Hund's first and second rules in spherical quantum dots (I) in the zero-magnetic field

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Part 1: Regular Papers and Short Notes and Review Papers

Volumn 43, Issue 7 A, 2004, Pages 4424-4433

  Asari, Yusuke ^a   Takeda, Kyozaburo ^a   Tamura, Hiroyuki ^a,b  

^a WASEDA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b Kashino Diverse Brain Research Laboratory of NTT Communication Science Laboratories   (Japan)

Author keywords

Hund's rule; Quantum dot orbitals; Spherical quantum dot; Spin filling; Total orbital angular momentum; Unrestricted Hartree Fock method

Indexed keywords

EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE; GROUND STATE; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES; SEMICONDUCTING GALLIUM ARSENIDE;

HUND'S RULE; SPIN-FILLING; TOTAL ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM; UNRESTRICTED HARTREE-FOCK METHOD;

SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

EID: 4644317057     PISSN: 00214922     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1143/JJAP.43.4424     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. S. Tarucha, D. G. Austing, T. Honda, R. J. van der Hage and L. P. Kouwenhoven: Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3613.
2. P. A. Maksym and T. Chakraborty: Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 108.
3. P. A. Maksym and T. Chakraborty: Phys. Rev. B 45 (1992) 1947.
4. P. Hawrylak: Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3347.
5. J. J. Palacios, L. Martin-Moreno, G. Chiappe, E. Louis and C. Tejedor: Phys. Rev. B 50 (1994) 5760.
6. D. Pfannkuche, V. Gudmundsson and P. A. Maksym: Phys. Rev. B 47 (1993) 2244.
7. M. Eto: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 36 (1997) 3924.
8. H. Tamura and M. Ueda: Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1345.
9. M. Koskinen and M. Manninen: Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1389.
10. M. Fujito, A. Natori and H. Yasunaga: Phys. Rev. B 53 (1996) 9952.
11. H. Tamura: Physica B 249-251 (1998) 210.
12. M. Sugawara, Y. Nakata, K. Mukai and H. Shoji: Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 13155.
13. M. Taut: Phys. Rev. A 48 (1993) 3561.
14. J.-L. Zhu, Z.-Q. Li, J.-Z. Yu, K. Ohno and Y. Kawazoe: Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 15819.
15. I.-H. Lee, V. Rao, R. M. Martin and J.-P. Leburton: Phys. Rev. B 57 (1998) 9035.
16. B. Szafran, J. Adamowski and S. Bednarek: Physica E 5 (2000) 185.
17. T. F. Jiang, X.-M. Tong and S.-I. Chu: Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 45317.
18. K. Varga, P. Navratil, J. Usukura and Y. Suzuki: Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 205308.
19. Y. Hada and M. Eto: cond-mat/0304228.
20. T. Inoshita, S. Ohnishi and A. Oshiyama: Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 2560.
21. D. Babić, R. Tsu and R. F. Greene: Phys. Rev. B 45 (1992) 14150.
22. B. Szafran, J. Adamowski and S. Bednarek: Physica E 4 (1999) 1.
23. S. Bednarek, B. Szafran and J. Adamowski: Phys. Rev. B 59 (1999) 13036.
24. Ch. Shikorski and U. Merkt: Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 2164.
25. A. Lorke, J. P. Kotthaus and K. Ploog: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 2559.
26. 24,25)
27. 2 = 5.9 (meV).
28. In a zero magnetic field, the energy eigenstate is strictly determined by the quantum numbers of n and l. The quantized angular momentum m is required when any magnetic field is applied.
29. Using the notation for the real atom, we denote the first number by 2n + l+1.
30. Here, we assumed the following 64 QDOs as the basis; for s-like QDOs, we incorporated those of 1s-, 3s-, 5s- and 7s-QDOs. We also incorporated those of 2p-, 4p-, 6p- and 8p-QDOs for p-like QDOs, those of 3d-, 5d-, 7d- and 9d-QDOs for d-like QDOs, and those of 4f-, 6f-, 8f- and 10f-QDOs for f-like QDOs, respectively.
31. J. A. Pople and R. K. Nesbet: J. Chem. Phys. 22 (1954) 571.
32. The single Slater determinants (SSDs) become the eigenstates of all the N-electron states up to N = 9, if we exclude the unrealistically higher spin configurations. The spin-triplet state caused by N = 9 electrons should be, however, represented by one or two Slater determinants, as mentioned in the text.
33. We excluded those states having spin multiplicities larger than quintet.
34. Z| of 3 or 2 is expressed by the SSDs only, while the others require the MSDs form. In addition to this case of N = 10, the spin-triplet state represented by one or two Slater determinants successively appears when N = 16.
35. 0 = 5 nm).
36. z = 1/2. Therefore, the N = 18 system should give the "primary" peak in Δμ, but such a characteristic peak is not clearly recognized in Fig. 4. The resulting value of Δμ(18) is similar to that of Δμ(19). This feature originates from the accidental degeneracy between the two single-electron QDOs of the 3d and 3s states. The simple-filling approach with the constant interaction hypothesis (Fig. 3) causes the "primary" peak value of Δμ(18) = 4K, which is different from those others of ∈ + J - K, even though the N = 18 electron system results in the closed shell. This is because the two single-electron QDOs of the 3d and 3s states are accidentally degenerated and the one-electron excitation energy ∈ should be zero. The simple-filling approach also elucidates that the difference between Δμ(18) and Δμ(19) is at least the exchange energy due to an additional electron. Thus, one can find a weakened primary peak at Δμ(18) whose height is almost equal to that of Δμ(19) in Fig. 4.
37. 0).
38. 3F.
39. 2.