This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
The terms donor and acceptor are defined more precisely in Ref. 2. S. T. Pantelides, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, (Oct. 1978).
S. T. Pantelides, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, (Oct. 1978).
C. Kittel and A. H. Mitchell, Phys. Rev.96, 1488 (1954).
J. M. Luttinger and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev.97, 869 (1955).
W. Kohn, Solid State Phys.5, 257 (1957).
F. Bassani, G. Iadonisi and B. Preziosi Reports on Progr. in Phys.37, 1099 (1974).
M. Altarelli, A. Baldereschi, and N. O. Lipari, Solid State Phys., to be published.
Isotope effects may be neglected so that the addition of a pc to a Si nucleus “converts’ it to a P nucleus.
See Ref. 2 S. T. Pantelides, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, (Oct. 1978) for a historical account.
Eq. 3 is not at all appropriate in the central cell of the shallow donors in Si other than Si∶P, but its use is justified by the fact that the resulting waverunction has negligible amplitude in that region. See Ref. 2 S. T. Pantelides, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, (Oct. 1978) for a detailed discussion.
R. L. Aggarwal and A. K. Ramdas, Phys. Rev.140, A1246 (1965).
Extracted from ESR data by R. C. Fletcher, W. A. Yager, G. L. Pearson, and F. R. Merritt, Phys. Rev. 95, 844 (1954). See Ref. 5.
See Ref. 2 and A. M. Stoneham, “Theory of Defects in Solids” (Clarendon, Oxford, 1975).
S. T. Pantelides and C. T. Sah, Solid State Commun.11, 1714 (1972); Phys. Rev. B10, 621 (1974).
The theory based on eq. (4) does not apply to the other shallow donors. See Refs. 14 and 2.
J. Bernholc and S. T. Pantelides, Phys. Rev. B15, 4935 (1977); N. O. Lipari and A. Baldereschi, Solid State Commun.25, 665 (1978).
S. T. Pantelides and C. T. Sah, Phys. Rev. B10, 638 (1974).
M. Jaros and S. Brand, Phys. Rev. B14, 4494 (1986) and references therein.
J. Bernholc, S. T. Pantelides, and N. O. Lipari, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., March 1978; G. Baraff and M. Schlüter,ibid. See also Proc. of 14 the Intern. Conf. on the Phys. of Semic., Edinburg, Sept. 1978.
See References quoted by Reiss (Ref. 21).
H. Reiss, J. Chem. Phys.25, 681 (1956).
If “dangling bonds” are available at vacancies, dislocations etc, bydrogens could bond with them. The Si−H bond is known to be quite strong, comparable to Si−Si bonds.
P. E. Kaus, Phys. Rev.109, 1944 (1958)
J. H. Brewer, K. M. Crowe, F. N. Gygax, and A. Schenck in “Muon Physics,” ed. by V. W. Hughes and C. S. Wu, (Academic, New York, 1975).
I. I. Gurevich, I. G. Ivanter, E. A. Meleshko, B. A. Nikolskii, V. S. Roganov, V. I. Selivanov V. P. Smilga, B. V. Sokolov, and V. D. Shestakov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.60, 471 (1971) (Sov. Phys. JETP33, 153 (1971)
J. H. Brewer, K. M. Crowe, F. N. Gygax, R. F. Johnson, and B. D. Patterson, Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 143 (1973).
J. S.-Y. Wang and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. B7, 713 (1973)
Reiss (Ref. 21) simply used the bare Coulomb potential for r<RO, the cavity radius, and eq. (3) for r>RO. Kaus (Ref. 23) added a constant term inside the cavity to eliminate the discontinuity at RO. Such a model has been used by other authors to improve the HEMT forsubstitutional impurities (See References in Refs. 2 and 13)
J. Friedel, Physica (Utr.), 20, 998 (1954)
A. Glodeanu, Rev. Roum. Phys.14, 139 (1969)
J. Hermanson, Phys. Rev.150, 660 (1966)
M. Jaros, J. Phys.C4, 1.62 (1970)
S. T. Pantelides, Proc. 12th Intern. Conf. Phys. Semic., Stuttgart 1974, p. 396.
The essentials of the discussion given here were presented earlier (S. T. Pantelides, Festkörperprobleme15, 149 (1975) and J. Bernholc and S. T. Pantelides, Ref. 16) in order to explain the strong differences of binding energies between anion and cation impurities in compound semiconductors.
C. V. de Alvarez and M. L. Cohen, Solid State Commun.14, 317 (1973); see also discussion by J. A. Van Vechten and C. D. Thurmond, Phys. Rev. B14, 3539, (1976)
But not necessarily for other interstitial impurities such as Li, for which a pseudopotentialmust be introduced (see Refs. 14, 17 and 2) and the EMT gives a shallow level in agreement with experiment.
A calculation by V. A. Singh, C. Weigel, J. W. Corbett, and L. M. Roth [Phys. Stat. Sol. b81, 637 (1977)] using extended Huckel theory concluded that Si∶H is a deep level, but no results for the wavefunction were reported.
The approximation Vo=const. in interstitial regions is known as the muffin-tin approximation and is best justified in simple metals.
The average radius 〈r〉 is not equal to the value where ψ is maximum. For a hydrogenic wavefunction 〈r〉=1.5a*. In fact, thepeak of the wavefunction calculated by WK is at 1.35ao (see Fig. 1).
M. L. Cohen and T. K. Bergstresser, Phys. Rev.141, 789 (1966).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under contract No F 49620-77-C-0005
Temporary sabbatical address until December 31, 1978.