4.6 Article

Multivalley effective mass theory simulation of donors in silicon

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 91, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.235318

关键词

-

资金

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Sandia National Laboratories
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Last year, Salfi et al. made the first direct measurements of a donor wave function and found extremely good theoretical agreement with atomistic tight-binding theory results [ Salfi et al., Nat. Mater. 13, 605 (2014)]. Here, we show that multivalley effective mass theory, applied properly, does achieve close agreement with tight-binding results and hence gives reliable predictions. To demonstrate this, we variationally solve the coupled six-valley Shindo-Nara equations, including silicon's full Bloch functions. Surprisingly, we find that including the full Bloch functions necessitates a tetrahedral, rather than spherical, donor central cell correction to accurately reproduce the experimental energy spectrum of a phosphorus impurity in silicon. We cross-validate this method against atomistic tight-binding calculations, showing that the two theories agree well for the calculation of donor-donor tunnel coupling. Further, we benchmark our results by performing a statistical uncertainty analysis, confirming that derived quantities such as the wave function profile and tunnel couplings are robust with respect to variational energy fluctuations. Finally, we apply this method to exhaustively enumerate the tunnel coupling for all donor-donor configurations within a large search volume, demonstrating conclusively that the tunnel coupling has no spatially stable regions. Although this instability is problematic for reliably coupling donor pairs for two-qubit operations, we identify specific target locations where donor qubits can be placed with scanning tunneling microscopy technology to achieve reliably large tunnel couplings.

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

4.6
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