Electric Field Gradient - Definition

Definition

A given charge distribution of electrons and nuclei, ρ(r), generates an electrostatic potential V(r). The derivative of this potential is the negative of the electric field generated. The first derivatives of the field, or the second derivatives of the potential, is the electric field gradient. The nine components of the EFG are thus defined as the second spatial derivatives of the electrostatic potential, evaluated at the position of a nucleus:

For each nucleus, the components Vij are combined as a symmetric 3 × 3 matrix. Under the assumption that the charge distribution generating the electrostatic potential is external to the nucleus, the matrix is traceless, for in that situation Laplace's equation, ∇2V(r) = 0, holds. Relaxing this assumption, a more general form of the EFG tensor which retains the symmetry and traceless character is

where ∇2V(r) is evaluated at a given nucleus.

As V (and φ) is symmetric it can be diagonalized. The principal tensor components are usually denoted Vzz, Vyy and Vxx in order of decreasing modulus. Given the traceless character, only two of the principal components are independent. Typically these are described by Vzz and the asymmetry parameter, η, defined as

\eta = \frac{V_{xx} - V_{yy}}{V_{zz}}.

Read more about this topic:  Electric Field Gradient

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
    —Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)

    “... we all know the wag’s definition of a philanthropist: a man whose charity increases directly as the square of the distance.”
    —George Eliot [Mary Ann (or Marian)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)