Nonuniqueness in Defining the Polarization: Nonlocal Surface Charges and the Electrostatic, Energetic, and Transport Perspectives

TL;DR

This paper investigates the non-uniqueness of the classical electrostatic polarization definition in ionic crystals, emphasizing the importance of nonlocal surface charges and comparing electrostatic, transport, and energy-conjugate perspectives.

Contribution

It clarifies the relation between different polarization definitions and highlights the necessity of including surface contributions for accurate macroscopic electric fields.

Findings

Transport of charge does not always equal polarization change.

Surface contributions are essential for correct electric field predictions.

Electrostatic, transport, and energy-conjugate definitions are related but distinct.

Abstract

Ionic crystals play a central role in functional applications. Mesoscale descriptions of these crystals are based on the continuum polarization density field to represent the effective physics of charge distribution at the scale of the atomic lattice. However, a long-standing difficulty is that the classical electrostatic definition of the macroscopic polarization -- as the dipole or first moment of the charge density in a unit cell -- is not unique. This unphysical non-uniqueness has been shown to arise from starting directly with an infinite system rather than starting with a finite body and taking appropriate limits. This limit process shows that the electrostatic description requires not only the bulk polarization density, but also the surface charge density, as the effective macroscopic descriptors; that is, a nonlocal effective description. Other approaches to resolve this difficulty include relating the change in polarization to the transport of charge; or, to define the polarization as the energy-conjugate to the electric field. This work examines the relation between the classical electrostatic definition of polarization, and the transport and energy-conjugate definitions of polarization. We show the following: (1) The transport of charge does not correspond to the change in polarization in general; instead, one requires additional simplifying assumptions on the electrostatic definition of polarization for these approaches to give rise to the same macroscopic electric fields. Thus, the electrostatic definition encompasses the transport definition as a special case. (2) The energy-conjugate definition has both bulk and surface contributions; while traditional approaches neglect the surface contribution, we find that accounting for the nonlocal surface contributions is essential to obtain the correct macroscopic electric fields.