuum). Although it is static, the Fourier transform of the spatial distibution will contain all values of k.
The distinctive point with respect to photons is that you need a source for a Coulomb potential while photons are source free solutions of the Maxwell equations. The latter are only possible for special relations (dispersion) of k on omega.

As regards to question 2 I suppose (although I am not sure) that it is sufficient in scattering that the change in wavenumber is much smaller than the Fermi wavenumber.
 
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K