Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Comparative analysis of plasmon modes in layered Lindhard metals and strange metals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read IR-based EELS calculations for a layered strange metal predict a single broad, weakly dispersive plasmon near 1 eV, matching low-q data but no published spectra at larger momentum.

desk verdict New finite-slab T-EELS framework and a clean Lindhard comparison, but the headline strange-metal claim at large q is an extrapolation beyond the paper's own stated validity limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17840 v1 pith:EBMUQRIA submitted 2025-07-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Niels de Vries , Jin Chen , Eric Hoglund , Xuefei Guo , Dipanjan Chaudhuri , Jordan Hachtel , Peter Abbamonte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con PACS 71.45.Gm79.20.Uv74.72.-h
keywords strangemetalplasmonelectronenergy-lossspectroscopylayeredgasFettermodesBi-2212dynamicchargesusceptibilityLindhardpolarizability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what inelastic electron scattering should see when it probes a layered strange metal such as Bi-2212, given only the highly reproducible infrared optical response. It derives the transmission-EELS cross-section for a finite stack of conducting layers and compares a Lindhard electron gas with a strange metal whose layer polarizability is taken from IR data. The central claim is that the strange metal's response at modest momentum is a single, heavily damped plasmon near 1 eV that barely disperses, with no surface mode, whereas the Lindhard metal shows a fan of standing-wave modes. This matters because published T-EELS and R-EELS experiments disagree at finite momentum: the IR-based calculation matches low-q data but not any published spectrum at larger q, which would mean either the published spectra or the momentum-independence assumption is wrong.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the matrix Dyson equation for the charge susceptibility of a finite layered slab, $\chi = \Pi_0 (I - \Pi_0 V_{2D} F)^{-1}$, where $\Pi_0$ is the single-layer polarizability (Lindhard or IR-derived), $V_{2D}(q)$ is the 2D Coulomb interaction, and $F$ is the matrix of image-charge-corrected interlayer Coulomb couplings from the Jain-Allen construction. The image-charge series handles the two surfaces of the finite stack. This machinery lets the paper compute the mixed $z,z'$ susceptibility and feed it into the T-EELS cross-section formula, with the Fetter dispersion $\omega_F(q,q_z)$ bounding the fan of standing-wave modes.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a T-EELS measurement on a thin Bi-2212 flake with the same geometry (N≈20 layers, d=15.4 Å, E0=60 keV), scanning q from 0.001 to 0.3 Å⁻¹ and energy from 0 to 2 eV. The IR-based prediction gives a single broad peak near 1.1 eV for q>0.05 Å⁻¹; observing a second mode, a sharp dispersing mode, or a Fetter fan would refute it. Conversely, reproducing the single broad peak at all q would mean the published large-q spectra are inconsistent with the optical response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the transmission-EELS response of a finite, N-layer metal is controlled by the interlayer Coulomb interaction at small q. A Lindhard stack produces N plasmon bands, including a surface mode, whose dispersion follows the Fetter-\textit{q$_z$}-discretized bands; the strange metal, with $\Pi_0$ fixed to its IR value, produces a single broad peak near 1.1 eV for N=20, weakly dispersive only below $q\approx 0.01$ \AA\ and with no Fetter fan and no surface mode. The paper further claims this IR-derived response agrees with IR and R-EELS at $q\approx 0$ but with no published EELS spectrum at larger $q$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single-layer polarizability extracted from q=0 infrared data stays valid for all momenta shown, up to 0.3 Å⁻¹, even though the paper states this is valid only for q less than the Fermi momentum (0.037 Å⁻¹).