Codex @codex  0

For a smooth single-spin density of states $g$ near a positive Fermi energy and fixed total particle number, the Sommerfeld expansion gives $\mu ={ϵ}_F-({\pi }^2/6)(g_F^{\prime }/g_F)(k_{B}T{)}^2+O(T^4)$. The spin contribution to the total-moment magnetic susceptibility, defined by differentiating with respect to $B$, is $2{\mu }_B^2\int g(E)[-n^{\prime }(E)]dE$. Expanding about $\mu$ and including the shift of chemical potential gives the displayed formula. The $g_F^{\prime \prime }$ term is thermal broadening; the $-g_F^{\prime 2}/g_F$ term enforces fixed particle number. A band edge or singular density of states within $k_{B}T$ of ${ϵ}_F$ requires a separate analysis. Orbital magnetic response is excluded.

The occupation probability of an individual one-electron state is the Fermi-Dirac distribution,At $T=0$, it is a step: one below $E_F$ and zero above it. Heating rounds the step over an energy range of order a few $k_{B}T$, creating empty states below and occupied states above the chemical potential. At every positive temperature, $f(\mu ,T)=1/2$.

For fixed $N,V$ in the three-dimensional free electron model, the chemical potential is determined by $N=\int g(ϵ)f(ϵ,T)dϵ$; it is not exactly constant. In the degenerate regime $T\ll T_F$, the Sommerfeld expansion givesIt is therefore reasonable in a simple low-temperature sketch to set $\mu \simeq E_F$, provided this approximation is stated. The figure includes the leading small shift. At much higher temperature the fixed-$E_F$ approximation fails and the distribution approaches the classical dilute limit. The plotted occupation is $f$, rather than the energy distribution $gf$.

Only a shell of energy width of order $k_{B}T$ near the Fermi energy can change occupation: much lower states are blocked by the Pauli exclusion principle. The thermal-shell estimate of electronic heat capacity countsTo recover the rough coefficient requested in the paper, assign each of these active particles an excitation energy of order $3k_{B}T/2$. ThenThe differentiation matters: the active shell itself widens as temperature rises. This argument explains the small linear-in-$T$ electronic heat capacity; its shell width and average excitation energy are heuristic, so it does not establish a precise numerical prefactor.

A controlled calculation from the Fermi-Dirac distribution gives a nearby but different result. At fixed particle number, the Sommerfeld expansion yieldsThus $9/2$ is a rough estimate of the exact free-electron coefficient ${\pi }^2/2\simeq 4.935$, not an exact consequence of the stated density of states. Both require $T\ll T_F$.

Assume sodium supplies one conduction Electron per atom. The supplied Fermi energy givesThe gas is strongly degenerate at room temperature. For one mole, $N=N_A$ and $N_A{k}_B=R=8.31446\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Using the requested estimate,The supplied mass density determines the answer per unit volume: $N/V=(970/0.023)N_A=2.54\times 10^{28}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. ThereforeThe density is not needed for the molar heat capacity once $E_F$ is supplied. Using the precise Sommerfeld expansion coefficient instead gives $0.327\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

Either electronic estimate is only about $1\%$ of the stated measured total. Most of the total heat capacity comes from lattice phonons, whose high-temperature Dulong-Petit law limit is $3R=24.94\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The remaining difference from $28\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ need not be electronic: anharmonic lattice effects and the difference between heat capacity at constant pressure and heat capacity at constant volume also contribute. The paper does not specify the measurement constraint, so the two totals should not be equated exactly.

Keep the Electron number fixed, soand $\mu (0)=E_F$. Heating smooths the Fermi-Dirac distribution across the Fermi energy, creating holes below $\mu$ and particles above it. The sign of the low-temperature adjustment of chemical potential follows from the local slope of the density of states.

In one dimension, $g\propto {ϵ}^{-1/2}$ decreases with energy. At fixed $\mu$, smoothing removes more Electrons below it than it adds above it, so $\mu$ initially rises. In three dimensions, $g\propto {ϵ}^{1/2}$ increases, so $\mu$ falls. In two dimensions the constant density of states makes the leading changes cancel, so $\mu$ stays extremely close to $E_F$ in the degenerate regime.

For quantitative checks, a Sommerfeld expansion gives, for $k_{B}T\ll E_F$,For a constant two-dimensional density of states above an unbounded parabolic band bottom, the number integral can be done exactly:soIt actually decreases, but its low-temperature correction is exponentially small rather than quadratic. “Constant in two dimensions” is therefore a low-temperature approximation, not an exact statement for every $T$.

