Why isn't the frequency dependence of permittivity monotonic?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FillBill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequency Permittivity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the frequency dependence of permittivity in materials, particularly focusing on why certain materials become opaque at higher frequencies despite being transparent above their plasma frequency. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, material-specific behaviors, and the implications of electronic transitions and band gaps.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that materials are generally transparent above their plasma frequency due to the inability of electrons to respond quickly enough to incident radiation, leading to penetration of the material.
  • Another participant clarifies that this behavior primarily applies to metals and notes that non-conducting materials exhibit absorption due to vibrational resonances and electronic transitions, with transparency occurring far from these resonances.
  • A participant presents a specific example of a semiconductor (GaAs) that begins to absorb light at a certain energy level and questions why absorption ceases at higher energies, proposing a mechanism related to the conservation of momentum in electronic transitions.
  • In response, another participant confirms the mechanism and adds that higher energy photons can lead to photoionization, indicating that multiple bands may influence absorption behavior.
  • A follow-up question is raised regarding the existence of a defined upper limit on the energy that a semiconductor can absorb, prompting a discussion on the complexity of band gaps and electronic excitations.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the terminology for this upper limit and discusses the challenges of applying a single particle picture to electronic excitations due to strong electron-electron interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the behavior of various materials regarding frequency dependence and absorption mechanisms, indicating that multiple competing models and interpretations exist. The discussion remains unresolved regarding specific terminologies and the complexities of electronic transitions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on material properties, the complexity of electronic band structures, and the potential influence of multi-particle excitations, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

FillBill
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I naively thought that most materials were transparent to radiation of frequencies above their plasma frequency, and opaque to radiation below it. The most intuitive (and analyzed lightly in Griffiths' E&M book) reason I've heard is that opaqueness is caused by electrons in the material responding to the incident radiation by getting oscillated by it, in which they produce their own radiation that cancels the incident radiation. However, when the incident radiation is above the plasma frequency, they can't respond quickly enough and it can start to penetrate the material.

Mathematically, ϵ(ω)>0 for ω<ω_{plasma} and ϵ(ω)<0 for ω>ω_{plasma}, and the wave vector k∝n∝\sqrt ϵ, so when ##ω## is above ##ω_{plasma}##, ##k## is imaginary and e^{ik⃗ ⋅r} decays quickly in the material.

But I was recently told that as the frequency keeps rising, the material again at some point becomes opaque to it. What is this called, and what's the physical reason for it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This description is at best qualitatively correct for one class of materials: metals. Most non-conducting materials show some absorption in the IR part of the spectrum due to vibrational resonances and then stronger absorption lines in the UV part of the spectrum due to electronic transitions. Far from these resonances, the materials are transparent. The position of the absorption lines depends strongly on the material. E.g. for a gas of hydrogen atoms, you know all these series of absorption lines like Bragg, Balmer etc. At very high frequencies, you will find transitions from the bound states into the continuum. But the imaginary part due to these transitions is very small.
 
Alright, but let me take a simple example like a semiconductor with a direct band gap, like GaAs. It starts absorbing light when the incident photo energy is ~1.4eV, and it can absorb higher energies than that as well. Why does it stop absorbing higher energy photons at some point? Is it because, to absorb higher energies, the transition has to happen from a spot in the valence band to a spot in the conduction band with the same k value, but the conduction band doesn't increase indefinitely?

421.gif
 
Yes, exactly. But note that in general there will be more than one band and for photons of high enough energy, you can get photoionization.
 
Thank you for the response. As a follow up question: The band gap energy is a well defined concept, but is there a name for the upper limit on energy that the semiconductor can absorb because of the mechanism I just said?
 
I am not sure. The point is the following: The lower band gap is a reasonably well defined concept as it is the lower limit for one particle and consequently also many particle excitations (this is already simplified as there may be excitations inside the gap, like bound electron hole pairs). However there may be electronic excitations which correspond to multi-particle excitations and may be excited by absorption of light, which fall into a higher band gap of single particle excitations.
The point is that electron electron interaction is very strong, so that it renders a single particle picture invalid in most parts of the spectrum. The only exception being the excitations of lowest energy.
You may want to read about the Landau Fermi liquid theory to better understand what I am talking about.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
365
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K