How Can We Calculate Band Bending Using Schrödinger-Poisson Theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of band bending in semiconductors using a self-consistent approach involving the Schrödinger and Poisson equations. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of this method, including the assumptions made about electron interactions and the implications for band structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a method for calculating band bending by solving the Schrödinger equation and Poisson equation self-consistently, assuming electrons behave as free electrons with an effective mass.
  • Another participant suggests that the approach resembles the Hartree-Fock method, referencing a theoretical justification from Ashcroft & Mermin regarding the inertness of filled bands based on Liouville’s theorem.
  • A question is raised about the classification of the method as Hartree-Fock, with a suggestion to consider the Hamiltonian for an electron gas in second quantization.
  • Concerns are expressed about the use of effective mass in the context of calculating band structure, questioning how this aligns with the self-consistent approach described.
  • There is a proposal to consider perturbation theory, such as k.p theory, in conjunction with a self-consistency loop as an alternative approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of the method as Hartree-Fock and the implications of using effective mass in the calculations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take for calculating band bending and the role of filled bands.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight assumptions about electron interactions and the nature of band structure, but these assumptions are not fully explored or resolved within the discussion.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
I am reading a lot about how to calculate band bending from solving the Schrödinger equation and Poisson equation self-consistently. To recap some of the central ideas are:
We look at the conduction band of some semiconductor. If we assume that the electrons are free electrons with some effective mass m*, we can solve the Schrödinger equation and calculate the electrondensity. This can then be used to determine the electrostatic potential, which can be plugged back into the Schrödinger equation and this process can then be carried on until a self-consistent solution is found.
Now some things bother me about this approach. It is assumed that electrons in the conduction band only interact with other electrons in the conduction band and not electrons in any of the filled bands. Why are the electrons in these bands inert? Does this follow from solving the full many-body problem? I don't exactly remmeber how band structure comes about, but I think one uses the periodicity of the coulomb potential from the static ions to show that this creates bands.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like you’re describing the Hartree-Fock method.

Ashcroft & Mermin present an argument based on Liouville’s theorem to show why filled bands are inert in their book Solid State Physics. (Sorry, I don’t have a copy on-hand to hand to give a full reference.)
 
Why exactly is it the Hartree Fock method? My supervisor also made that point but I don't see how. Maybe I should work from the Hamiltonian for an electron gas in second quantization?
 
Well, the way you described iterating to a self-consistent many-body solution is pretty much the textbook definition of Hartree Fock. That’s what made me think of it.

I must admit I was at a loss to see how you were going to use that to calculate band-structure given that you are starting with an effective mass, which is itself a consequence of the band structure.

Did you mean instead that you plan to do some sort of perturbation theory? (Like k.p but with a self-consistency loop?)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K