Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Physics

, Volume 122, Issue 6, pp 1237–1260 | Cite as

The Chemical Potential

  • T. A. Kaplan
Article

Abstract

The definition of the fundamental quantity, the chemical potential, is badly confused in the literature: there are at least three distinct definitions in various books and papers. While they all give the same result in the thermodynamic limit, major differences between them can occur for finite systems, in anomalous cases even for finite systems as large as a cm3. We resolve the situation by arguing that the chemical potential defined as the symbol μ conventionally appearing in the grand canonical density operator is the uniquely correct definition valid for all finite systems, the grand canonical ensemble being the only one of the various ensembles usually discussed (microcanonical, canonical, Gibbs, grand canonical) that is appropriate for statistical thermodynamics, whenever the chemical potential is physically relevant. The zero–temperature limit of this μ was derived by Perdew et al. for finite systems involving electrons, generally allowing for electron–electron interactions; we extend this derivation and, for semiconductors, we also consider the zero–T limit taken after the thermodynamic limit. The enormous finite size corrections (in macroscopic samples, e.g. 1 cm3) for one rather common definition of the c.p., found recently by Shegelski within the standard effective mass model of an ideal intrinsic semiconductor, are discussed. Also, two very–small–system examples are given, including a quantum dot.

Key Words

Statistical thermodynamics Insulators Thermodynamic limit Quantum dots 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. R. A. Shegelski, Solid State Commun. 58: 351 (1986).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. R.A. Shegelski, Am. J. of Phys. 72: 676 (2004).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    But later in his papers these quantities may be calculated either in the canonical or in the grand canonical ensemble.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1971).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Saunders College, Philadelphia (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    This was called an ideal intrinsic semiconductor [1]; it is the usual textbook model where noninteracting electrons move in a periodic potential, treated by periodic boundary conditions (there are neither impurities nor surface states).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. L. Lebowitz and E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett 22: 631 (1969).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The condition T > 0 must be understood: the TL of φ can have a discontinuity at T = 0, as in the semiconductor model just discussed. I.e., φ (and ψ of ((3))) can depend on the order in which the TL and the limit T→0 are taken.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1960).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. T. Landsberg and D. C.Browne, Solid State Commun. 62: 207 (1987).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Kittel and H. Kroemer, Thermal Physics, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fetter, A. L. and Walecka, J. D. (1971) Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York-London.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. L. Hill, Thermodynamics of Small Systems, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York (1964). Chap.15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of condensed matter physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1995).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 69: 423 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. P. Perdew, R. G. Parr, M. Levy, J. L. Balduz, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 49: 1691 (1982). Regarding Eq. (10) of this paper, one should understand that the cases N = Z±1 are outside the stated allowed range (and are therefore incorrect for general Z). The result for N = Z is correct, and corresponds to (5), (7), and the N = N 0 case of (32), present paper.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. P. Perdew, in Density-functional methods in Physics, edited by R. M. Dreizler and J. da Providencia, Plenum Press, New York, 1985. p. 265.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Non-integral average values of the number of particles were also considered in [16, 17].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. A. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. A 7: 812 (1973).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erwin Schrödinger, Statistical Thermodynamics, Cambridge University Press (1952).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Parr, R. A. Donnelly, M. Levy and W. E. Palke, J. Chem. Phys. 68: 3801 (1978).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. S. Mulliken, J. of Chem. Phys. 2: 782 (1934); ibid. 3, 573 (1935).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. P. Gyftopoulos and G. N. Hatsopoulos, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 60: 786 (1968). This work states that (5) follows from (7), but doesn't mention a convexity requirement (the result does not follow if (24) is replaced by a concavity condition).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Pauling, The nature of the chemical bond, Cornell University Press, New York, (1960).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. C. Tolman, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics, Oxford University Press, (1938), § 140 (b).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz, Statistical Physics, Chap.XV, Pergamon Press, New York (1969).