Thickness-dependent electron momentum relaxation times in iron films

K L Krewer,W Zhang,M Bonn,E Beaurepaire,D Turchinovich,J Arabski,G Schmerber

doi:10.1063/1.5142479

Abstract

Terahertz time-domain conductivity measurements in 2–100 nm thick iron films resolve the femtosecond time delay between the applied electric fields and the resulting currents. This current response time decreases from 29 fs for the thickest films to 7 fs for the thinnest films. The macroscopic response time is not strictly proportional to the conductivity. This excludes the existence of a single relaxation time universal for all conduction electrons. We must assume a distribution of microscopic momentum relaxation times. The macroscopic response time depends on the average and variation of this distribution; the observed deviation between the response time and conductivity scaling corresponds to the scaling of the variation. The variation of microscopic relaxation times depends on the film thickness because electrons with different relaxation times are affected differently by the confinement since they have different mean free paths.

Highlights

E sC—reflects the macroscopic momentum relaxation of an ensemble of charges
Terahertz time-domain conductivity measurements in 2–100 nm thick iron films resolve the femtosecond time delay between the applied electric fields and the resulting currents. This current response time decreases from 29 fs for the thickest films to 7 fs for the thinnest films
We must assume a distribution of microscopic momentum relaxation times

Summary

Introduction

E sC—reflects the macroscopic momentum relaxation of an ensemble of charges. Resolving this delay can, provide insights into the relaxation processes and connect microscopic scattering to macroscopic conduction. 2.2 nm thin film shows higher current response times than direct proportionality would predict from the conductivity amplitudes. The entire spectrum of the metal oxide can only be described by a distribution of scattering rates sÀ1; but for the low frequency limit, a single effective current response time suffices.21 we can understand our observation by considering a distribution of microscopic relaxation times s.

Results

Conclusion