Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

though I am trying to compute the subbands structure of a rectangular nanowire using an 8X8 KP Hamiltonian, I am not getting the right results. As it is only a month or so that I started to study the topic I was wondering if somebody may give me an advice.

Currently I am writing the Hamiltonian in the S,X,Y,Z basis suggested by Kane, and I am discretizing the operators with centered finite differences on a structured grid. To be more specific I use the same operator as in:

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v56/i20/pR12748_1

I read in the paper posted above that KP Hamiltonians may exhibit spurious solutions, and that they may cause troubles in numerical computations. And here comes the first question: if I try to compute the eigenstates of, let's say, an InAs wire in k=0 using non-stabilized parameters I get states in the middle of the gap. Does anybody know if this behavior is what I should expect?

From a naive point of view my answer would be yes, but I also read many others works where spurious solutions are not even mentioned but nonetheless they were able to correctly reproduce the wire subbands structure. An example of such a work may be the thesis of Stier:

http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=975250280&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=975250280.pdf [Broken]

Anyhow, using the procedure described in the first paper I was able to remove solutions in the gap. This procedure may be reinterpreted as a variation of the optical energy Ep from the actual measurements, so I started playing a bit with the coefficients (that is to say, I started choosing values for Ep that were near the value suggested by Foreman and computed all the other parameters accordingly). I noticed that in my implementation the eigenvalues associated with the conduction subbands are strongly influenced by the parameter I choose, so I was wondering if also this behavior was normal. If it is the case, how can I trust a set of parameters to give me the correct physical results?

I also tried another stabilization method and got similar problems:

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v68/i16/e161308

I would be really glad if someone with more experience than me can share an advice...

Please notice that the 6X6 valence submatrix works correctly when using non-modified Luttinger parameters as I was able, for instance, to reproduce the subband structure in Fig.3 of:

http://link.aip.org/link/?JAP/106/054505/1 [Broken]

Many thanks in advance to everyone replying this post

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Computation of the subbands of a nanowire using KP theory: spurious solutions

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Computation subbands nanowire | Date |
---|---|

A Nanowire with charge neutrality in band gap | Mar 24, 2017 |

A Computing solutions to the radial Schroedinger equation? | Mar 9, 2017 |

A Computational Physics | Feb 11, 2017 |

A Efficiently Computing Eigenvalues of a Sparse Banded Matrix | Nov 17, 2016 |

A Free energy density in liquid crystals | May 14, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**