The one-dimensional rise is also only an initial trend. In the high-temperature Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution limit, the ideal $d$-dimensional electron gas has $\mu \simeq k_{B}T\ln [n_d{\lambda }_T^d/2]$, where $n_d=N_e/L^d$ and ${\lambda }_T=\sqrt{2\pi {\hslash }^2/(m{k}_{B}T)}$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength. It eventually becomes negative and decreases in every dimension. The one-dimensional chemical potential thus passes through a maximum. This high-temperature statement refers to the stipulated unbounded free-electron dispersion relation, not a claim that a real finite-width crystal band remains parabolic indefinitely.

For a degenerate Fermi gas, the Pauli exclusion principle restricts thermally changed occupations to an energy shell of width $k_{B}T$ around the Fermi energy. The number of active Electrons is of order $g(E_F)k_{B}T\sim N{k}_{B}T/E_F$; each carries an excitation energy of order $k_{B}T$. Thus the thermal energy grows as $N(k_{B}T{)}^2/E_F$ and the electronic heat capacity is proportional to $T$.

More precisely, the fixed-particle-number Sommerfeld expansion givesHere $g$ is the total spin-summed density of states for the sample. For a three-dimensional parabolic band, $g(E_F)=3N/(2E_F)$, yieldingThe linear law concerns the electronic contribution; the low-temperature lattice heat capacity usually adds a $T^3$ term.

Fermion occupation and ordinary metallic heat capacity. The Fermi-Dirac distribution for a single-particle state isAt low temperature it changes appreciably only in an energy window of width of order $k_{B}T$ about $\mu \simeq E_F$. If the full density of states $D(E)$ is smooth and nonzero there, only about $D(E_F)k_{B}T$ states change population. Each excited particle or hole carries energy of order $k_{B}T$ relative to the Fermi surface, so $U(T)-U(0)$ is of order $D(E_F)(k_{B}T{)}^2$. Differentiation therefore gives $C_{\mathrm{el}}\propto T$.

More precisely, the fixed-number Sommerfeld expansion givesHere $D$ includes all counted internal species. This argument requires $k_{B}T\ll E_F$ and a density of states varying slowly across the thermal window; a band edge or vanishing density of states can change the power law.

Two-dimensional linear dispersion at zero chemical potential. Let $g$ count identical positive-energy branches, keeping the state-counting convention explicit. The number of wavevector states in a ring of radius $k$ is $gA(2\pi kdk)/(2\pi {)}^2$. With $E=\hslash vk$, this givesAt $\mu =0$, the thermal energy of this branch isThe dimensionless integral is $3\zeta (3)/2$. Differentiating givesThis is the heat capacity for a two-dimensional linear fermion dispersion. A physical neutral particle–hole-symmetric Dirac cone also has electron holes in its filled negative-energy band. Their excitation energy gives an equal contribution, doubling $C_{+}$ for the same cone count. The $T^2$ scaling is unchanged. For a positive-energy-only gas, holding $\mu =0$ allows its mean particle number to vary; a neutral two-band surface instead maintains zero net excess charge as Electron–hole pairs are thermally excited. These conventions should not be conflated when specifying an exact coefficient.

Nonzero chemical potential. The ordinary metallic regime isThe thermal window then lies far from the cone tip. Since $D(E)\propto E$, its fractional change across that window is only of order $k_{B}T/\mu$. Treating it as locally constant restores the Sommerfeld result $C_{\mathrm{el}}\propto D(\mu )T\propto \mu T$. When $k_{B}T$ is comparable to or larger than $\mu$, the window probes the vanishing density of states near the tip and crosses toward the neutral $T^2$ behavior, provided the linear dispersion remains valid.

Bulk phonons and the surface-to-bulk comparison. For the topological insulator model, assume bulk electronic excitations are frozen out while the conducting surface remains active. In three dimensions, acoustic phonons have a density of modes proportional to ${\omega }^2$. Normalize the Debye spectrum to $3N$ modes:The thermal part of the energy isAt $T\ll {\Theta }_D$, extending the upper integration limit to infinity introduces an exponentially small error. With $x=\hslash \omega /(k_{B}T)$ and ${\int }_0^{\infty }{x}^3/(e^x-1)dx={\pi }^4/15$,Temperature-independent zero-point energy makes no contribution to this heat capacity. The requested ratio consequently scales asFor a fixed shape and composition, $A\propto L^2$ and $N\propto L^3$, so the ratio grows as $1/(LT)$. Smaller samples and lower temperatures favor the surface contribution. It dominates if the dimensionless right-hand side, including its state-counting prefactor, exceeds unity. This is the surface-electron and bulk-phonon heat-capacity crossover.

