1
$\begingroup$

As in this post How would I calculate the work function of a metal, the definition is given by "the minimum thermodynamic work (i.e. energy) needed to remove an electron from a solid to a point in the vacuum immediately outside the solid surface"(from Wikipedia). But when we do photoemission spectroscopy, the work function is with respect to vacuum so that we have $\phi = h\nu -\mid E_b\mid$. Are they consistent?

Edit: I guess the reconciliation may be sought in the following way:

Without the surface double layer, the Fermi energy $E_F$ is with respect to the vacuum. Once the double layer is taken into account, the chemical potential will effectively be lowered by $W_s$, i.e., the electrochemical potential becomes $E_F - W_s$ (with respect to the vacuum). Therefore, the total energy is $E_K$ in the end and $\phi = -E_F + W_s$. Then, probably, the macroscopic field due to inequivalent surfaces (or "image interaction" if they are equivalent) is neglected in some cases.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

When an electron is ejected from a metal surface it experiences an attraction due to the image force. However the attraction falls off rapidly with distance. A back of the envelope calculation tells me that (relative to infinity) the potential energy due to the image force is only around -0.001eV at a distance of a micron.

My understanding is that the image potential is normally considered part of the electron binding energy so it's included in the work function. So we're taking the expression:

to a point in the vacuum immediately outside the solid surface

to mean removing the electron to a distance outside the solid where the image force is negligable. In practice this would be a few microns, so it really isn't very far from the surface.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe I misunderstood something. The definition of work function is $\phi = - E_F + W_s$, $W_s$ is due to double layer. And the final kinetic energy in the vacuum is $E_K = W_s + E_0$ where $E_0$ is the kinetic energy at immediate surface if no force like "image force" is involved. Then we should have the total energy $\phi + E_0 = -E_F +E_K$. Isn't it? $\endgroup$ – DarKnightS Jan 29 '15 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure about exactly how the terms are defined, but isn't the double layer normally considered to be a surface effect so it operates on length scales of a few nm? Are you taking the double layer to extend far enough that the image potential is negligable outside it? $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jan 29 '15 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. This seems to be the picture indicated by Ashcroft and Mermin in their definition of work function. You can read the answer in the linked post. $\endgroup$ – DarKnightS Jan 29 '15 at 10:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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