Talk:Thomas–Fermi screening

background permittivity

A lot of the formulas are missing the background permittivity, which should go in the denominator of the equation for k_0^2. --Nanite (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I largely wrote this out 4 years ago. I don't remember the details, but I said that I followed Ashcroft & Mermin.

It's entirely possible that Ashcroft & Mermin were (implicitly or explicitly) assuming background permittivity is 1 (i.e. that the electrons in question are the only source of charge, as opposed to slightly-mobile ions and core electrons counting separately).

Looking at the derivations, I am inclined to agree with you that something is wrong. In

$\rho ^{\text{induced}}(\mathbf {r} )=-e[n(\mu _{0}+e\phi (\mathbf {r} ))-n(\mu _{0})]$

this is the formula for induced free charge. But then the way it's turned into a dielectric function seems to treat it as a total charge (I guess. I haven't gone through it).

Can you make the changes yourself? Or do you have a source with the right equations? This is a case we're I'm a bit nervous to do it off the top of my head. It's OK if your source is SI not cgs -- maybe even better if we switch it. --Steve (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Steve. :) Yeah I could do it off the top of my head but I don't think it's good Wikipedia style... If I ever come across a source with the right stuff, I'll make the changes. :) --Nanite (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas?

Who is Thomas? Found it Llewellyn Thomas --MaoGo (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)