1: \documentstyle[aps,prb,eqsecnum,twocolumn,epsf]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \draft
4: \title{Mean parameter model for the Pekar-Fr\"{o}hlich polaron \\ in
5: a multilayered heterostructure}
6: %\and
7: \author{M.\ A.\ Smondyrev$^{a)}$\cite{x1}, B.\ Gerlach$^{b)}$,
8: M.\ O.\ Dzero$^{a)}$\cite{x2}}
9: \address{$^a)$ Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute
10: for Nuclear Research\\ 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia}
11: \address{$^b)$ Institut f\"ur Physik, Universit\"at Dortmund,
12: 44221 Dortmund, Germany}
13: \date{\today}
14: \maketitle
15: \begin{abstract}
16: The polaron energy and the effective mass are calculated for an electron
17: confined in a finite quantum well constructed of
18: $GaAs/Al_x Ga_{1-x} As$ layers. To simplify the study we suggest
19: a model in which parameters of a medium are averaged over
20: the ground-state wave function. The rectangular and the Rosen-Morse
21: potential are used as examples.
22:
23: To describe the confined electron properties
24: explicitly to the second order of perturbations in powers of
25: the electron-phonon coupling constant
26: we use the exact energy-dependent Green function
27: for the Rosen-Morse confining potential.
28: In the case of the rectangular potential, the sum over all
29: intermediate virtual states is calculated.
30: The comparison is made with the often used leading term approximation
31: when only the ground-state is taken into account as a virtual state.
32: It is shown that the results are quite
33: different, so the incorporation of all virtual states and especially
34: those of the continuous spectrum is essential.
35:
36: Our model reproduces the correct three-dimensional asymptotics
37: at both small and large widths.
38: We obtained a rather monotonous behavior
39: of the polaron energy as a function of the confining potential width
40: and found a peak of the effective mass.
41: The comparison is made with theoretical results by other authors.
42: We found that our model gives practically
43: the same (or very close) results
44: as the explicit calculations for potential widths
45: $L \geq 10 \AA$.
46: \end{abstract}
47: \pacs{PACS numbers: 73.20.Dx + 71.38.+i}
48: \narrowtext
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51: Quasi-two-dimensional (2D) systems have attracted a lot of attention
52: during the last decade because of their practical realization. If
53: a heterostructure is made of polar materials such as $GaAs$,
54: $InAs$ etc., the electron-phonon interaction
55: modifies the properties of the electron confined
56: to a 2D-structure resulting in a shift of the binding energy
57: and the effective band mass.
58:
59: The polaron effects in a 2D electron gas have
60: extensively been studied. At earlier stages the attention was paid
61: to the properties of a polaron confined to an infinite thin
62: 2D layer\cite{sarma,pwd,selugin}. The binding energy and the effective
63: mass were calculated for a $GaAs/Al_xGa_{1-x}As$ infinitely deep
64: quantum well of a finite length\cite{sarma2,sarma3}.
65: In these papers only the interaction with the bulk LO-phonon
66: mode has been taken
67: into account. Actually, LO-phonon modes are modified in a 2D layer
68: (the so-called confined slab LO-phonon modes). Besides,
69: there exist interface optical-phonon modes as well as half-space
70: LO-phonon modes in a barrier
71: material\cite{firsov,evrard,fomin,wendler1,wendler2}.
72: For the review of these modes (also in complicated multi-layer
73: structures) see the book by Pokatilov, Fomin and Beril\cite{pfb}
74: and also more recent publications \cite{fomin2,fomin3} of this group.
75: The influence of the mentioned modes on polarons were studied in
76: Refs.~\onlinecite{licari,liang,cosmas,degani}.
77:
78:
79: While different phonon modes were studied in details,
80: the quantum well potential was supposed to be infinitely deep
81: in the cited papers. On the other hand, the properties of the
82: system would be quite different if a confining potential
83: had a finite depth. Indeed, for an infinitely deep confining potential
84: the binding energy is the monotonous function of the potential width
85: which varies between limiting values
86: $E^{(in)}_{3D} = \alpha_{in}\hbar\omega_{in}$
87: for the three-dimensional (3D) space and
88: $E^{(in)}_{2D} = (\pi/2)\,\alpha_{in}\hbar\omega_{in}$,
89: where $\alpha_{in}$ is the standard Fr\"ohlich electron-phonon coupling
90: constant and $\omega_{in}$ is the LO-phonons frequency
91: for the quantum well material.
