Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Assuming the general theory of screening related to electron-electron interactions, I was wondering if anyone could provide a clear, yet conceptually complete explanation of the differences between the Thomas-Fermi and the Lindhard theories?

Following the treatment by Ashcroft and Mermin (1976),I get the impression that the main difference is that the Thomas-Fermi model assumes that the electrostatic potential is slowly-varying in $\vec{r}$: $$E_i(\vec{k}) = \frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}-e\phi(\vec{r})$$, but I'm having trouble grasping the full physical significance of this statement.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

First, the Thomas-Fermi screening is a semiclassical static theory which assumes that the total potential $\phi(\mathbf{r})$ varies slowly in the scale of the Fermi length $l_{\text{F}}$, the chemical potential $\mu$ is constant and that $T$ is low. In principle, it does not rely on linear response theory.

The condition of slowly varying potential is a general condition of validity of semiclassical models. Physically, if the particle [electron] is represented by a wave packet, what is tellying us is that all the waves in the wavepacket will see the same potential and the particle will suffer [or enjoy!] a force as if it was point-like ["classical"] because such potentials gives rise to ordinary forces in the equation of motion describing the evolution of the position and wavevector of the packet. The wavepacket must have a well-defined wavevector on scale of the Brillouin zone [thus $\Delta k \simeq k_{\text{F}}$] and therefore can be spread in the real space over many primitive cells.

Mathematically, the assumption that your potential is a slowly varying function of the position implies that the theory is not valid for $|\mathbf{q}| \gg k_{\text{F}}$ [and therefore for $|\mathbf{r}| \ll l_{\text{F}}$].

On the other hand, the static Lindhard dielectric function is a fully quantum treatment of the problem and it is valid for all the ranges of $\mathbf{q}$. It includes, in the limit $\mathbf{q} \rightarrow 0$, the linearized Thomas-Fermi dielectric function. It only assumes linear response, that is, the induced density of charge is proportional to the total potential $\phi(\mathbf{r})$.

Note also that the Lindhard treatment is far more general than the Thomas-Fermi in the sense that it can describe both dynamic and static screening.

share|cite|improve this answer
Quick question concerning you'r definition of the wavepacket: what do you mean by all of the waves in your wavepacket? If I think wavepacket, I'm generally considering photons – TCTopCat Apr 28 '12 at 13:43
The wavepacket is made of Bloch waves [modulated plane waves with the periodicity of the crystal lattice]. Yes, it has the same sense as in the case of photons. – DaniH Apr 28 '12 at 13:50
I was more confused of the idea of having multiple waves within a single photon-like particle, but I think I get what you mean now anyways - thanks again! – TCTopCat Apr 28 '12 at 13:56
You are welcome! You can think about the wavepacket in the same form as you would do with a classical wave [for example, in wave optics]. – DaniH Apr 28 '12 at 13:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.