2
$\begingroup$

In an article (over 250 citations) on plasma physics I've read a paragraph which I find very confusing. The authors state that there's a minimum mean free path an electron travels before it is scattered which corresponds to the mean distance of ions $r_0$. According to them, a mean free path $\lambda_e<r_0$ is unphysical.

So, why does an electron need to travel at least a distance corresponding to the mean interatomic distance (or equivalently, the ion sphere radius), before it can be scattered? In my opinion, it might be scattered by another electron just as well, which is very likely to be way closer than the nearest ion (In a plasma, i.e. there are usually more electrons than ions).

Any ideas?

EDIT: The only idea that comes to my mind is that electron-electron collisions are negligible compared to electron-ion collisions in a plasma.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The electron mean free path $\lambda_e$ is defined in terms of the total electron collision frequency $\nu_e$, which is not a measure of the average time between collisions. Instead, it is the average time required for an electron to scatter through an angle of $90^\circ$.

That is, because Coulomb collisions are long-range, the vast majority of collisions experienced by an electron in a plasma have very small scattering angles. Over time, a large number of small scattering events culminates in a $90^\circ$ deflection, and it is the time for this to occur which defines the scattering frequency.

As you say, electron-electron collisions are typically much more frequent than electron-ion collisions, if only because the electrons are generally moving around much more quickly. However, because electron-electron collisions have a 1:1 mass ratio (vs a ~1:2000+ mass ratio for ions), the typical scattering angle which results from an electron-electron collision is much smaller.

As a result, the amount of time required for electron-electron collisions to cause a $90^\circ$ deflection is comparable to the amount of time required for electron-ion collisions to do the same, which is why one often sees that $\nu_{ee} \sim \nu_{ei}$. The mean free paths for these events are therefore also comparable.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ "Instead, it is the average time required for an electron to scatter through an angle of 90°." - I did not know this. But it makes sense. Thank you for clarification. $\endgroup$
    – OD IUM
    Sep 1, 2020 at 19:18
1
$\begingroup$

So, why does an electron need to travel at least a distance corresponding to the mean interatomic distance (or equivalently, the ion sphere radius), before it can be scattered?

So in response, off of what would an electron scatter between atoms? I think the idea is that the amplitude of phonons cannot be larger than the interatomic separation for the material to remain solid, correct? The thin line to which the text refers is the interpolation of the collision frequency model based upon electron-phonon collisons and Spitzer-Härm electron-electron collisions.

The region above $\tfrac{ v_{e} }{ r_{o} }$ on the Spitzer-Härm side would imply a higher density of electrons than is physically possible (i.e., degeneracy and excess charging of metal). Also, the Spitzer-Härm formula shown is only for ion-electron collisions but would need to include electron-electron and ion-ion collisons (e.g., see https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/268594/59023 for equations) as the material ionizes.

The authors also point out that above 1 eV, the aluminum melts so it's no longer a lattice crystaline solid metal. Thus, the electron-phonon collison model fails because phonons apply to solids.

In a plasma, i.e. there are usually more electrons than ions

No, not necessarily. Most plasmas in the universe (by volume) are dominated by protons and electrons, thus $n_{e} \approx n_{i}$. If you are dealing with a metal like aluminum in a lab setting, it is true that there are often higher ionization states generated during laser ablation than just singly ionized aluminum. However, it is possible to keep the ionization state low and have effectively equal ion and electron number densities.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate. "So in response, off of what would an electron scatter between atoms?" -> as I said, in a metal, there's some probability for electron-electron scattering even though its quite low, right? Also, doesn't the Spitzer formula refer to electron-ion collisions? See for instance the wiki article for spitzer resistivity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_resistivity. Why else would there appear an average degree of ionization in the equation given by the authors in the article? For the electron-electron collision frequency there's no need for that. $\endgroup$
    – OD IUM
    Sep 1, 2020 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ODIUM - The formula provided would have ion-dependent terms in it if it referred to electron-ion collisions. Yes, normally one considers collisions between electrons and ions especially in a plasma. I was merely going off of what was shown in the article. $\endgroup$ Sep 1, 2020 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ exactly. Z corresponds to the nuclear charge. But I don't want to argue here. I'm not that experienced in plasma physics as you might have guessed $\endgroup$
    – OD IUM
    Sep 1, 2020 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ @ODIUM - No need to apologize. I may be incorrect. If they neglect differences in the reduced mass and rms thermal speed of both species to simplify the formula, then it very well could look similar to the electron-ion collision frequency... Yep, you are right if I ignore ion motions then they are the same. I will fix this. $\endgroup$ Sep 1, 2020 at 20:17

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.