92: If a particle is confined to a finite potential well, the limiting
93: value of the binding energy should be the same at large width
94: of the well. But when the width becomes too small, the energy level
95: approaches the edge of the well, so that effectively the particle
96: is spread over the 3D space. Thus, the limiting value of the binding
97: energy should coincide with the 3D limiting value rather than with
98: the 2D one. This means, the binding energy takes the value
99: $E^{(out)}_{3D} = \alpha_{out}\hbar\omega_{out}$ at small
100: widths where the parameters $\omega_{out}$ and
101: $\alpha_{out}$ are now related to the barrier material.
102: The binding energy evidently has a peak
103: at some intermediate value of the width if $E^{(out)}_{3D} \leq
104: E^{(in)}_{3D}$. If this is not the case, the existence of the peak
105: should be checked in more detail.
106:
107: Different rectangular quantum wells of a finite height have been
108: investigated by Hai, Peeters and Devreese\cite{hpd2,hpd3}
109: and Shi, Zhu et al.\cite{china}
110: in the scope of the second order perturbation theory in
111: powers of the electron-phonon coupling constant $\alpha$ with
112: all phonon modes being incorporated.
113: Peaks of the phonon induced energy shift
114: and the polaron effective mass were found for some values
115: of the confining potential widths.
116:
117:
118: In principle, the same approach can be used while dealing with
119: a quantum well constructed of layers of different materials.
120: But the problem becomes then too complicated because one
121: has to take into account interface phonon modes at each
122: frontier of different materials as well as quantized phonon
123: modes inside each of the layers. The main goal of the present paper is to
124: formulate a simplified model to take these effects into account
125: and to deal with the effective confining potential and only one
126: bulk phonon mode. We calculate polaron characteristics for
127: the same rectangular quantum well as in Refs.~\onlinecite{hpd2,hpd3,china}
128: to compare the results. Another example is given
129: of a quantum well of the finite depth for which the second-order
130: correction due to the electron-phonon interaction can
131: be calculated explicitly. Namely, we take the Rosen-Morse
132: potential to confine electrons to a 2D-multilayered heterostructure
133: and calculate the shift of the ground-state energy and the effective mass
134: perturbatively, that is, in the weak-coupling limit.
135: In contrast with the rectangular potential we should not worry
136: about the correct including of all virtual states because the Green
137: function is known analytically for this system.
138:
139:
140:
141: \section{Formulation of the model}
142: Let us consider a quantum well in the $z$ direction constructed
143: of the $xy$ plane layers of $GaAs/Al_xGa_{1-x}As$. That is,
144: the $AlAs$ mole fraction $x$ depends on the coordinate $z$: $x=x(z)$.
145: The energy gap between different materials forms the
146: confining potential $V(z)$ which serves us as the main entity.
147: Given the potential $V(z)$, one can find the corresponding
148: mole fractions $x(z)$ and a dependence on $z$ of any of
149: the medium parameters
150: (such as the electron band mass $m(z)$, phonon frequencies $\omega (z)$,
151: dielectric constants $\varepsilon_0 (z), \varepsilon_{\infty}(z)$,
152: Fr\"ohlich coupling constants $\alpha (z)$, etc.).
153:
154: To avoid difficulties with mass mismatch in different layers
155: we suggest to use a {\em mean} band mass $m$ which is common for all layers.
156: Then we start with the following expression for the electronic part
157: of the Hamiltonian:
158: \begin{eqnarray}
159: H_{el} &=& H_{el,\parallel} + H_{el,\perp}, \nonumber \\
160: H_{el,\parallel} &=& {\vec p_{\parallel}^{\,2}\over 2m}, \quad
161: H_{el,\perp} =
162: {p_z^{\,2}\over 2m} + V(z),
163: \label{eq2.01}\end{eqnarray}
164: where the electron mean band mass is defined by the relation
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: {1\over m} = \int dz\,{|\psi_1(z)|^2\over m(z)}
167: \label{eq2.02}\end{eqnarray}
168: and the ground state wave function $\psi_1(z)$
169: for the electron motion in $z$ direction
170: is a solution to the Schr\"{o}dinger equation
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: H_{el,\perp}\psi_1 = E_1 \psi_1
173: \label{eq2.03}\end{eqnarray}
174: with $E_1$ being a ground state energy.
175: As the wave function $\psi_1$ also depends on the mean
176: band mass $m$, the latter can be found as
177: a self-consistent solution of Eqs.~(\ref{eq2.02}), (\ref{eq2.03}).