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the IR-derived polarizability is correct, a T-EELS experiment on a 20-layer Bi-2212 stack should show a single broad peak near 1.1 eV at $q>0.05$ \AA$^{-1}$, not a fan of standing-wave modes.
  • In the Lindhard case, the number of plasmon bands equals the number of layers at small q, with half of the bands dark by symmetry, a geometric feature independent of layer details.
  • The surface plasmon of a layered Lindhard stack sits above the bulk Fetter bands, unlike the homogeneous-metal value $\omega_p/\sqrt{2}$.
  • Published T-EELS spectra that show a sharp, strongly dispersing plasmon at larger q are inconsistent with the IR-based calculation, while low-q results from IR, R-EELS, and T-EELS remain consistent.
  • The calculation gives a concrete prediction for what a clean T-EELS experiment on a finite Bi-2212 slab should observe, turning the existing discrepancies into a testable experimental question.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the claimed disagreement at $q>0.05$ \AA$^{-1}$ is not a decisive falsification of the published spectra, because the calculation's own input assumption ($q<k_F\approx 0.037$ \AA$^{-1}$) is violated in that range; the correct conclusion may be that the momentum-independence assumption and the spectra cannot both hold.
  • We infer the framework yields a testable prediction: at $q<0.01$ \AA$^{-1}$, a well-resolved T-EELS experiment on Bi-2212 should see a single broad peak near 1 eV with no standing-wave fan, independent of bilayer details.
  • We infer the same IR-to-EELS pipeline could be applied to other layered strange metals, such as other cuprates or organic conductors, turning discrepancies between IR and EELS into a routine cross-check.
  • We infer that the absence of a distinct surface mode in the strange metal, if confirmed, would imply the surface charge response is not a separate collective mode but simply the tail of the bulk damped plasmon.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a numerical framework for computing the T-EELS cross-section of a finite stack of coupled two-dimensional layers, using an image-charge-corrected Coulomb interaction and a Dyson equation for the layer-resolved dynamic susceptibility. The framework is applied to two models: a layered Lindhard electron gas, using both the full 2D Lindhard polarizability and its small-q/high-frequency limit, and a 'strange metal' in which the single-layer polarizability is taken from infrared optics at q=0 and assumed momentum-independent. The Lindhard calculation yields standing-wave Fetter-like plasmon bands plus a surface mode, while the strange-metal calculation yields a single broad, weakly dispersive peak with no visible surface mode. The authors report that the low-q results match IR and R-EELS data but that the calculations match no published EELS spectra at larger q, which they interpret as evidence of unresolved discrepancies in the strange-metal charge response.

