1
$\begingroup$

Proposed solution:

This question comes from Tanner's manual Introduction to the Physics of Electrons in Solids, at the chapter dedicated to the application of the Fermi gas model. The Fermi energy is $\mathsf{E}_F$. The model used here is the free electron model, and the susceptibility is $$ \mathcal{\chi} = \frac{\bf \mathcal{M}}{\bf B} $$

Assuming that the density of states at the Fermi level $D(\mathsf{E}_F)$ is approximated to: $$D(\mathsf{E}_F) = \frac{3N}{2} \mathsf{E}_F $$ where $N$ is the total number of electronic states. It is demonstrated that: $$ \mathcal{\chi}=\frac{3n\mu_B^2}{2\mathsf{E}_F}$$ where $n$ is the number of conduction electrons per unit volume given to be $n=2.5 \times 10^{28}\,m^{-3}$, $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton given to be $\mu_B = 9.3 \times 10^{-24}\,J\cdot T^{-1}$, the Fermi energy for $\ce{Na}$ is $\mathsf{E}_F = 5.2 \times 10^{-19}\,J$, and therefore the susceptibility is $\mathcal{\chi}=6.2\times 10^1\, MKS$, which can be converted in SI by multiplication of $4\pi \times 10^{-7}$, so the result is $\mathcal{\chi} = 7.8\times 10^{-5} \, SI$

Now my question:

This result is absolutely not consistent with the literature that states $$\mathcal{\chi} = 1.3\times 10^{-5} \, SI$$

What is the problem with Tanner or (most certainly) with my calculus ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Bohr magneton value is not correct and formula for free-electron susceptibility should be multiplied by susceptibility of vacuum. $\endgroup$
    – 10ppb
    Apr 19, 2022 at 11:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @10ppb - The susceptibility of a vacuum is zero, so what we're really talking about here is the relative susceptibility (I believe) - I'm not sure there needs to be a term by which this is multiplied. I also see a calculated value of 3.1 eV (McQuarrie, Statistical Mechanics) for sodium, which is slightly off from what the OP has given. I believe the error lies as you indicated with the value for the Bohr magneton; and the number density given/computed. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Minehardt
    Apr 19, 2022 at 19:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The formula given for chi is not a correct SI formula. It should be multiplied by mu_zero = 4*pi*10^-7 H/m, whatever you want to call it. $\endgroup$
    – 10ppb
    Apr 20, 2022 at 2:21
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks @ToddMinehardt, I corrected the question according to your suggestions. There is still a factor of 4 between both results but this must be understandable from the model, ... and not from my calculation mistakes ... $\endgroup$
    – Dr.Dillmann
    Apr 29, 2022 at 18:31

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.