178:
179: In a similar way we define the free LO-phonon Hamiltonian
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: H_{ph} = \hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}
182: \sum\limits_{\vec k} a^{\dag}_{\vec k}a_{\vec k},
183: \label{eq2.04}\end{eqnarray}
184: where $a^{\dag}_{\vec k}\;(a_{\vec k})$ are creation (annihilation)
185: operators of a phonon with a wave vector $\vec k$,
186: and mean frequency $\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}$ can be found
187: from the expression
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}= \int dz\,\omega(z)\,|\psi_1(z)|^2.
190: \label{eq2.05}\end{eqnarray}
191: Evidently, we have to address why the free phonon Hamiltonian is
192: averaged with respect to the electron wave function. Our motivation
193: is based on the fact that we are going to apply our model to calculate
194: polaron effects. That is, our {\em effective} phonons will be considered
195: only in a cloud around the electron, and the properties of this cloud
196: depend on the electron position. So, in our model
197: the effective phonons replace
198: numerous phonon modes whose frequencies depend on the coordinate
199: $z$ of the electron.
200:
201: Finally, we accept the conventional form
202: of the Hamiltonian describing the interaction
203: of the electron with effective phonons:
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: H_{int} = \sum_{\vec k}\,\left(a_{\vec k}\,V_{\vec k}\,
206: e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r} +
207: a^{\dag}_{\vec k}\,V^{*}_{\vec k}\,e^{-i \vec k \cdot \vec r}\right),
208: \label{eq2.06}\end{eqnarray}
209: where the Fourier transforms of the electron-phonon interaction
210: potential are specified as follows:
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: V_{\vec k} = -i\hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}} \left( {4\pi\alpha \over Vk^2}
213: \sqrt{{\hbar \over 2m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}} }} \right)^{1/2}.
214: \label{eq2.07}\end{eqnarray}
215: Here the use is made of a mean Fr\"{o}hlich coupling constant $\alpha$
216: which can be found from the relation
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: \sqrt{\alpha}
219: = \int dz\, |\psi_1(z)|^2\,{\omega(z)\over
220: \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}} \left( \alpha(z)
221: \sqrt{m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}\over m(z)\omega(z) } \right)^{1/2}.
222: \label{eq2.08}\end{eqnarray}
223: Note that we define the mean parameters in
224: Eqs. (\ref{eq2.02}), (\ref{eq2.05}), (\ref{eq2.08})
225: according to the way they enter the Hamiltonian.
226:
227: Thus, we describe a complicated multilayered heterostructure
228: by the Hamiltonian
229: \begin{eqnarray}
230: H = H_{el} + H_{ph} + H_{int}
231: \label{eq2.09}\end{eqnarray}
232: with the bulk phonon mode only which inhabits an effective medium
233: with mean characteristics defined above.
234: The details of the heterostructure are taken
235: into account by the confining potential $V(z)$.
236:
237: Performing a unitary transformation $H \to H'= U^{-1}HU$
238: with the operator
239: \begin{eqnarray}
240: U= \exp\left[ -i\vec r_{\parallel}\sum_{\vec k} \vec k_{\parallel}
241: a^{\dag}_{\vec k}a_{\vec k}\right],
242: \label{eq2.10}\end{eqnarray}
243: we arrive at the Hamiltonian
244: \begin{mathletters}
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: H' = H'_{el,\parallel} + H_{el,\perp} + H_{ph} + H'_{int},
247: \label{eq2.11a}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: H'_{el,\parallel} &=& {1\over 2m}\left(\vec p_{\parallel} - \hbar \sum_{\vec k}
251: \vec k_{\parallel} a^{\dag}_{\vec k}a_{\vec k}\right)^2,
252: \label{eq2.11b}
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: %%% \begin{eqnarray}
255: %%% H_{el,\perp} = {p_z^2\over 2m} + V(z),
256: %%% \label{eq2.11c}\end{eqnarray}
257: \begin{eqnarray}
258: H'_{int} = \sum_{\vec k}\,\left(a_{\vec k}\,V_{\vec k}\,
259: e^{i k_z \cdot z} +
260: a^{\dag}_{\vec k}\,V^{*}_{\vec k}\,e^{-i k_z \cdot z}\right).