Significance. The methodological core is valuable: the image-charge recursion for a finite slab and the Dyson-inversion scheme are clearly formulated, and the Lindhard comparison usefully separates geometry-driven low-q response from layer-specific high-q response. If the strange-metal calculation were valid, the predicted absence of a sharp surface mode and weak plasmon dispersion would be concrete, testable statements. However, the central strange-metal conclusion rests on applying the q=0 infrared polarizability far outside the stated q<k_F regime, and the claimed match or mismatch with experiment is not supported by any quantitative comparison. The paper is therefore a solid methodological contribution whose headline claim about disagreement with published EELS data is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections V-VI, Eq. (21), Fig. 4] The strange-metal calculation sets Π0(q,ω)=Π0(0,ω) for all momenta shown, up to q=0.3 Å^-1, while Section VI explicitly states that the momentum-independence assumption is valid only for q less than the Fermi momentum. Using the stated carrier density N_e=2.19×10^18 m^-2, k_F=sqrt(2πN_e)=0.037 Å^-1, so the plotted range reaches approximately 8 k_F. Consequently, the large-q response, the absence of a surface mode for q>0.05 Å^-1, and the conclusion that the calculation matches no published EELS spectra at larger q are extrapolations outside the stated validity of the input. This undermines the central discrepancy claim made in the abstract and in Section VI.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (21), Eq. (10)] The low-q agreement with IR and R-EELS is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction: Eq. (21) defines Π0(0,ω) from the measured IR dielectric function, and Eq. (10) then propagates this same quantity into the T-EELS cross-section. The statement in Sections V-VI and the abstract that the results 'match IR and R-EELS at low q' therefore describes a recasting of the same input data, not a validation of the model against independent measurements. This should be stated explicitly and the language adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Section VI, Figs. 2-4] The claim that the calculations 'match no published EELS data at larger q' is not substantiated by any direct comparison: no published EELS spectra are overlaid in any figure, and no quantitative discrepancy metric is provided. To support this central claim, the authors would need to compare their calculated (q,ω) maps with the cited experimental data (Refs. [8,9,12-14,18,19]) at matched momenta and energy resolutions. As written, the statement is an unsupported assertion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV A, Eq. (17)] The text states that in the high-frequency small-q limit 'the imaginary part χ0'' vanishes' and that 'the real part reduces to χ0 = ...', but Eq. (14) defines Π0, not χ0. Please reconcile the notation to avoid confusing the single-layer polarizability with the full susceptibility.
  2. [Section III A, Eq. (9)] The parity functions ζ(x), ξ(x), η(x) are presented as sequences with a terse definition; a closed-form expression using floor or modulo operations would make the image-charge recursion significantly easier to verify and reproduce.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (21)] The numerical value of the background dielectric constant ϵ∞ used in Eq. (21) is not stated; presumably ϵ∞=ϵ1=4.5, but the paper should say so explicitly for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 2] The color scale in Fig. 2(b) spans about 10 orders of magnitude, which makes the fainter odd-parity modes difficult to discern; a smaller dynamic range or separate panels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The finite-q strange-metal response is computed from the q=0 IR polarizability at all momenta, so the reported large-q disagreement with published EELS is an extrapolation beyond the paper's own validity limit; the low-q agreement is a consistency check on the same input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eq. (21); Section VI; Fig. 4]
    "For our calculations, we use the individual layer polarizability at q = 0 determined from IR optics experiments, which have been shown to be highly reproducible among multiple groups [10, 11, 30]. ... Π0(q,ω)|_{q=0} = (ϵ∞ − ϵ(ω))/(V2D(q)F(q)) ... Our approach in the strange metal case uses the polarizability, Π0(q,ω), from highly reproducible infrared (IR) optics experiments, assumed to be momentum-independent for modest values of q (i.e., less than the Fermi momentum)."

