Why does the velocity of 2D plasmon diverge at small q?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hiyok
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Plasmon Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of 2D plasmon velocity, particularly its divergence at small wave numbers (q). Participants explore the theoretical implications of this phenomenon, including its mathematical derivation and experimental verification, while addressing the complexities of the underlying physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that in 3D, plasma frequency is constant, while in 2D, it becomes dispersion-dependent, leading to a group velocity that diverges as q approaches zero.
  • Others question the validity of the assumptions made in the derivation, particularly regarding the nature of interactions in 2D systems compared to 3D systems.
  • A participant provides a reference to support the claim of experimentally verified dispersion in 2D plasmon systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the mathematical treatment in a referenced paper, particularly regarding the expression of electric fields and charge densities.
  • Some participants present their own calculations of electric potentials and fields, suggesting that the dispersion relation changes for small q values.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of including both scalar and vector potentials in the analysis of plasmon dispersion.
  • Participants engage in detailed mathematical exchanges regarding the derivation of electric fields and potentials, including the role of current density and continuity equations.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the insights gained from the discussion, indicating a potential collaboration for publication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While some calculations and theoretical points are accepted, there remains contention regarding the assumptions and interpretations of the results, particularly concerning the nature of interactions in 2D plasmon systems.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of interactions in 2D systems, the dependence on specific definitions of potentials, and the complexity of deriving electric fields from potentials in the context of retarded fields.

hiyok
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Now plasma represents collective wave-like motions of charged particles. In 3D, their frequency is well known to be almost a constant, ##\omega^{3D}_p \approx \sqrt{4\pi ne^2/m}## with n=charge density, m=particle mass. However, in 2D, one can show that it becomes ##\omega^{2D}_p \sim \sqrt{q}##, where q= wave number. It gets dispersion. The group velocity is then ##v^{2D}_g \sim 1/\sqrt{q}##, which diverges as q→0. How could this be possible ? How could ##v^{2D}_g## exceed the speed of light ? This sounds ridiculous !

Highly appreciate your attention !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you provide a reference? There are no truly 2d systems in nature, so this may depend on details of the system.
 
Here is a reference: http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/39/4/39_4_640.pdf
 
In that derivation, they assumed that the charges only interact via Coulombic forces. This is strictly true in the 3D case, as the charge density is longitudinal and the Coulomb field is the only longitudinal electric field. In the 2D case this is no longer true. You can calculate the field of a time dependent charge distribution locatet in the xy-plane and traveling in the x-direction: ##\rho(t,r)=\rho_0 \delta(z) \exp(iqx-i\omega t)## and you will find that it's electric field is not purely longitudinal. Hence the interaction is not purely Coulombic. I suppose this will change the dispersion relation, especially for small q.
 
Thanks for your suggestion. But that kind of dispersion had been experimentally verified: see e.g. Phys. Rev. Lett. 36: 145(1976).
 
I must say that I don't understand this paper: In eq (5) they express div E in terms of first the potential and then again in terms of the charge density, but ##\nabla\cdot E=\rho## by Maxwells equation, so there must be something fishy.
 
Ok, I suppose he means the nabla in reduced density. Using the ansatz for the charge distribution given above, I find for the electric potential ##E=(\kappa/(iq) e_x+\mathrm{sgn}(z)e_z)\rho/2 \exp(-\kappa |z|) \exp(iqx-i\omega t)##, where ##\kappa=\sqrt(|\omega^2-q^2|)##.
Hence the driving force in equation 5 does not depend linearly on q but on kappa. For large values of q, kappa goes like q but for small values like omega. Hence for small values of q there should the dispersion relation changes.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for your insightful advice !
 
there might be some small errors, but the expression for E is a correct solution of the wave equation for z not equal zero while forming the divergence yields the correct charge density. Forming the 2d-divergence in eq. 5 ammounts to multiplication of the x component with iq which yields kappa.
Maybe you could post your solution?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I found the electric potential to be ##V(\vec{r},z) = \frac{\rho_0}{2}\kappa^{-1}e^{i(\vec{q}\vec{r}-\omega t)}e^{-\kappa|z|}##, where ##\vec{r}## denotes the in-plane components. The electric field strength in the x-direction is ##E_x = \frac{\rho_0}{2}(-iq_x\kappa^{-1})e^{i(\vec{q}\vec{r}-\omega t)}e^{-\kappa|z|}##. Here I keep the speed of light so that ##\kappa = \sqrt{|q^2-\omega^2/c^2|}##. Now the plasmon dispersion is determined by this equation, ##\omega^4|q^2-\omega^2/c^2| = \frac{2\pi n_0 e^2}{m}q^4##. Indeed the initial problem is solved !
 
  • #11
I also found that, if both scalar and vector potentials are included, the plasmon dispersion is determined by an even simple equation: ##\left(2\pi n_0 e^2/m\right)^2 |q^2-\omega^2/c^2| = \omega^4##. Obviously, the dispersion becomes linear for small ##q##.
 
  • #12
This is what looks like:
 

Attachments

  • #13
You can't derive a retarded field from only a potential. Namely your potential gives ##\nabla^2 V=\omega^2 V\ne 0## for ##z \ne 0##, however, it should be the charge density which vanishes for nonzero z.
 
  • #14
The retarded potential I gave is a solution to this equation: ##(\partial^2_{\vec{x}}-\partial^2_t/c^2) V(\vec{x},t)= -\rho_0e^{i(\vec{q}\vec{r}-\omega t)}\delta(z)##.
 
  • #15
But the electric field is cannot be expressed in terms of a retarded potential alone, you will also have to specify the retarded magnetic vector potential.
 
  • #16
That is exactly what I did. I have worked out the vector potential as well. The final result was shown in the figure attached in previous post.
 
  • #17
So what is the z-component of the electric field you found?
 
  • #18
The z-component is obtained as ##E_z = -\partial_z V(\vec{x},t) - c^{-1}\partial_tA_z(\vec{x},t)##, where ##A_z## is the z-component of the vector potential. The final expressions are a little complicated, because now the vector potential depends on the current density, which further depends on the conductivity of the system.
 
  • #19
Current density is completely determined by continuity.
 
  • #20
Dear DrDu,

I'm much grateful for your comments which have led me to a good understanding of my problem. As this understanding is significant in improving one of my recent manuscripts, which I'll submit for publication, I'm thinking formally acknowledging you or adding you as a coauthor. So, if possible, I hope to discuss more by private emails, instead here. I definitely have to know you real profile before I can do this.

Thanks.

hiyok
 
  • #21
I just want to tie some loose ends: due to continuity ##\nabla \cdot j=\dot{\rho}## we find ##j=\omega \rho/q e_x## and thus ##A=V\omega/q e_x## (don't try to pin me down on signs). Hence ##E_z## can be derived from the potential you gave, but there is an extra term in ##E_x## due to the vector potential. A superficial check showed that the final expression for ##E_x## coincides with the one I derived earlier.
 
  • #22
Now I agree with you. I thought your were referring to the part due to ##V## only. Putting all pieces together, we agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K