4.2 Article

Comparison of the nonlinear optical properties of asymmetrical and symmetrical quantum wells

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B
卷 95, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjb/s10051-022-00455-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a comparison of the nonlinear optical properties of symmetrical parabolic (SP) and asymmetrical semi-parabolic (ASP) quantum-wells (QWs) is conducted, revealing the strong influence of incident optical intensity and confining frequency, as well as the sensitivity to relaxation time. The nonlinear component plays a crucial role in large incident optical intensity cases, and the overall optical properties of SPQW are found to be superior to those of ASPQW.
In this work, a detailed comparison of the nonlinear optical properties (NLOPs), including the absorption coefficients (ACs) and the refractive index changes (RICs) of symmetrical parabolic (SP) and asymmetrical semi-parabolic (ASP) quantum-wells (QWs) are investigated by utilizing the compact density matrix approach and iterative procedure. The wave functions of one electron, as well as its energy eigenvalue in the SPQW and the ASPQW, are also obtained by applying the effective mass approximation. Numerical calculations on GaAs/AlGaAs material reveal that the ACs and the RICs in both the SPQW and the ASPQW are affected strongly by the incident optical intensity (I) and the confining frequency (omega(0)), and depend sensitively on the relaxation time (T). Furthermore, if it is desired to obtain large ACs/RICs then a relatively weaker I and lower omega(0) should be chosen. However, the nonlinear (third-order) component influence is very important in the relatively large I case and cannot be neglected when examining the nonlinear optical features of both the SPQW and the ASPQW. More importantly, the total AC and the total RIC in the SPQW always are larger than those in the ASPQW. In addition, if we choose an optimized confining frequency for the SPQW, then we will get larger ACs/RICs.

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

4.2
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