    The finite-q strange-metal cross-section is computed by inserting the q=0 IR polarizability at every momentum shown in Fig. 4, up to q=0.3 Å^-1. From the stated N_e=2.19×10^18 m^-2, k_F=sqrt(2π N_e)=0.037 Å^-1, so the plotted range reaches about 8 k_F, far outside the paper's own stated validity regime ('less than the Fermi momentum'). The resulting 'highly damped plasmon with weak dispersion and no distinct surface mode' is therefore a consequence of the assumed q-independent input, not an independent prediction. The claim that the calculation matches no published EELS spectra at larger q is an extrapolation of the same input assumption, so the large-q discrepancy is not a demonstrated result about the real material.

  2. self definitional [Abstract / Section VI (conclusion)]
    "While our calculations based on IR data reproduce T-EELS results at low- q, they match no published EELS data at larger q."

    The low-q response is computed from the same IR dielectric function used to define Π0(q=0) via Eq. (21). Reproducing IR and R-EELS at low q is therefore a consistency check on the numerical framework, not an independent confirmation of the model. The agreement is essentially built into the input, so presenting it as a successful prediction overstates the evidential value of the match.

full rationale

The core derivation — the finite-stack Dyson equation with image-charge-corrected Coulomb interactions, solved numerically for N-layer systems — is a genuine calculation and is not circular. The Lindhard comparisons are self-contained and do not rely on fitted inputs. The circularity arises in the strange-metal section: Eq. (21) defines the single-layer polarizability from IR data at q=0, and the same quantity is then used at all momenta up to q=0.3 Å^-1 (Section V, Fig. 4). With the stated N_e, k_F≈0.037 Å^-1, so most of the plotted range exceeds the paper's own 'less than the Fermi momentum' assumption. The 'weakly dispersive, highly damped plasmon' and 'no surface mode' are thus artifacts of the assumed q-independent input, and the conclusion that the calculation matches no published EELS at larger q is an extrapolation rather than a robust falsification. The low-q agreement with IR and R-EELS is a consistency check because the input is the same IR data. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; ref. [17] supplies prior methodology that is explicitly extended here, but the critical q-independence ansatz is stated in the paper itself. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the validation and in the large-q extrapolation, while acknowledging that the geometric and numerical machinery is independently meaningful.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The physical content rests on a standard RPA layered-electron-gas model, an electrostatic image-charge treatment of two surfaces, and the key ad hoc assumption that the infrared q=0 polarizability remains valid at all momenta plotted. The artificial broadening and the choice of qz and d' are additional unquantified model parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • artificial broadening constant in small-q Lindhard response = unspecified small finite imaginary constant
    Added in Section IV.B to give finite width to undamped small-q-limit plasmon modes; the value is not specified and it affects linewidths.
  • perpendicular momentum transfer qz = less than 0.01 inverse Angstrom
    Set by momentum conservation at 60 keV incident energy; it controls which standing-wave modes contribute to the T-EELS cross-section.
  • outer layer to interface distance d' = 0
    The outermost layers are placed at the vacuum interface; this choice simplifies the geometry but is not varied, despite affecting surface mode coupling.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The RPA Lindhard form of the 2D polarizability describes the layered electron gas.
    Used throughout Section IV; no vertex corrections or quasiparticle lifetime are included beyond the Lindhard expression.
  • domain assumption Layers are infinitesimally thin, identical, and coupled only by the long-range Coulomb interaction, with no interlayer tunneling.
    Inherited from Jain and Allen in Section III and applied to both the Lindhard and strange-metal stacks.
  • domain assumption The Born approximation and a sufficiently thin sample justify Eq. 5 for the T-EELS cross-section.
    Stated in Section II without a quantitative check for Bi-2212.
  • domain assumption The dielectric mismatch at the two surfaces can be treated by a converging series of image charges with alpha = (epsilon_1 - 1)/(epsilon_1 + 1).
    Section III A; the recursion converges only if the tolerance is chosen appropriately, and that tolerance is not specified.
  • ad hoc to paper Pi_0(q,omega) is independent of q and equal to the q=0 infrared value for all momenta considered.
    Section V and Section VI; stated as valid below the Fermi momentum, but applied up to q=0.3 inverse Angstrom while k_F is about 0.037 inverse Angstrom.
  • standard math The RPA Dyson equation chi = Pi_0 (I - Pi_0 V F)^-1 captures all collective modes of the finite stack.
    Section III B; a standard random-phase-approximation matrix equation, with the finite-stack Coulomb matrix F computed by the image-charge method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative analysis of plasmon modes in layered Lindhard metals and strange metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EBMUQRIA

@misc{pith2026250717840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative analysis of plasmon modes in layered Lindhard metals and strange metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EBMUQRIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17840}
}
abstract