261: \label{eq2.11-4}\end{eqnarray}
262: \label{eq2.11}\end{mathletters}
263: The quantity $\vec p_{\parallel}$ is a c-number corresponding to the
264: conserved momentum in the $xy$ plane and the Hamiltonians
265: $H_{el,\perp}, H_{ph}$ are defined by Eqs.~(\ref{eq2.01}), (\ref{eq2.04}),
266: respectively.
267:
268: Keeping in mind the smallness of the electron-phonon coupling constant
269: $\alpha$ for most of the materials, we calculate the second-order
270: correction to the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H'_0 =
271: H'_{el,\parallel} + H_{el,\perp} + H_{ph}$
272: (note that the quantum-mechanical first-order correction is equal to zero).
273: The unperturbed energy levels are given by the expression
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: E(\vec p_{\parallel},n_{\vec k},N) &=&
276: {1\over 2m}\left(\vec p_{\parallel} - \hbar\sum_{\vec k}\vec k_{\parallel} n_{\vec k}\right)^2
277: + \nonumber \\
278: && \hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}} \sum_{\vec k}\, n_{\vec k} +E_N,
279: \label{eq2.12}\end{eqnarray}
280: where $n_{\vec k}$ is the number of phonons with the wave vector $\vec k$.
281: The energy $E_N$ is the $N$-th energy level of the one-dimensional
282: system $H_{el,\perp}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq2.01}).
283: Here $N$ is the corresponding quantum number
284: not necessarily a discrete one:
285: it stands for both the quantum number $n$ which varies from 1 to $n_{max}$
286: and the wave vector $q$ of the continuous spectrum states.
287:
288: The wave functions of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H'_0$ are given
289: by the direct product
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: |\vec p_{\parallel};n_{\vec k},N \rangle =
292: |n_{\vec k}\rangle \otimes |N\rangle
293: \label{eq2.13}\end{eqnarray}
294: of the corresponding wave functions of different terms in $H'_0$.
295:
296: Because of the structure of the interaction term $H'_{int}$
297: only intermediate states with one phonon contribute to the second
298: order correction to the ground-state energy. The latter is then given
299: by the expression
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: && \Delta_2 E(\vec p_{\parallel}) = \nonumber \\
302: &&- \sum\limits_{N,\vec k}{|V_{\vec k}|^2\ |G(N,k_z)|^2 \over
303: E_N + \hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}} + \displaystyle
304: {(\vec p_{\parallel} - \hbar \vec k_{\parallel})^2
305: - {\vec p_{\parallel}}^{\,2} \over 2m}-E_1},
306: \label{eq2.14}\end{eqnarray}
307: where
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: G(N,k_z) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz\,\psi_{N}(z)\psi_{1}(z)
310: e^{i k_z z}
311: \label{eq2.15}\end{eqnarray}
312: and $\psi_N(z)$ are the wave functions of the Hamiltonian $H_{el,\perp}$
313: in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.01}).
314: The concrete application of these formulae is given in the
315: following section.
316:
317: \section{Rectangular Potential}
318: \subsection{Medium mean characteristics}
319: As an example we now consider the rectangular confining potential
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: V(z) = \left\{
322: \begin{array}{ll}
323: 0,\, & |z| \leq L/2 \\
324: V_0, & |z| > L/2
325: \end{array} \right.
326: \label{eq3.01}\end{eqnarray}
327: and
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: m(z) = \left\{
330: \begin{array}{ll}
331: m_{in},\, & |z| \leq L/2 \\
332: m_{out}, & |z| > L/2
333: \end{array} \right.
334: \label{eq3.02}\end{eqnarray}
335: with $m_{in}\ (m_{out})$ being the electron band masses
336: in the well (barrier) material, respectively.
337: For concreteness we assume $GaAs$ to be the quantum well material
338: and $Al_xGa_{1-x}As$ to be the barrier material.
339:
340: Symmetrical wave functions of the discrete spectrum in the rectangular
341: quantum well with the mean band mass $m$ take the form
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: \psi_{s,n} = N_{s,n}\left\{
344: \begin{array}{ll}
345: \cos q_nz , & |z| \leq L/2 \\
346: \cos \displaystyle {q_n L\over 2}
347: e^{- p_n (|z|-L/2)}, & |z|>L/2,
348: \end{array} \right.
349: \label{eq3.03}\end{eqnarray}
350: where
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: p_n = \sqrt{q_{max}^2 - q_n^2}, \quad q_{max}^2 = {2mV_0\over \hbar^2}
353: \label{eq3.04}\end{eqnarray}
354: and the normalization constant is given by
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: N_{s,n} = \sqrt{ 2 p_n\over p_n L + 2}.
