2
$\begingroup$

By definition of the conductivity tensor $\hat{\sigma}$ and the resistivity tensor $\hat{\rho}$, we have \begin{equation*} \begin{split} & j_{\alpha}=\sigma_{\alpha \beta}E_{\beta} \\ & E_{\beta}=\rho_{\beta \alpha}j_{\alpha} \end{split} \end{equation*} If we put the second relation into the first one, we would have $$j_{\alpha}=\sigma_{\alpha \beta}\rho_{\beta \gamma}j_{\gamma}$$ which simply means $\sigma_{\alpha \beta}\rho_{\beta \gamma}=\delta_{\alpha \gamma}$, i.e. the two tensors are matrix inverse of each other in this 2-D case.

However, I saw in some online notes on quantum hall effect relations like $\sigma_{yy}=\frac{\rho_{yy}}{\rho_{yy}^2+\rho_{xy}^2}$ and $\sigma_{xy}=\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{yy}^2+\rho_{xy}^2}$, which are obviously contradictory to the above fact that $\hat{\sigma}=\hat{\rho}^{-1}$. I have also seen similar relations in some other places. Did I miss anything?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you missed a minus sign on your $\sigma_{xy}$ formula $\endgroup$ – Azad May 10 '15 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ ok.. so if that's the case, do you know how to derive the relations? $\endgroup$ – M. Zeng May 10 '15 at 10:41
3
$\begingroup$

Assuming that the expressions given for a 2D electron gas here are valid, there really is no contradiction. Remember that there is an implicit sum in a repeated index (Einstein summation convention). Equivalently, an inverse matrix need not be the component-by-component inverse of the original matrix. For example, we get: $$[\sigma\cdot\rho]_{xx} = \sigma_{xx}\rho_{xx} + \sigma_{xy}\rho_{yx}$$ $$ = \frac{\rho_{xx}^2}{\rho_{xx}^2+\rho_{xy}^2} - \frac{\rho_{xy}\rho_{yx}}{\rho_{xx}^2+\rho_{xy}^2}$$ Together with $\rho_{xy} = -\rho_{yx}$, we get: $$[\sigma\cdot\rho]_{xx} = 1$$ Similarly, $$[\sigma\cdot\rho]_{xy} = \frac{\rho_{xx}\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}^2+\rho_{xy}^2} - \frac{\rho_{xy}\rho_{yy}}{\rho_{xx}^2+\rho_{xy}^2}$$ And using $\rho_{xx} = \rho_{yy}$, we get: $$[\sigma\cdot\rho]_{xy} = 0$$

And so on for the remaining two components. Overall, we then get: $$[\sigma\cdot\rho]_{ij} = \delta_{ij}$$ which is precisely what we require.

We can also derive the required expression directly from the matrix: $$\rho = \begin{pmatrix} \rho_{xx} & \rho_{xy} \\ -\rho_{xy} & \rho_{xx}\end{pmatrix}$$ The determinant is: $$\det\rho = \rho_{xx}^2+\rho_{xy}^2$$ and its adjugate is: $$\operatorname{adj}\rho = \begin{pmatrix} \rho_{xx} & -\rho_{xy} \\ \rho_{xy} & \rho_{xx}\end{pmatrix}$$ It's inverse is then: $$\sigma = \rho^{-1} = \frac{1}{\det\rho}\operatorname{adj}\rho$$ leading to the expression for $\sigma$.

Update:

The reason why $\rho_{xy} = -\rho_{yx}$ is because the magnetic field, $\mathbf{B} = B_z\hat{\mathbf{e}}_z$, always has a certain sense of orientation, being related to the force through a cross product. Let's say that it deflects the current anticlockwise (right handed coordinates). Then, a current in the $+x$ direction would be deflected in the $+y$ direction; that in the $+y$ direction would be deflected in the $-x$ direction. Thus, the $x$ component in the latter case is negative.

In the general case, this is contained in the relation $\rho_{xy} = -\rho_{yx}$, which effectively says that an electric field in one direction always results in a deflected (perpendicular) current which is in a specific orientation (clockwise or anti-clockwise) from it, with the same magnitude for a given electric field magnitude.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see.. I actually used the relation $\rho_{xy}=\rho_{yx}$, which was the reason I wasn't able to derive the correct results. But why should the two be negative of each other? $\endgroup$ – M. Zeng May 10 '15 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Timo I've updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – AV23 May 10 '15 at 14:11

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.