Talk:Plasmon

The window of Notre Dame[edit]

Whoever was foolish enough to add the picture and the corresponding inscription would do very well indeed to also note that the windows are not orginal (they were destroyed repeatedly) and that not all colours in a glass window are created by the use of metallic nanoparticles. A link to Cranberry glass might also be in order.

I agree. I have now edited this. 128.243.2.30 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph: "... because the electrons in the metal screen the electric field of the light." that doesn't seem to make any grammatical sense, but I may be wrong.

Read "screen" as a verb not a noun. ie. the electrons (which are in the metal) are screening the electric field.

The initial definition[edit]

I don't really think this definition is very clear. Could someone who knows expand on it? Unusual Cheese 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im prety sure a phonon is not just a quantized sound wave, but a quantized vibration, and therefore a quantized mechanical wave

Psylabs (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^ there are some articles that might be useful. D.Bohm and D.Pines, Phys.Rev. 92,609 (1953) D.Pines and D.Bohm, Phys.Rev. 85,338 (1952) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.207.133.126 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More screening woes[edit]

I still don't understand this use of the word 'screen' even as a verb. As I understand it to screen means 'to examine', 'to block'* or 'to display' none of which fits the context as far as my understanding of this subject goes.

Either I'm being incredibly ignorent or in this particular situation 'screen' is a colloquial term or jargon.

If this is the case, 'screen' is not a particularly informative word when related to the physical processes actually taking place.

What is meant is 'screening' as in 'blocking' the electric field. See Electric field screening. I think the description is accurate, but I'm not quite sure. I'll check some refrences over the week-end. O. Prytz 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more worried about the correctness of the physics. First, shouldn't the plasma frequency of copper be in the ultraviolet as well? Second, I always thought that the colors of metals are mostly due to the positions of their "interband transition" thresholds. Gold is yellow because blue light can cause electronic transitions from the occupied states in the "d band" to the unoccupied states in the "s band", and is therefore strongly absorbed. The same goes for copper, I suppose. See Electronic band structure. Finally, what geometrical factors exactly affect the plasma frequancy of gold? Just asking...

plasma frequency for some materials[edit]

I agree, the plasma frequency should be in the UV also for copper, see e.g. . But the matter seems to be quite complex, especially in the noble metals. The characteristic colour of copper and gold should be attributed to electronic transitions from d-bands to the conduction band. The energy of these transitions are in the blue region, thus both metals appear reddish and yellowish, respectively.

One more remark: The plasmon frequency for semiconductors is usually in the very deep UV, not IR! Around 15-16 eV. That's why they look silverish - like metals. You cannot use the standard free-electron-gas model to calculate the plasma frequency (this is, what gives IR-frequencies). As I haven't digged deep enough into the matter, I won't change the article. But if there is someone more experienced around, please do it! (With some references...) That would be great!

One could be easily mistaken cause phonons give raise to similar effects as plasmons. That's why people refer to IR. And 16eV is volume plasmon energy for silicon and germanium (Ch. Kittel "Introduction to solid state physics" table 2 on page 278). And 16 eV is huge energy, so normally no plasmon can be excited thermally, so there's no screening in IR. One would say that if plasmon frequency is in UV then it should screen IR which is obviously not true.Maybe that's why there is so many controversions about it.

I just read in Karl W. Böer "Survey of Semiconductor Physics" 2nd ed., Vol. I, p 524f, that there are simply two plasma frequencies for semiconductors: One for the "free" electrons in the conduction band - this is, of course, dependent on the doping level and gives a plasma frequency in the IR (because of the low electron density), and one for the valence electrons - due to their much higher concentration giving frequencies in the deep UV. That seems to unite all the different preceding views, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beathovn (talk • contribs) 11:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma frequency in semiconductors and colour of gold[edit]

I am changing now the article to reflect the outcome of this discussion, as the current state is wrong for sure.

If somebody feels like adding/correcting more - this is, of course, welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beathovn (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think metals transmitting UV is wrong. I say this looking at the following articles and when I read metals transmitting UV I was really suprised. From reading the below articles I concluded that UV can cause plasmons on metals while visible light doesn't have the energy to cause the quantized electron density oscillation (somehow majority of the light is reflected). The Drude or Jellium model sort of explains why metals are not transmissive compared to a dielectric crystalline material. Now if one uses quantum dot metals the story is different but I haven't read anything on it yet. Also just think about your car. If metals transmitted UV then we would all be baking in a metal car (very simplified imagination). I know the penetration depth for 1um light is ~1.9nm for copper using the equations from any optics book (I used Fundamental of Photonics).