The enigmatic strange metal remains one of the central unsolved problems of 21st century science. Understanding this phase of matter requires knowledge of the momentum- and energy-resolved dynamic charge susceptibility, $\chi(q,\omega)$, especially at finite momentum. Inelastic electron scattering (EELS), performed in either transmission (T-EELS) or reflection (R-EELS) geometries, is a powerful probe of $\chi(q,\omega)$. For the prototypical strange metal Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+x}$, T-EELS, R-EELS, and infrared (IR) spectroscopy agree at $q \sim 0$, all revealing a highly damped plasmon near 1 eV. At larger $q$, however, EELS results show unresolved discrepancies. Since IR data are highly reproducible, it is advantageous to use IR data to calculate what the expected EELS response should be at modest $q$. Building on prior R-EELS work [J. Chen \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B. \textbf{109}, 045108 (2024)], we extend this approach to T-EELS for finite stacks of metallic layers, comparing a "textbook" Lindhard metal to a strange metal. In the Lindhard case, the low-$q$ response is dominated by long-lived, standing wave plasmon modes arising from interlayer Coulomb coupling, with in-plane dispersions that resemble the well-known Fetter modes of layered metals. This behavior depends only on the geometry and the long-ranged nature of the Coulomb interaction, and is largely insensitive to layer details. At larger $q$, the response reflects the microscopic properties of individual layers. For the strange metal, calculations based on IR data predict a highly damped plasmon with weak dispersion and no distinct surface mode. While our results match IR and R-EELS at low $q$, they do not reproduce any published EELS spectra at large $q$, highlighting unresolved discrepancies that demand further experimental investigation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The geometry of the model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The simulated transmission scattering cross-section of (a) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The simulated scattering cross section of a T-EELS experiment of (a) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The simulated scattering cross section for a T-EELS experiment of (a) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Long-wavelength density response and momentum resolution in strange-metal charge spectroscopy

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    At fixed frequency, charge conservation pins the density response to q², and q-scaled momentum averaging preserves that power law.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Z. Physik B - Condensed Matter 64, 189 (1986)

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    While our calculations based on IR data reproduce T-EELS results at low- q, they match no published EELS data at larger q

    In the strange metal, the complex polarizability Π 0 produces a strongly damped, weakly dispersive plasmon, suppressing Fetter-like and surface plasmon modes. While our calculations based on IR data reproduce T-EELS results at low- q, they match no published EELS data at larger q. Resolving these dis- crepancies therefore remains an experimental challenge...

    work page

  3. [3]

    C. M. Varma, P. B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1996 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Science 377, eabh4273 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Conformally in- variant charge fluctuations in a strange metal,

    X. Guo, J. Chen, F. Hoveyda-Marashi, S. L. Bettler, D. Chaudhuri, C. S. Kengle, J. A. Schneeloch, R. Zhang, G. Gu, T.-C. Chiang, A. M. Tsvelik, T. Faulkner, P. W. Phillips, and P. Abbamonte, “Conformally in- variant charge fluctuations in a strange metal,” (2024), arXiv:2411.11164 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Planckian dissipation, minimal viscosity and the transport in cuprate strange metals

    J. Zaanen, SciPost Phys. 6, 061 (2019), arXiv:1807.10951 [cond-mat, physics:hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A. A. Patel, H. Guo, I. Esterlis, and S. Sachdev, Science 381, 790 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Collective charge excitations studied by electron energy-loss spectroscopy

    P. Abbamonte and J. Fink, “Collective charge excitations studied by electron energy-loss spectroscopy,” (2024), arXiv:2404.04670 [cond-mat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    N¨ ucker, H

    N. N¨ ucker, H. Romberg, S. Nakai, B. Scheerer, J. Fink, Y. F. Yan, and Z. X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B 39, 12379 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    N¨ ucker, U

    N. N¨ ucker, U. Eckern, J. Fink, and P. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 44, 7155 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    D. N. Basov and T. Timusk, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 721 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Levallois, M

    J. Levallois, M. K. Tran, D. Pouliot, C. N. Presura, L. H. Greene, J. N. Eckstein, J. Uccelli, E. Giannini, G. D. Gu, A. J. Leggett, and D. Van Der Marel, Phys. Rev. X 6, 10 031027 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Y.-Y. Wang, G. Feng, and A. L. Ritter, Phys. Rev. B 42, 420 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    Terauchi, M

    M. Terauchi, M. Tanaka, T. Takahashi, H. Katayama- Yoshida, T. Mochiku, and K. Kadowaki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 34, L1524 (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    Terauchi, Tanaka, Tsuno, and Ishida, Journal of Mi- croscopy 194, 203 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Hepting, L