357: \label{eq3.05}\end{eqnarray}
358:
359: Antisymmetrical wave functions of the discrete spectrum take the form
360: \begin{eqnarray}
361: &&\psi_{a,n} = N_{s,n}\left\{
362: \begin{array}{ll}
363: \sin q_nz , & |z| \leq L/2 \\
364: \mbox{\rm sgn}(z)\, \sin \displaystyle {q_n L\over 2}
365: e^{- p_n (|z|-L/2)}, & |z|>L/2
366: \end{array} \right. \nonumber \\
367: &&
368: \label{eq3.06}\end{eqnarray}
369: with the same normalization constant given by Eq. (\ref{eq3.05}).
370:
371: The total number $n_{max}$ of the discrete energy levels is given
372: by the expression
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: n_{max} = 1 + \left[{q_{max} L\over \pi}\right],
375: \label{eq3.07}\end{eqnarray}
376: where $[A]$ is an integer part of a number $A$.
377: The expression for the discrete energy levels reads as follows:
378: \begin{eqnarray}
379: {q_nL\over 2} = \mbox{\rm atan}\,
380: \sqrt{{q_{max}^2\over q_n^2} -1} +{\pi (n-1)\over 2},\quad n=1,2,\ldots .
381: \label{eq3.08}\end{eqnarray}
382: Energies with odd (even) $n$ correspond to the symmetrical
383: (antisymmetrical) wave functions.
384:
385:
386: The energy $E_q = \hbar^2 q^2/2m$ of the continuous spectrum state
387: depends on the wave vector $q$. The corresponding symmetrical
388: wave functions are as follows:
389: %\newpage
390: %\widetext
391: \begin{eqnarray}
392: && \psi_{s,q} = {N_{s,q}\over \sqrt{L_z}} \left\{
393: \begin{array}{ll}
394: p\cos qz, & |z| \leq L/2, \\[5mm]
395: p\cos \displaystyle {qL\over 2}
396: \cos \displaystyle p(|z|-L/2) - \\[2mm]
397: q \sin \displaystyle {qL\over 2} \sin p(|z|-L/2), & |z| > L/2, \\
398: \end{array} \right. \nonumber \\
399: &&
400: \label{eq3.09}\end{eqnarray}
401: %\narrowtext
402: where
403: \begin{eqnarray}
404: p=\sqrt{q^2 - q^2_{max}}
405: \label{eq3.10}\end{eqnarray}
406: and $L_z$ is the (infinite) size of the system in the $z$ direction.
407: The normalization constant is given by the expression
408: \begin{eqnarray}
409: N_{s,q}= \sqrt{2\over p^2 \cos^2 \displaystyle {qL\over 2}
410: + q^2 \sin^2 \displaystyle {qL\over 2}}.
411: \label{eq3.11}\end{eqnarray}
412: The antisymmetrical wave functions are as follows:
413: %\widetext
414: \begin{eqnarray}
415: && \psi_{a,q} = {N_{a,q}\ \mbox{\rm sgn}(z) \over \sqrt{L_z}} \left\{
416: \begin{array}{ll}
417: p\sin q|z|, \quad |z| \leq L/2, \\[5mm]
418: p\sin \displaystyle {qL\over 2}
419: \cos p(|z|-L/2) + \\[2mm]
420: q \cos \displaystyle {qL\over 2} \sin p(|z|-L/2), \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad
421: |z| > L/2,
422: \end{array} \right. \nonumber \\
423: &&
424: \label{eq3.12}\end{eqnarray}
425: %\narrowtext
426: where the normalization constant is given by the expression
427: \begin{eqnarray}
428: N_{a,q}= \sqrt{2\over p^2 \sin^2 \displaystyle {qL\over 2}
429: + q^2 \cos^2 \displaystyle {qL\over 2}}.
430: \label{eq3.13}\end{eqnarray}
431:
432: The electron mean band mass is defined as
433: \begin{eqnarray}
434: {1\over m} &=& {W_{in}\over m_{in}} + {W_{out}\over m_{out}}
435: \rightarrow \nonumber \\
436: m &=& {m_{in}m_{out}\over W_{in} m_{out} +(1-W_{in})m_{in}},
437: \label{eq3.14}\end{eqnarray}
438: where $W_{in}$ and $W_{out}=1-W_{in}$ are probabilities to find the electron
439: inside (outside) the quantum well. The expression for $W_{in}$ follows
440: from Eq.~(\ref{eq3.03})
441: \begin{eqnarray}
442: W_{in} = 2N^2_{s,1}\int\limits_0^{L/2}dz\,\cos^2 q_1 z =
443: 1- {(q_1/q_{max})^2 \over 1+ p_1 L/2},
444: \label{eq3.15}\end{eqnarray}
445: where $q_1$ is a solution to Eq.~(\ref{eq3.08}) for the ground-state ($n=1$).
