How Does Band Gap Influence Lattice Spacing in Materials?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sr1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum Solid
Sr1
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
(a) (10 Points) Diamond has a band gap Eg equal to 5.5eV (at standard temperature and pressure). Use this number to derive a rough estimate of the lattice spacing, a, of the diamond lattice. Do you expect the true lattice spacing to be larger or smaller than your estimate?

(b) (5 Points) What is the minimum wavelength at which a diamond in a jewelry store is opaque? How does this wavelength depend on the size of the diamond?
Relevant Equations
/
How can we link the band gap to lattice spacing?
For (a), if we purely do dimension analysis, then I would guess $$a=\frac{\hbar c}{E_g}$$. But what's the reason behind this answer, and will the true lattice spacing be larger or smaller?
For (b), I guess $$\lambda=\frac{\hbar c}{E_g}$$ due to band gap = photon energy. But I have no idea on the second question.
Also, dose it make sense to have $\lambda=a$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ok from dirac comb model, $$\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}a\sim \pi,$$ then $a=0.26nm$. The remaining questions are: Do you expect the true lattice spacing to be larger or smaller than your estimate? How does this wavelength(band gap) depend on the size of the diamond?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top