Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] Quantum Dot Transition Energies



We have a set of the nanosys quantum dots being marketed by sargent-welch:

<http://sargentwelch.com/quantum-particle-in-a-box-cenco/p/IG0039296/>.

The manual that comes with it gives a formula for the energy of emitted photons that's basically

(photon energy) = (electron gnd state energy) + (hole gnd state energy) + (gap energy),

where the electron/hole gnd state energies are those of a particle in a spherical well, and the gap energy is a constant independent of the size of the dot.

(I mention the last only because this web site: <http://www.evidenttech.com/quantum-dots-explained/180.html> says the size of the gap DOES depend on the dot size. Since the materials that come with the dots say the gap size is constant and it's the ground state energies appearing in the above formula that depend on the dot size, I'm not sure what to think. I'd thought the gap size was a property of the semiconductor, not the object made out of it. I suppose the web site could be fudging the science to make it easier to describe, but I just want to be clear on what the story is.)

Can anyone suggest a good reference for a derivation of this formula? The gap energy is not hard to see, but it's a bit less clear (to me, anyway) why the spherical-box ground state energies are the right ones. I know the holes "float" and the electrons "sink", so this seems to be saying the electrons sink to a level equal to their ground state energy above the gap, and the holes rise to a level equal to their own ground state energy below the gap. Is this a reasonable interpretation? (Even if it is, it's not clear to me why exactly, condensed matter physics not really being my thing -- and I'd still like a proper reference regardless.)

So, I'd appreciate it if someone could set me straight!

I'm on the digest version of the list, so I'd welcome a direct cc if you reply to this.

Thanks,
David Craig


<http://web.lemoyne.edu/~craigda/>