446:
447: To finish this subsection, we note that the exact
448: energy levels in the rectangular potential with different
449: masses $m_{in}$ and $m_{out}$ calculated for the
450: $GaAs/Al_x Ga_{1-x} As$ heterostructure
451: practically coincide with the levels
452: obtained with the electron mean band mass $m$.
453: To obtain an inner criterion of the validity of the anzatz
454: concerning the mean band mass we notice that the particle being
455: on lowest energy levels is located mostly inside the well which
456: means that its band mass is almost coincide with $m_{in}$.
457:
458: %\noindent
459: %{\_}\hrulefill \\[20mm]
460: %{\_}\hrulefill \\[-2mm]
461:
462:
463: \noindent
464: One can
465: await the largest discrepancy for a level near the potential edge.
466: The $n$-th discrete level appears at the width $L=L^{(av)}_n$,
467: where
468: \begin{eqnarray}
469: L^{(av)}_n = \pi(n-1){\hbar \over \sqrt{2mV_0}} = {\pi (n-1)\over q_{\max}},
470: \label{eq3.16}\end{eqnarray}
471: and the analogous width for the exact solution reads as follows:
472: \begin{eqnarray}
473: L^{(ex)}_n = \pi(n-1){\hbar \over \sqrt{2m_{in}V_0}}.
474: \label{eq3.17}\end{eqnarray}
475:
476: %\noindent
477: %{\_}\hrulefill \\[20mm]
478: %{\_}\hrulefill \\
479:
480: Thus, the ratio
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: {L^{(av)}_n\over L^{(ex)}_n} = \sqrt{m_{in}\over m} =
483: \sqrt{W_{in} + (1-W_{in}){m_{in}\over m_{out}}}.
484: \label{eq3.18}\end{eqnarray}
485: can serve us as the numerical criterion of the validity
486: of the anzatz. The largest discrepancy happens at $n=2$ and
487: in this case Eqs. (\ref{eq3.04}), (\ref{eq3.08}) ¨ (\ref{eq3.15})
488: lead to the following expression:
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: {L^{(av)}\over L^{(ex)}} = \sqrt{0.844+ 0.156 {m_{in}\over m_{out}}}.
491: \label{eq3.19}\end{eqnarray}
492: Note that numerical coefficients here do not depend on
493: the material parameters. For the $GaAs/Al_{0.3} Ga_{0.7} As$
494: quantum well we have $m_{in}/m_{out} \approx 0.7$ and
495: the discrepancy is about $2\%$; in the worst possible case when
496: $m_{in}/m_{out} \ll 1$ the discrepancy is still not large:
497: $100\% \sqrt{0.844} \approx 8\%$.
498:
499:
500: \subsection{Electron-phonon correction to the polaron energy and the
501: effective mass}
502:
503: Summation over the wave vector $\vec k$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.14})
504: can be reduced to integration in a conventional way
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: && \sum\limits_{\vec k} |V_{\vec k}|^2\ (\ldots) =
507: {V\over (2\pi)^3}\int d{\vec k}\,|V_{\vec k}|^2\ (\dots) = \nonumber \\
508: && (\hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}})^2 \sqrt{\hbar \over 2m \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}}
509: \,{\alpha\over 2\pi^2}
510: \int {d\vec k_{\parallel}\, dk_z \over k^2_{\parallel} + k^2_{z}}\
511: (\ldots ).
512: \label{eq3.20}\end{eqnarray}
513: Then, the integration over $\vec k_{\parallel}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.14})
514: can be performed explicitly. As we are interested in corrections
515: to the ground-state energy and the effective mass
516: $m_{eff} \approx m + \Delta_2 m$ of the polaron motion in the $xy$ plane,
517: we expand $\Delta_2 E(\vec p_{\parallel}) \approx
518: \Delta_2 E - \displaystyle
519: {\Delta_2 m \over 2m^2}\,{\vec p}\,^2_{\parallel}$
520: in powers of the conserved momentum $\vec p_{\parallel}$.
