Paper detail

Bohr's correspondence principle for atomic transport calculations

In this work we perform a comparison between Classical Molecular Static (CMS) and quantum Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations in order to obtain the diffusion coefficients for diluted \emph{Fe-Cr} alloys. We show that, in accordance with Bohr's correspondence principle, as the size of the atomic cell (total number of atoms) is increased, quantum results with DFT approach to the classical ones obtained with CMS. Quantum coherence effects play a crucial role in the difference arising between CMS and DFT calculations. Also, thermal contact with the environment destroys quantum coherent effects making the classical behavior to emerge. Indeed, CMS calculations are in good agreement with available experimental data. We claim that, the atomic diffusion process in metals is a classical phenomena. Then, if reliable semi empirical potentials are available, a classical treatment of the atomic transport in metals is much convenient than DFT.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.