Next: Unpolarized Beam
Up: PER Theory
Previous: PER Theory
  Contents
The incident and transmitted electron waves are modelled (figure
2.3) as plane waves, allowing the well-defined
wave-vector components
in the plane of the interface, and
perpendicular to the interface.
must be the same for all the
waves, in order to satisfy the boundary condition of continuity of the
wave-function at the interface. The amplitude reflection coefficient
is [30]
 |
(2.18) |
or, for a general interface,
 |
(2.19) |
Next, I need to build an expression for the energy of the electrons.
There will be kinetic energy terms, which, in the non-relativistic
limit, are
and
along with an electrostatic potential energy
and a term due to the torque, on the electron magnetic moment, in a
magnetic field [30]
where
is the angle between the electron spin and the magnetic
flux density. The form of this last term assumes a well-defined
energy for all values of
. Strictly, only certain
values
are eigen-states of a Hamiltonian which includes a magnetic field;
more about this later (section 2.5.) The total energy is
 |
(2.20) |
or, where
is expressed as a fraction
of the total wave-number
in the absence of any potential,
being an angle of incidence like
that in figure 2.2,
 |
(2.21) |
where
,
, and
.
I now use a binomial expansion [48] for the case
where the potential energy terms are much smaller than the total
electron energy, where the dimensionless numbers I've just devised
are small. The magnetic term associated with the Weiss field in a
ferromagnet is [43] a few tenths of an
electron-volt, and the electrostatic contact potentials in the metals
which I study will not be more than a few volts, whereas, in my
experimental set-up, the incident electron energies range from a few
hundred to a few thousand electron volts, so this approximation seems
reasonable.
The amplitude reflection coefficient is, therefore,
Next: Unpolarized Beam
Up: PER Theory
Previous: PER Theory
  Contents
Daniel Christopher Hatton
2004-11-30