4.5 Article

The impurity states in InGaAsP/InP coaxial double quantum well wires with the effects of electric and magnetic fields

期刊

MODERN PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 35, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0217984921503553

关键词

Coaxial double quantum well wires; electric field; magnetic field; hydrogenic donor impurity

资金

  1. Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation [ZR2019PA010]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61674096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydrogen donor impurity states were calculated in In0.65Ga0.35As0.75P0.25/InP coaxial double quantum well wires using the plane wave method within the theoretical framework of effective mass envelope function approximation. The binding energies and transition energies of impurity states were obtained as functions of impurity position, distance between the inner and outer quantum wires, magnetic and electric field strengths. The effects of quantum wire thickness and distance between quantum wires on impurity states were analyzed in detail, with differential impacts of electric and magnetic fields on the binding energy of impurity states observed depending on the impurity position.
The hydrogen donor impurity states are calculated in In0.65Ga0.35As0.75P0.25/InP coaxial double quantum well wires by the plane wave method under the theoretical framework of effective mass envelope function approximation. The binding energies of impurity in 1s state and 2p +/- state are obtained as the functions of impurity position, distance between the inner and outer quantum wires, magnetic and electric field strengths. Transition energies are calculated as the functions of impurity position, distance between the inner and outer quantum wires. The effects of quantum wire thickness and distance of quantum wires on impurity states are analyzed in detail. It is found that the effects of electric field and magnetic field on binding energy of 1s state are different for impurity located at different positions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据