Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

forum - Re: [abinit-forum] electron phonon analysis of a semiconductor

forum@abinit.org

Subject: The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )

List archive

Re: [abinit-forum] electron phonon analysis of a semiconductor


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Matthieu Verstraete <mjv500@york.ac.uk>
  • To: forum@abinit.org
  • Subject: Re: [abinit-forum] electron phonon analysis of a semiconductor
  • Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:59:17 +0000 (GMT)


Yes. I understand that the thermalization of hot electrons is
typically fast, on the scale of tens femtoseconds whereas the
relaxation of hot electron energy to the lattice in metals is much
slower, on ps scale. The question that I intended to ask was: if we
assume the establishment of a homogenous hot electron temperature
(electrons have thermalized themselves and formed a fermi
distribution) and look at the equilibration process of electron with
lattice, can we take the matrix element from previous GS calculation
as the electron-phonon interaction at this stage? I presume one need
to calculation at non-zero fermi temperature to obtain these elements
as setting a combination of tsmear and occopt=3 in the smearing for
metals like what you mentioned below?
Ok - excellent question. Yes: the states will be different due to the differing high T density you get, and the perturbed potential will be too. This is definitely the best approximation you can get from the standard code. There could be additional terms coming from the perturbation of the entropic term, but this is probably less of a worry (small and probably fine). Setting the smearing in elphon to the same value is a bit off, as it uses a gaussian smearing (only supposed to be doing kpoint integration, not real temperature). You could modify the routine (probably elphon.F90) to use a Fermi Dirac smearing function, or adjust the smearing width to get a rough equivalent to the thermal function.

obviously once the phonons kick in and/or the lattice expands the matrix elements you calculate will be further and further from the correct ones, but will probably still be quite good.

Yes. That is exactly what I meant. But roughly the matrix element
varies as 1/(q+G)^2. So that value might be quite small though.
I think this is correct, but I'm still not sure we are even neglecting them. Have to sit down and do the equations...

very interesting stuff;

Matthieu



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page