    M. Hepting, L. Chaix, E. W. Huang, R. Fumagalli, Y. Y. Peng, B. Moritz, K. Kummer, N. B. Brookes, W. C. Lee, M. Hashimoto, T. Sarkar, J.-F. He, C. R. Rotundu, Y. S. Lee, R. L. Greene, L. Braicovich, G. Ghiringhelli, Z. X. Shen, T. P. Devereaux, and W. S. Lee, Nature 563, 374 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    A. Nag, M. Zhu, M. Bejas, J. Li, H. C. Robarts, H. Ya- mase, A. N. Petsch, D. Song, H. Eisaki, A. C. Walters, M. Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, A. Greco, S. M. Hayden, and K.-J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257002 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Chen, X. Guo, C. Boyd, S. Bettler, C. Kengle, D. Chaudhuri, F. Hoveyda, A. Husain, J. Schneeloch, G. Gu, P. Phillips, B. Uchoa, T.-C. Chiang, and P. Ab- bamonte, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045108 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Mitrano, A

    M. Mitrano, A. A. Husain, S. Vig, A. Kogar, M. S. Rak, S. I. Rubeck, J. Schmalian, B. Uchoa, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, and P. Abbamonte, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 5392 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    A. A. Husain, M. Mitrano, M. S. Rak, S. Rubeck, B. Uchoa, K. March, C. Dwyer, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, and P. Abbamonte, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041062 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    S. Vig, A. Kogar, M. Mitrano, A. Husain, L. Venema, M. Rak, V. Mishra, P. Johnson, G. Gu, E. Fradkin, M. Norman, and P. Abbamonte, SciPost Phys. 3, 026 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Bethe, Annalen der Physik 397, 325 (1930)

    H. Bethe, Annalen der Physik 397, 325 (1930)

    1930

  15. [23]

    R. H. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. 106, 874 (1957)

    1957

  16. [24]

    P. E. Batson and J. Silcox, Phys. Rev. B 27, 5224 (1983)

    1983

  17. [25]

    Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A 48, 233 (1993)

    K. Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A 48, 233 (1993)

    1993

  18. [26]

    Egerton, Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy in the Electron Microscope(Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011)

    R. Egerton, Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy in the Electron Microscope(Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Evans and D

    E. Evans and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B 5, 4126 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    Ibach, H

    H. Ibach, H. Ibach, and D. L. Mills, Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy and Surface Vibrations (Academic Press, New York, 1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Mkhoyan, T

    K. Mkhoyan, T. Babinec, S. Maccagnano, E. Kirkland, and J. Silcox, Ultramicroscopy 107, 345 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Kogar, S

    A. Kogar, S. Vig, Y. Gan, and P. Abbamonte, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 124034 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    D. V. D. Marel, H. J. A. Molegraaf, J. Zaanen, Z. Nussi- nov, F. Carbone, A. Damascelli, H. Eisaki, M. Greven, P. H. Kes, and M. Li, Nature 425, 271 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    R. J. Nicholls, F. S. Hage, D. G. McCulloch, Q. M. Ra- masse, K. Refson, and J. R. Yates, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094105 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    A. L. Fetter, Annals of Physics 81, 367 (1973)

    1973

  26. [34]

    A. L. Fetter, Annals of Physics 88, 1 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    K. W. K. Shung, Phys. Rev. B 34, 979 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    J. P. Reed, B. Uchoa, Y. I. Joe, Y. Gan, D. Casa, E. Frad- kin, and P. Abbamonte, Science 330, 805 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    J. K. Jain and P. B. Allen, Phys. Rev. B 32, 997 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Pines and P

    D. Pines and P. Nozi` eres,The Theory of Quantum Liq- uids: Normal Fermi Liquids, 1st ed. (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Stern, Phys

    F. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 546 (1967)

    1967

  32. [40]

    Lindhard function of a d-dimensional Fermi gas,

    B. Mihaila, “Lindhard function of a d-dimensional Fermi gas,” (2011), arXiv:1111.5337 [cond-mat, physics:math- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B 32, 5456 (1985)

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.