I Boltzmann Distribution: Feynman's treatment of p-n junction

strauser
Messages
37
Reaction score
5
In Vol III, 14-4 and 14-5 of the Feynman Lectures (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_14.html), Feynman gives a discussion of the p-n junction, in which he derives the diode characteristic equation via a nice, simple and convincing application of the Boltzmann distribution to the relative numbers of charge carriers on either side of a junction with a potential difference V.

I am however completely confused: do electrons/holes in a semi-conductor not obey Fermi-Dirac statistics? If so, why does he not mention or rely on this, and if so, how is his derivation valid?

I'll point out that I know not a great deal about solid state physics, or stat. mech., so the explanation may be utterly trivial.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In a semiconductor, the conduction and valence bands are far from the Fermi level in units of kT. In this limit, Fermi-Dirac statistics are very closely equal to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics:

Fermi-Dirac: N \propto \frac{1}{\exp(\frac{E-E_F}{kT})+1}

But in this case \exp(\frac{E-E_F}{kT}) >> 1, so we can ignore the 1 in the denominator. It then reduces to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to a sufficient approximation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes strauser
phyzguy said:
In a semiconductor, the conduction and valence bands are far from the Fermi level in units of kT. In this limit, Fermi-Dirac statistics are very closely equal to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics:

Fermi-Dirac: N \propto \frac{1}{\exp(\frac{E-E_F}{kT})-1}

OK, thanks, things are slightly clearer.

However, I'm not sure either what your ##N## or the expression on the RHS are. Is ##N## related to the density of states (i.e. what I'd call ##N(E)##), or is it the concentration of charge carriers? And the expression on the RHS looks suspiciously like the Fermi function, but that has a +1.

Could you clarify this a bit more, please?

But in this case \exp(\frac{E-E_F}{kT}) >> 1, so we can ignore the 1 in the denominator. It then reduces to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to a sufficient approximation.

Right. So is it correct to say that, to a very good approximation, electrons in the conduction band of a semiconductor obey Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, which is Feynman's tacit starting point?
 
Right, the +1 vs -1 is my error. It is -1 for Bose-Einstein and +1 for Fermi-Dirac. I corrected my original post. In my post, N is the density of charge carriers.

strauser said:
So is it correct to say that, to a very good approximation, electrons in the conduction band of a semiconductor obey Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, which is Feynman's tacit starting point?

Yes.
 
phyzguy said:
Right, the +1 vs -1 is my error. It is -1 for Bose-Einstein and +1 for Fermi-Dirac. I corrected my original post. In my post, N is the density of charge carriers.

OK, it's clear that this is trivial. Thanks. In fact, the only relevant text I have available (Streetman, Solid State Electronic Devices) does in fact treat this topic but without using the name Boltzmann anywhere - I skimmed the section in question without really noticing the result, which looks to be fairly important, I'd guess.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top