Puzzle about electron affinity in solid-state physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and understanding of electron affinity in solid-state physics, particularly in relation to semiconductors. Participants explore its differences from the chemical definition and question the fixed nature of its value in various contexts, including the effects of conduction band bending.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the definition of electron affinity, suggesting that it may not be as fixed as commonly stated, especially in the context of conduction band bending.
  • Another participant questions the relevance of conduction band bending, asserting that electron affinity is typically defined for homogeneous bulk materials.
  • A reference to Mott's paper is made, indicating that there may be variations in electron affinity that are not clearly defined.
  • It is proposed that the work function is distinct from electron affinity, with a definition provided that positions electron affinity as a bulk property not influenced by surface band structure.
  • A request for more specific information from a referenced book is made, indicating a desire for deeper understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to have differing views on the nature of electron affinity, particularly regarding its definition and the implications of conduction band bending. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of electron affinity and work function, as well as the implications of band structure on these properties. Specific mathematical or quantitative analyses are not provided.

qilong
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I am a student studying semiconductors and solid-state physics. I have a question which is haunting for several years. That is about the definition of electron affinity in solid-state physics. Its definition in solid state physics may be quite different from that in chemistry. Almost in every textbook it is said to be fixed, no matter if the conduction band is bent or not. But nobody gives a rigid proof or a quantitative analysis of this. They just throw out the definition:a value between the vacuum energy and the bottom of the conduction band, and then say it is fixed by nature. I even doubt how those great physicists like Shockley or Sze.M dared to use it without a thorough understanding. Can anybody offer a quantitative explanation to this? Both some derivations related to QM are some papers are welcomed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I still don't see exactly where you see a problem. What do you mean with bending of the conduction band? I think the electron affinity is usually defined for homogeneous bulk materials.
 
I mean the X in the attached picture. This is from Mott's paper of the metal-semiconductor rectifying theory. He just said it varies a little and even did not mention what was its name.
 

Attachments

  • ???.png
    ???.png
    40.4 KB · Views: 901
I think what he tries to explain is that the work function is not identical to the electron affinity.
Note that the electron affinity is defined as the difference between the zero level of energy and the lowest state in the conduction band far inside the semiconductor. That means it is a bulk property and by definition does not depend on the band structure near the surface.
You may find something in Ashcroft and Mermin's book.
 
Hi DrDu, I have browsed this book but little was found. Can you be more specific? Thank you very much!
 
Chapter 18, The Work Function
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
865
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K