521: Doing this the use is made of the integral
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: && \int {d^2 \vec k_{\parallel} \over ({\vec k}^2_{\parallel} + k^2_{z})
524: [{\vec k_{\parallel}}^{\,2} -
525: 2 \vec k_{\parallel}\cdot \vec p_{\parallel}/\hbar + b^2]} \approx
526: \pi {\ln (k^2_{z}/b^2) \over k^2_{z} - b^2} + \nonumber \\
527: && \left({\vec p_{\parallel} \over \hbar}\right)^2\,\pi\,
528: {k^4_{z} -b^4 -2 k^2_{z} b^2 \ln (k^2_{z}/b^2)
529: \over b^2 (k^2_{z}-b^2)^3}.
530: \label{eq3.21}\end{eqnarray}
531:
532: As the next step we use dimensionless ``polaronic" units
533: performing the scaling
534: $ k_z \to k_z\sqrt{2m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}/\hbar}, \
535: z \to z \sqrt{\hbar / 2 m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}}$
536: and using the notation
537: \begin{eqnarray}
538: l=L \sqrt{2m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}\over \hbar}, \quad
539: \varepsilon_N = {E_N\over \hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}}.
540: \label{eq3.22}\end{eqnarray}
541: In these units the correction to the ground-state energy takes the form
542: %\widetext
543: \begin{eqnarray}
544: &&{\Delta_2 E\over \hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}} = \nonumber \\
545: && - {\alpha\over \pi}
546: \,\sum\limits_{N} \int\limits_0^{\infty} dk_z
547: {\ln (k^2_{z}/b^2_N) \over k^2_{z} - b^2_N}
548: \left(|G_s (N,k_z)|^2 + |G_a (N,k_z)|^2\right), \nonumber \\
549: &&
550: \label{eq3.23}\end{eqnarray}
551: %\narrowtext
552: where
553: \begin{eqnarray}
554: b_N = \sqrt{\varepsilon_N +1-\varepsilon_1}.
555: \label{eq3.24}\end{eqnarray}
556: %\widetext
557: The correction to the effective mass reads as follows:
558: \begin{eqnarray}
559: &&{\Delta_2 m\over m} = \nonumber \\[3mm]
560: &&{\alpha\over \pi}
561: \sum\limits_{N} \int\limits_0^{\infty} dk_z
562: {k^4_{z} -b^4_N -2 k^2_{z} b^2_N \ln (k^2_{z}/b^2_N)
563: \over b^2_N (k^2_{z}-b^2_N)^3} \times \nonumber \\
564: && \left(|G_s (N,k_z)|^2 + |G_a (N,k_z)|^2\right).
565: \label{eq3.25}\end{eqnarray}
566: %\narrowtext
567: Quantities $G_j(N,k_z)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq3.23}), (\ref{eq3.25}) are given in
568: dimensionless units by the same Eq.~(\ref{eq2.15}); the indices $(a)s$
569: are related to (anti)symmetrical wave functions being used in Eq. (\ref{eq2.15}):
570: \begin{eqnarray}
571: G_s(N,k_z) = 2\int\limits_0^{\infty} dz\,\psi_{s,N}(z)\psi_{s,1}(z)\,\cos k_zz,
572: \nonumber \\
573: G_a(N,k_z) = 2\int\limits_0^{\infty} dz\,\psi_{a,N}(z)\psi_{s,1}(z)\,\sin k_zz,
574: \label{eq3.26}\end{eqnarray}
575:
576: Evidently, the replacement $L \to l$
577: should be done in the definition of the wave functions
578: and their normalization constants; in addition $L_z \to l_z$ in
579: Eqs.~(\ref{eq3.09}), (\ref{eq3.12}) as well as
580: in Eq.~(\ref{eq3.08})
581: for the energy levels of the discrete spectrum.
582: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.04}) now reads as follows:
583: \begin{eqnarray}
584: p_n = \sqrt{v_0 - q_n^2}, \quad v_0 = {V_0\over \hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}},
585: \quad q^2_{max} = v_0.
586: \label{eq3.27}\end{eqnarray}
587: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.07}) takes the form
588: \begin{eqnarray}
589: n_{max} = 1+\left[{\sqrt{v_0}l \over \pi}\right].
590: \label{eq3.28}\end{eqnarray}
591: The relation of dimensionless energies of the discrete and continuous
592: spectra with subsequent wave vectors takes the form
593: $\varepsilon_n = q^2_n,\ \varepsilon_q = q^2$.
