2015
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/073018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electronic excitations in quasi-2D crystals: what theoretical quantities are relevant to experiment?

Abstract: View the article online for updates and enhancements. Related contentToward a novel theoretical approach for determining the nature of electronic excitations in quasi-two-dimensional systems A Politano, G Chiarello and A Cupolillo -Low-energy dielectric screening in Pd and PdHx systems V M Silkin, V U Nazarov, I P Chernov et al.Acoustic plasmons in extrinsic freestanding graphene M Pisarra, A Sindona, P Riccardi et al. AbstractThe ab initio theory of electronic excitations in atomically thin (quasi-two-dimens… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
68
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
68
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two energy ranges are generally distinguished, with a π plasmon peak in the 6-8 eV range and a σ + π peak at about 25 eV for bulk h-BN and also for graphite [43][44][45][46][47], the position and intensity of the latter peak being strongly dependent on the number of sheets in thin samples. The position of some structures can also be associated with specific interband transitions, particularly if they are correlated with the behavior of ε(q,ω) itself through Kramers-Kronig analyses [43], but some controversy has appeared recently between these two interpretations concerning the nature of the observed signals in 2D systems such as graphene [48][49][50][51]. Actually, deriving well-defined dispersion relations and deciding between the two possibilities is not obvious.…”
Section: B Low-loss Regionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two energy ranges are generally distinguished, with a π plasmon peak in the 6-8 eV range and a σ + π peak at about 25 eV for bulk h-BN and also for graphite [43][44][45][46][47], the position and intensity of the latter peak being strongly dependent on the number of sheets in thin samples. The position of some structures can also be associated with specific interband transitions, particularly if they are correlated with the behavior of ε(q,ω) itself through Kramers-Kronig analyses [43], but some controversy has appeared recently between these two interpretations concerning the nature of the observed signals in 2D systems such as graphene [48][49][50][51]. Actually, deriving well-defined dispersion relations and deciding between the two possibilities is not obvious.…”
Section: B Low-loss Regionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, KK relations for the permittivity do not hold in this case. The inverse permittivity, on the contrary, remains causal and does satisfy KK relations.We start by writing the permittivity of a Q2D crystal [11] (atomic units e 2 = = m e = 1 are used throughout unless otherwise indicated) …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 and 3 for q = 0.049 and 0.152 a.u., respectively, along the ΓM direction. It is, however, known that ε 3D (q, ω; d), calculated in the super-cell geometry, is a quantity completely different from the permittivity ε(q, ω) of a single layer [11][12][13][14], as can be also immediately appreciated from the d-dependence of the former. Our second step consists, therefore, in finding the density-response function χ of the single-layer system from that of the array of those layersχ.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations