Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19322 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917707540070400 |
|---|---|
| author | Sen, Shoham Wang, Yang Breitzman, Timothy Dayal, Kaushik |
| author_facet | Sen, Shoham Wang, Yang Breitzman, Timothy Dayal, Kaushik |
| contents | Ionic crystals play a central role in functional applications. Mesoscale descriptions of these crystals are based on the continuum polarization density field to represent the effective physics of charge distribution at the scale of the atomic lattice. However, a long-standing difficulty is that the classical electrostatic definition of the macroscopic polarization -- as the dipole or first moment of the charge density in a unit cell -- is not unique. This unphysical non-uniqueness has been shown to arise from starting directly with an infinite system rather than starting with a finite body and taking appropriate limits. This limit process shows that the electrostatic description requires not only the bulk polarization density, but also the surface charge density, as the effective macroscopic descriptors; that is, a nonlocal effective description. Other approaches to resolve this difficulty include relating the change in polarization to the transport of charge; or, to define the polarization as the energy-conjugate to the electric field.
This work examines the relation between the classical electrostatic definition of polarization, and the transport and energy-conjugate definitions of polarization. We show the following: (1) The transport of charge does not correspond to the change in polarization in general; instead, one requires additional simplifying assumptions on the electrostatic definition of polarization for these approaches to give rise to the same macroscopic electric fields. Thus, the electrostatic definition encompasses the transport definition as a special case. (2) The energy-conjugate definition has both bulk and surface contributions; while traditional approaches neglect the surface contribution, we find that accounting for the nonlocal surface contributions is essential to obtain the correct macroscopic electric fields. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2406_19322 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Nonuniqueness in Defining the Polarization: Nonlocal Surface Charges and the Electrostatic, Energetic, and Transport Perspectives Sen, Shoham Wang, Yang Breitzman, Timothy Dayal, Kaushik Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics Ionic crystals play a central role in functional applications. Mesoscale descriptions of these crystals are based on the continuum polarization density field to represent the effective physics of charge distribution at the scale of the atomic lattice. However, a long-standing difficulty is that the classical electrostatic definition of the macroscopic polarization -- as the dipole or first moment of the charge density in a unit cell -- is not unique. This unphysical non-uniqueness has been shown to arise from starting directly with an infinite system rather than starting with a finite body and taking appropriate limits. This limit process shows that the electrostatic description requires not only the bulk polarization density, but also the surface charge density, as the effective macroscopic descriptors; that is, a nonlocal effective description. Other approaches to resolve this difficulty include relating the change in polarization to the transport of charge; or, to define the polarization as the energy-conjugate to the electric field. This work examines the relation between the classical electrostatic definition of polarization, and the transport and energy-conjugate definitions of polarization. We show the following: (1) The transport of charge does not correspond to the change in polarization in general; instead, one requires additional simplifying assumptions on the electrostatic definition of polarization for these approaches to give rise to the same macroscopic electric fields. Thus, the electrostatic definition encompasses the transport definition as a special case. (2) The energy-conjugate definition has both bulk and surface contributions; while traditional approaches neglect the surface contribution, we find that accounting for the nonlocal surface contributions is essential to obtain the correct macroscopic electric fields. |
| title | Nonuniqueness in Defining the Polarization: Nonlocal Surface Charges and the Electrostatic, Energetic, and Transport Perspectives |
| topic | Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19322 |