Binding Energy of the hydrogenic acceptor state in Silicon?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the theoretical binding energy of the hydrogenic acceptor state in silicon, specifically due to aluminum impurities. The participant expresses confusion about the equations provided by their professor, particularly regarding the role of permittivity and the cancellation of variables. A clarification is made that the constant k_e, representing the electrostatic force in a medium, should indeed account for permittivity. The participant acknowledges this oversight and reflects on their fatigue impacting their understanding. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying equations in physics problems.
HunterDX77M
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the theoretical binding energy of the hydrogenic acceptor state in Si (eg, as produced by Aluminum impurities), using hole mass 0.39 and permittivity 11.8.


Homework Equations


<br /> E_b = \frac{k_c e^2}{2a_0} \\<br /> a_0 = \frac{\hbar ^2}{mk_c e^2}<br />


The Attempt at a Solution


When we discussed binding energy in my class, these were the two equations that my professor gave. But looking at them now, I don't think they are right. For one thing, they don't take the permittivity into account and for another, a0 seems to cancel out several variables in Eb. I've searched around for some time trying to find the equation(s) that would make more sense for this type of problem, but have so far had nothing but dead ends. Is anyone familiar with the equations for a problem like this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HunterDX77M said:

Homework Statement


Find the theoretical binding energy of the hydrogenic acceptor state in Si (eg, as produced by Aluminum impurities), using hole mass 0.39 and permittivity 11.8.


Homework Equations


<br /> E_b = \frac{k_c e^2}{2a_0} \\<br /> a_0 = \frac{\hbar ^2}{mk_c e^2}<br />


The Attempt at a Solution


When we discussed binding energy in my class, these were the two equations that my professor gave. But looking at them now, I don't think they are right. For one thing, they don't take the permittivity into account and for another, a0 seems to cancel out several variables in Eb. I've searched around for some time trying to find the equation(s) that would make more sense for this type of problem, but have so far had nothing but dead ends. Is anyone familiar with the equations for a problem like this?

ke means 1/(4∏ε) in a medium of permittivity ε.

No variables cancel if you plug in the expression for ao into the formula for the energy.

ehild
 
ehild said:
ke means 1/(4∏ε) in a medium of permittivity ε.

Oh, yeah. How could I forget about that? That's pretty basic. :-/

No variables cancel if you plug in the expression for ao into the formula for the energy.

This is probably why it's a bad idea for me to do homework without sleeping for the majority of the day.

Thanks for your help! :)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top