Publication 24-CNA-008

Nonuniqueness in Defining the Polarization: Nonlocal Surface Charges and the Electrostatic, Energetic, and Transport Perspectives

Shoham Sen
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
shoham.sen16@gmail.com

Yang Wang
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Timothy Breitzman
Air Force Research Laboratory
timothy.breitzman.1@us.af.mil

Kaushik Dayal
Center for Nonlinear Analysis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Kaushik.Dayal@cmu.edu

Abstract: Ionic crystals, ranging from dielectrics to solid electrolytes to complex oxides, play a central role in the development of modern technologies for energy storage, sensing, actuation, and other functional applications. Mesoscale descriptions of these crystals are based on the continuum polarization density field to represent the effective physics of charge distribution at the scale of the atomic lattice. However, a long-standing difficulty is that the classical electrostatic definition of the macroscopic polarization — as the dipole or first moment of the charge density in a unit cell — is not unique; rather, it is sensitive to translations of the unit cell in an infinite periodic system. This unphysical non-uniqueness has been shown to arise from starting directly with an infinite system — wherein the boundaries are ill-defined — rather than starting with a finite body and taking appropriate limits.

This limit process shows that the electrostatic description requires not only the bulk polarization density, but also the surface charge density, as the effective macroscopic descriptors; that is, a nonlocal effective description. Other approaches to resolve this difficulty include the popular modern theory of polarization that completely sets aside the polarization as a fundamental quantity in favor of the change in polarization from an arbitrary reference value and then relates the change in polarization to the transport of charge (the “transport” definition); or, in the spirit of classical continuum mechanics, to define the polarization as the energy-conjugate to the electric field (the “energetic” definition).

This work examines the relation between the classical electrostatic definition of polarization, and the transport and energy-conjugate definitions of polarization. We show the following: (1) The transport of charge does not correspond to the change in polarization in general; instead, one requires additional simplifying assumptions on the electrostatic definition of polarization for these approaches to give rise to the same macroscopic electric fields. Thus, the electrostatic definition encompasses the transport definition as a special case. (2) The energy-conjugate definition has both bulk and surface contributions; while traditional approaches neglect the surface contribution, we find that accounting for the nonlocal surface contributions is essential to be consistent with the classical definition and obtain the correct macroscopic electric fields.

Get the paper in its entirety as  24-CNA-008.pdf

---

«   Back to CNA Publications