What distinguishes a polaron from an electron?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter csmallw
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between polarons and electrons in the context of electron-phonon coupling. Participants explore the definitions and implications of these concepts within solid-state physics, questioning the clarity and applicability of existing models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaningful difference between polarons and electrons exhibiting electron-phonon coupling, suggesting that if no distinction exists, all electronic quasiparticles should be termed polarons.
  • Another participant clarifies that polarons are a subset of carrier-phonon coupling and emphasizes that the distinction lies in the usefulness of the polaron model compared to other models in describing physical phenomena.
  • A third participant notes that the concept of a quasi-particle, which includes polarons, implies a considerable lifetime, typically relevant for particles near the Fermi energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether a meaningful distinction exists between polarons and electrons in the context of electron-phonon coupling. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the challenges in articulating a non-technical description of polarons and the boundaries of model applicability in solid-state physics, indicating that these concepts may depend on specific conditions and definitions.

csmallw
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Is there an easy-to-articulate difference between a polaron and an electron exhibiting electron-phonon coupling? Until yesterday, I had been under the impression that the difference between the two phenomena was related to the strength of the coupling. However, I looked up "polaron" on Wikipedia, and the lede paragraph left me confused. The definition listed by Ashcroft & Mermin is similarly vague (see p. 626).

If there is no meaningful difference between the two concepts, it seems to me that electronic quasiparticles ought to more properly be called polarons in in basically every solid ever, since it is hard to imagine a crystal where the electronic forces between electrons and the ions have no effect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Polarons are a subset of "carrier-phonon coupling" (not just electrons, any charge carrier in a solid) and is defined by the mathematical description that comes in the polaron models - so it is not surprising you are having trouble coming up with a non-technical, word-based, description that is helpful. Your question, basically, is: when does regular charge-phonon coupling become a polaron ... and the answer is that it happens when the polaron model is more useful than other models for describing the result. The polaron is not a class of physcal object so much as the label given to a way of modelling properties in solid state physics. The boundaries between different models field of use is fractal.

http://sjbyrnes.com/FinalPaper--Polarons.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: csmallw
csmallw said:
If there is no meaningful difference between the two concepts, it seems to me that electronic quasiparticles ought to more properly be called polarons in in basically every solid ever, since it is hard to imagine a crystal where the electronic forces between electrons and the ions have no effect.
I am mostly with you here. But take in mind that the concept of a quasi-particle implies that it has a considerable lifetime (or, stated, differently, that the imaginary part of its energy is small). This is usually only the case for particles sufficiently near the Fermi energy.
 
Thanks to you both. These comments are helpful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
19K