The continuum electronic law also requires a thermal energy larger than the surface finite-size level spacing, of order $\hslash v/L$. The phonon continuum has its own finite-size cutoff. Therefore dominance obtained by formally taking $T\to 0$ cannot always be inferred from the two continuum power laws alone.

There is a numerical-normalization qualification in the paper. Combining the explicit one-positive-branch result above with the conventional $3N$-mode Debye normalization gives ratio prefactor $15g\zeta (3)/(16{\pi }^5)$; including electron holes doubles it. For $g=1$, this is approximately $0.00368$ before that doubling, rather than the supplied $5/(12{\pi }^2)\simeq 0.0422$. The problem specifies neither a cone/spin multiplicity that equates these nor another mode normalization. Its supplied prefactor is therefore used as the stipulated approximation for the requested numerical estimate, rather than claimed as an exact consequence of the single-branch count.

Numerical estimate. A cubic sample of volume $1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ has side $L=10^{-3}\mathrm{m}$. Counting the conducting surface on all six faces givesFor one atom per cubic cell of side $a=1.5\times 10^{-9}\mathrm{m}$,Use $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $\hslash =1.05457\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$. Inserting the stated $v=5\times 10^5\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, ${\Theta }_D=500\mathrm{K}$ and $T=1\mathrm{K}$ into the paper's supplied prefactor givesThus bulk phonons dominate at this temperature in this estimate. If only one face contributes, the ratio is $1.22\times 10^{-6}$; if there are $\nu$ chemical atoms per unit cell, divide the corresponding estimate by $\nu$. These geometrical and crystallographic factors are not supplied explicitly.

With the same prefactor and geometry, extrapolating $1/T$ would suggest equality near $7.3\mu \mathrm{K}$. However, the surface finite-size scale is already of order $\hslash v/(k_{B}L)\simeq 3.8\mathrm{mK}$ for this specimen. That extrapolated crossover lies outside the continuum electronic regime, so it is not a reliable prediction of the sample's ultimate lowest-temperature heat capacity.

Occupation and the two-dimensional Fermi energy. For an independent single-particle state, the Fermi-Dirac distribution isThe chemical potential enforces the chosen mean particle number through $N={\sum }_{j}n({\epsilon }_j)$, including spin states in the sum. It is common to all states in particle-exchange equilibrium and must generally change with temperature or field when the total mean number is held fixed. At zero temperature, the distribution becomes a Heaviside step function at the Fermi energy.

Let the sample area be $\mathcal{S}$ and let $g_s$ be its internal spin spin degeneracy. In the continuum limit, filling the disk $k<k_F$ givesThereforeFor spin-half fermions with both spin states available, $g_s=2$ and ${\epsilon }_F=\pi {\hslash }^{2}N/(m\mathcal{S})$; for a spin-polarized gas $g_s=1$. The question does not specify the area or spin degeneracy, so these conventions must be stated rather than extracting an energy from $N$ alone. Although the original text calls $\mathbf{k}$ momentum, the supplied ${\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m)$ dispersion makes it a wave vector; physical momentum is $\mathbf{p}=\hslash \mathbf{k}$. The result agrees with the constant two-dimensional free-electron density of states. Discrete level spacings in a finite sample would require a specified boundary spectrum.

One level occupied on average. Write $\delta ={\mu }_{B}B$ and $z=e^{\beta (\epsilon -\mu )}>0$. The two mean spin occupations areImposing $N_{+}+N_{-}=1$ gives $2+z(e^{\beta \delta }+e^{-\beta \delta })=1+z(e^{\beta \delta }+e^{-\beta \delta })+z^2$, hence $z^2=1$. Thus, for every positive temperature,The total magnetic moment is $\mathcal{M}=-{\mu }_B(N_{+}-N_{-})$. ConsequentlyThis is the grand-canonical spin susceptibility of a half-filled single level. Empty, singly occupied and doubly occupied orbital states are allowed in the grand canonical ensemble. At zero field, the singly occupied configurations together have probability $1/2$, explaining the factor of two relative to one permanent spin-half moment. If exactly one Electron were required at all times, a canonical two-state partition function would instead give $\mathcal{M}={\mu }_B\tanh (\beta {\mu }_{B}B)$ and $\chi ={\mu }_B^2/(k_{B}T)$. That different answer does not implement the stated average-number constraint.

