How Does Transition Energy Depend on Molecule Count in Quantum Dots?

liran avraham
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

1. Homework Statement

show that tthe transition energy can depend on the number of molecules in the quantum dot according to:
E∝1/N^2/3

in a intro course to nanotechnology class the prof gave us this question and said that "its very easy"
but i wasnt able to prove this.
can someone give me some guidance/insight?
i thought that the fractal is maybe an error and asked him but he said that its not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, "quantum" means energy is associated with frequency and hence wavelength. How would the number of molecules affect this?
 
The fractal is correct and this is indeed one (a pretty oversimplifying one) of the very basic calculations to get people started.

First, consider the quantum dot as a one-dimensional particle in a box problem with infinite barriers. How does the energy of the ground state of this system scale with the width of the box?

Next, you consider the quantum dot as such a box. Consider it as a large sphere (the QD) made out of several small spheres (the molecules) The inside of the large sphere is the box. How does the radius of the large sphere depend on the number of molecules? Then put both results together.
 
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