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Magnetic properties of systems of localized spins are examples where the chemical potential may not be physically relevant.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shegelski [1] has argued that the canonical ensemble is most appropriate for a semiconductor, since it has a fixed number of electrons. I fault this argument by noting that, physically, fluctuations in the number of electrons will occur in semiconductors as well as in metals. This is particularly true for the situation where the semiconductor is put in contact with a piece of metal in order to consider electrical current. Furthermore, these (relative) fluctuations for the grand canonical ensemble within the noninteracting effective mass model can be seen to be negligible for a macroscopic semiconductor.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    For discussion of the use of the canonical and grand canonical ensembles in an example even where the average number of particles is fixed, see D. Cabib and T. A. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. B 7: 2199 (1973). Erratum: the + in the line just below eq. (4) should be -.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The formal generalization of (19) and (18) to a multi-component system is straightforward. One has N i particles of type i, \(\mu \hat{N}\) in (13) is replaced by \(\sum \mu_i \hat{N}_i\), (18) is replaced by \(\partial\mathcal{F}/\partial\mathcal{N}_i=\mu_i, \mathcal{N}_i\) is the expectation value of N i, and the derivative is taken holding the other \(\mathcal{N}_j\) constant.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. R. De Groot, Thermodynamics of irreversible processes, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1951).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. J. Blatt, Physics of electronic conduction in solids, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1968).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. K. Ferry, and R. O. Grondin, Physics of submicron devices, Plenum Press, New York and London (1991).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions, John Wiley and Sons., New York, Chapter IV (1992).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Tarucha, in Mesoscopic Physics and Electronics, T. Ando, Y. Arakawa, K. Furuya, S. Komiyama, and H. Nakashina (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Chapter 2.4. (1998).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. C. Ashoori, Nature 379: 413 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. C. Ashoori, H.L. Stormer, J. S. Weiner, L. N. Pfeiffer, S.J. Pearton, K.W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3088 (1992).CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. A 61: 062301 (2000).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Schliemann, D. Loss, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 63: 085311 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T. A. Kaplan and C. Piermarocchi, Phys. Rev. B 70: 161311(R) (2004).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. A. Kastner, Physics Today 46: 24 (1993); Rev. Mod. Phys. 64: 849 (1992).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, S. Tarucha, Rep. Prog. Phys. 64: 701 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    S. Tessmer, priv. comm.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    There is another source of peak width in addition to the thermal effect considered here, namely that due to the hopping of electrons between the levels of the dot and the overlapping continuum of the leads. Under certain conditions the thermal broadening can be the dominant effect. See [41].Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    O. Steffens, U. Rössler, M. Suhrke, Europhys. Lett. 42: 529 (1998).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    For a more realistic but still simple description of a quantum dot, see Kastner's Physics Today article [41].Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. A 29: 3018 (1984).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    E. H. Lieb, in (eds) R. M. Dreizler and J. da Providencia, Density-functional methods in Physics, Plenum Press, New York, 1985. p. 11.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. F. Harrison, private communication.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. E. Raikh, L. I. Glazman, L. E. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77: 1354 (1996).CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    This is equivalent to the theorem of reference [10] for NEM's.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    This disagrees with the condition given in [16] for the dominance of these terms.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    G. Zhislin, Trudy Moskov Mat. Obsc. 9: 81 (1960); T. A. Kaplan and W. H. Kleiner, Phys. Rev. 156:1 (1967).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    N. B. Hannay, in Semiconductors, edited by N. B. Hannay, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York (1959), p.31.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    S. Wolfram (1991, reprinted in 1993 with corrections). Mathematica, Addison-Wesley, New York.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    N. G. De Bruijn, Asymptotic Methods in Analysis, Section 2.4., Dover Publications, New York (1981).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    These temperatures are high enough to justify the replacement of the sums by integrals.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. A. Kaplan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics and Astronomy and Institute for Quantum SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing

Personalised recommendations