Boundary conditions electrostatic potential

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining appropriate boundary conditions for modeling the electrostatic potential in a nanosized semiconductor connected to a metal and vacuum. Participants explore the implications of these boundary conditions on the physical behavior of the system, particularly in the context of semiconductor-metal heterojunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the electrostatic potential should be continuous at the metal interface but is uncertain about the boundary condition at the vacuum, questioning whether to set V(x)=0 or allow for a finite value.
  • Another participant argues that the potential continues into the vacuum and compares the situation to modeling a sheet of charge, implying that a finite square well could be an appropriate model.
  • A third participant describes their approach of modeling the band structure of a semiconductor-metal heterojunction by solving the Schrödinger equation and using Poisson's equation, noting a decay of potential towards the vacuum edge and expressing concern about its physicality.
  • A later reply questions the nature of the decay mentioned and shares a personal experience of conducting a similar calculation involving two semiconductors, suggesting that charges are typically confined to the material and that boundary conditions could be modeled as a step potential equal to the work function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate boundary conditions and the physical implications of the potential's behavior at the vacuum edge. There is no consensus on whether the potential should be finite or set to zero at the boundary to vacuum, nor on the physicality of the observed decay in potential.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the numerical methods used and the assumptions involved in modeling the electrostatic potential, particularly regarding the behavior at the boundaries of the semiconductor and vacuum.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
I'm modelling a system with a nanosized semiconductor in 1d, inside which I want to find the electrostatic potential. Having found this I am unsure what boundary conditions to put on this, when it is connected to a metal on one side and to vacuum on the other. So far I have put that it is continuous at the metal interface (inside which it is a constant). But what about at the boundary to vacuum. I want to say that it should be simply continiuous which then gives that V(x) has a finite value, non constant, outside the semiconductor. But on the other hand this seems unphysical, since it would imply that there is a finite electric field outside the semiconductor. Should I simply put that V(x)=0 at the boundary to vacuum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The potential continues into the vacuum the same as any potential does ... i.e. if you were modelling a sheet of charge with a metal on one side and a vacuum on the other how would you do it?

A perfect metal just stamps it's own potential on everything where it is. You can get a step there... a lump of metal in a vacuum is often modeled as a finite square well.

What level are you doing this at?
 
I am modelling the band structure of a semiconductor-metal hetero junction, by solving the Schrödinger equation in the conduction band (in the effective mass approximation), calculating the electron density and then calculating the electrostatic potential in the semiconductor using Poissons equation. This is then plugged back into the Schrödinger equation and the procedure is reiterated until a self-consistent solution is found.
When I calculate the electrostatic potential in the heterostructure I get a decay towards the vacuum edge of the semiconductor (on the right). I don't know if this is physical or if it comes from my numerical method failing. Physically I expect that if the semiconductor is large that the potential would approach a constant at the edge to vacuum. What do you think?
 

Attachments

  • simulation.png
    simulation.png
    58.2 KB · Views: 459
Decay of what?

Sounds like the same calculation as my thesis except I did two semiconductors... I did the self-consistent calculation to include both materials.
Charges are usually strongly confined to the material - this usually translates to a barrier at the material edges with the bending happening close to the junction.
So you have vacc-metal-semi-vacc ... then I'd have modeled the outside boundaries as a step potential equal to the work function.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K