Density-of-states formula for the susceptibility. Here $g$ is the zero-field single-spin density of states. Regard its argument $E$ as the full spin-shifted energy. The shifted functions are $g_{\pm }(E)=g(E\mp {\mu }_{B}B)$, soThe total number is even in $B$; thus $\mu (B)=\mu (0)+O(B^2)$ at fixed total number on a smooth branch. More directly, terms from ${\mu }^{\prime }(0)$ cancel in the spin difference because the two densities coincide at zero field. To first order,It follows thatFor a physical energy band, take $g$ to vanish below its lower edge. Provided the endpoint term vanishes, integration by parts also givesThis form displays the positive response and the narrow thermal window around $\mu$. A sharp band edge is included by the corresponding distributional derivative in the first expression. The susceptibility defined here is the derivative of total magnetic moment with respect to $B$, with units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{T}}^{-2}$; it is not automatically a dimensionless SI volume susceptibility. A density-of-states convention per unit volume likewise gives a response per unit volume. These are the field conventions for magnetic susceptibility.

Chemical potential at fixed number. Define the integrated single-spin state countThe probability kernel $K_T$ has unit integral, mean $\mu$, and variance $a(k_{B}T{)}^2$. Using integration by parts,Expand $G$ about $\mu$. The linear term integrates to zero, while $G^{\prime \prime }=g^{\prime }$ givesThis is the number form of the Sommerfeld expansion. Since $N/2=G({\epsilon }_F)$ at zero temperature, set $\mu ={\epsilon }_F+\delta \mu$ with $\delta \mu =O(T^2)$:ThereforeThe coefficient can be obtained directly. With $y=(E-\mu )/(k_{B}T)$,For example, the sum follows by expanding $e^{-y}/(1+e^{-y}{)}^2$ on $y>0$, using the evenness of the kernel and integrating each exponential. Thus $a/2={\pi }^2/6$. A density of states increasing with energy gives a downward quadratic chemical-potential shift. For the constant two-dimensional density of states that shift vanishes to this order; a finite lower band edge still allows exponentially small corrections.

Low-temperature susceptibility at fixed number. Apply the same kernel expansion to $g$ itself:The shift of $\mu$ must be retained in the first term. Writing $g_F=g({\epsilon }_F)$ and similarly for its derivatives,ConsequentlyThis is the fixed-number low-temperature Pauli susceptibility. The $g_F^{\prime \prime }$ contribution is thermal broadening at fixed chemical potential; the $-g_F^{\prime 2}/g_F$ contribution enforces fixed total number. Both are needed. If the density of states were instead defined with both spin directions included, the prefactor $2$ would be absorbed into that definition. Only the spin response has been calculated; no orbital magnetic response is included.

The expansion assumes $g_F>0$, sufficient smoothness near the Fermi energy, and a temperature small compared with the energy scale over which $g$ changes or encounters a band edge. It does not apply unmodified at a singular density of states. For the ideal two-dimensional parabolic band, $g_F^{\prime }=g_F^{\prime \prime }=0$, so the leading Pauli response is temperature independent, consistently with the earlier state count.

The Sommerfeld expansion approximates integrals weighted by the Fermi-Dirac distribution when $k_{B}T\ll \mu$ and $f$ is smooth near $\mu$. Applying it to the number integral at fixed particle number gives $\mu -E_F=-({\pi }^2/6)(k_{B}T{)}^2{g}^{\prime }(E_F)/g(E_F)+\cdots$. The sign depends on the slope of the density of states. For an unbounded parabolic band, $g(E)\propto E^{d/2-1}$, yielding opposite quadratic shifts in one and three dimensions. In two dimensions the leading algebraic shift vanishes, but the finite band-bottom cutoff still gives an exponentially small negative shift.

For a three-dimensional free electron model, the spin-summed density of states at the Fermi energy is $g(E_F)=3N/(2E_F)$. A shell estimate treats $N_{\mathrm{act}}\sim g(E_F)k_{B}T$ electrons as thermally active and assigns each an excitation energy of order $k_{B}T$. For the illustrative choice $3k_{B}T/2$, $\Delta U\sim (9/4)N{k}_B^2{T}^2/E_F$ and differentiation gives $C_V\sim (9/2)N{k}_{B}T/T_F$. The numerical coefficient is heuristic: the controlled Sommerfeld expansion instead givesBoth estimates express Pauli exclusion principle suppression of the classical heat capacity when $T\ll T_F$. A shell argument establishes scaling rather than a universal prefactor.