N. H. Matlis et al, Snapshots of laser wakefields, Nature Physics, Vol 2 (2006). Tajima, T. and Dawson, J. M. A laser plasma accelerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267–270 (1979). Pukhov, A. and Meyer-ter-Vehn, J. Laser wakefield acceleration: the highly nonlinear broken-wave regime. Appl. Phys. B 74, 355–361 (2002). --NA 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly correct. First of all, if metals transmitted UV, all that would mean would be that metals are bad as a source of sun protection: they wouldn't focus UV rays into your car. That said, it is indeed true that plasmon frequencies usually lie in the near UV region. However, the exceptions see a great deal of use in plasmonics research, including gold, copper, and many oxides.

UV light is indeed transmitted by metals, with increasing transmittance at higher and higher frequencies (see article on reflectivity). Plasmon resonance is a related but separate phenomenon responsible only for the absorbance component of the optical spectrum (this absorbance contribution is related to the the extinction spectra of metal colloids) Cheap space (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoantennae / Metamaterials to be mentioned?[edit]

I'd like to link here from Nanoantenna. These rely on plasmonic effects but your whole article so far seems to be about bulk materials (or large unstructured surfaces)Shannock9 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about nanoantennas, but feel free to add a section to the article if you feel it is appropriate. Just make sure that we don't give undue weight to one particular application; this article is supposed to be a very general overview of the physics. Cheers, Papa November (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmaron; what is it, and can we add it to article?[edit]

Recently read this article which talks about "plasmarons". How are they related to plasmons? I've tried googling and came up with this paper in arxiv: [1] describing them as "strongly coupled charge-plasmons" or "coupled electron-plasmon", but I lack the expertise to add this to the article. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. 72.229.156.157 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Is an Absolute Mess[edit]

There are so many unclear and flat out wrong things in this article.

Partial list of things I'm aiming to correct if someone doesn't get to them first:

Clarify that it's not the "free electron model" that gives the bulk plasmon frequency, but the Drude model. The calculation that goes into determining the bulk plasmon frequency is a purely classical one in that it really doesn't make use of any quantum mechanical principles.
Differentiate between bulk plasmons and surface plasmons as well as mentioning particle plasmons.
Put a bit more emphasis on surface plasmons' polaritonic nature.
BIG ONE: Not all stained glass colors are the result of scattering off plasmonic modes. Most are due to color center point impurities. Only some red and some blue stained glass colors were derived from gold and silver particles respectively.
Mention the Lycurgus Cup as another interesting ancient example of particle plasmons.
Remove the 2009 Korean research team's paper. It is not any more important than the probably hundreds of papers published in any given year on plasmons.

That's just a start. Then there's the issue of reconciling this article's content with those of related articles such as plasma oscillation and surface plasmon resonance, among others.--Scyldscefing (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead and make corrections/improvements. It's far better (and more difficult) to do that than simply to criticise the work of other people. Papa November (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm taking a little personally are we? I thought you weren't suppose to do that. Anyway, if someone wants to revise the article, more power to them, but I've changed my mind about doing it myself.Scyldscefing (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an author of the article, so I'm not taking it personally. Sorry if my tone was a little abrasive. It's just important to remember that this is a community project, and a lot of hard work has been put in by volunteers to get the article to its current (imperfect) state. Your constructive criticism is very helpful, but sticking it under the heading "This article is an absolute mess" isn't really the best way to introduce yourself to a community of editors. Papa November (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen/Ladies, for what it's worth, while the article may contain some discrepancies, it was highly effacatious in helping me to understand the role of surface plasmons in the recent breakthroughs in LENT. And since I recognize the passion in the people who are critiquing this article, I have no doubt that over time, this article will reflect (no pun intended) an even more accurate understanding of the concept/phenomenon. Thanks to you all for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.208.251 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical: some explanations in the lead please?[edit]

I'm taking A-level physics, but I have only a hazy idea what the first sentence means. Could it be made a little clearer, with words like "quantum" explained? Thanks very much. User:GKFX^talk 16:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please add TCOs -- this is a fundamental material concept - I cant create a new page[edit]

help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.56.3 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plasmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There are sixteen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.