594: All the changes mentioned should also be done in Eq.~(\ref{eq3.15}).
595:
596: The final note of this section concerns summation over $N$ in
597: Eqs.~(\ref{eq3.23}), (\ref{eq3.25}):
598: \begin{eqnarray}
599: \sum\limits_{N}\,(\ldots) = \sum_{n=1}^{n_{max}}\,(\ldots) +
600: \lim_{l_z\to \infty}
601: {l_z\over 2\pi} \int\limits_0^{\infty}\!\! dp\,(\ldots).
602: \label{eq3.29}\end{eqnarray}
603: The replacing of the sum over the continuous spectrum
604: by the integration over the wave vector $p$ follows from
605: Eqs. (\ref{eq3.09}, \ref{eq3.12}) in the limit $L_z \to \infty$.
606: The wave vectors $q$ and $p$ are related to each other because of
607: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.10})
608: which now takes the form $q=\sqrt{p^2+v_0}$. Note also that
609: only $G_s(N, k_z)$ ($G_a(N, k_z)$) has to be taken into account
610: for odd (even) $n$ in the sum over the discrete quantum number $n$.
611:
612:
613: The numerical results obtained are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig1}
614: for $\Delta_2 E$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a for $\Delta_2 m/m$.
615: Because the mean effective mass $m$ depends on the potential width
616: we also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig2}b
617: the ratio of the mass shift to
618: those in the well material, that is, the ratio
619: \begin{eqnarray}
620: \delta_2 m = {\Delta_2 m\over \Delta_2 m_{in}}, \quad
621: \Delta_2 m_{in} = m_{in}{\alpha_{in}\over 6}.
622: \label{eq3.30}\end{eqnarray}
623: The discussion of the numerical results is given in the last section.
624:
625: \section{Rosen-Morse potential}
626:
627: \subsection{Energy-dependent Green function}
628: In this section we present another example --- a multilayered
629: heterostructure described by a confining potential $V(z)$ which
630: is chosen in the form of the Rosen-Morse potential
631: \begin{eqnarray}
632: V(z) &=& V_0\,{\rm tanh}^2\left({z\over L_{RM}}\right),\nonumber \\
633: V_0 &=& {\hbar^2 \over 2m L_{RM}^2}\ \kappa (\kappa+1).
634: \label{eq4.01}\end{eqnarray}
635: where $L_{RM}$ is the parameter close to the half-width of
636: the Rosen-Morse quantum well
637: and $\kappa$ is the dimensionless
638: parameter to govern the strength of the potential.
639:
640: The summation (\ref{eq2.14}) over the quantum number $N$ can be
641: represented through the Green function which is known analytically
642: for the Rosen-Morse potential.
643: Namely, the second-order correction to the ground-state energy
644: can be written in the form
645: \begin{eqnarray}
646: \Delta_2 E &=& -\hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}\,\alpha\,{l_{RM}\over \sqrt{2}}
647: \int\limits_0^{\infty} dk_{\parallel} \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_a
648: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_b\
649: e^{-k_{\parallel} |z_a-z_b|} \nonumber \\
650: && \psi^*_1(z_a) \psi_1(z_b)\ G(z_a,z_b;E),
651: \label{eq4.02}\end{eqnarray}
652: where we made a scaling $z \to zL_{RM},\ \vec k \to \vec k/L_{RM}$ to use
653: dimensionless variables $z,\ \vec k$ and integrated
654: over $k_z$ and angles of $\vec k_{\parallel}$.
655: The dimensionless parameter
656: \begin{eqnarray}
657: l_{RM} = L_{RM} \sqrt{m\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}\over \hbar}
658: \label{eq4.03}\end{eqnarray}
659: is the width of the confining potential in polaronic units
660: while the potential strength can now be written as follows:
661: \begin{eqnarray}
662: V_0 = \hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}{\kappa (\kappa +1)\over 2l_{RM}^2}.
663: \label{eq4.04}\end{eqnarray}
664:
665: The quantity $G(z_a, z_b;E)$ is the Green function
666: of the dimensionless Hamiltonian (\ref{eq2.01})
667: which takes the form
668: \begin{eqnarray}
669: H''_{el,\perp} = -{1\over 2} {d^2\over dz^2} + {\kappa (\kappa +1)\over 2}
670: {\rm tanh}^2 z,
671: \label{eq4.05}\end{eqnarray}
672: that is $G(z_a, z_b;E) = \langle z_a|(H''_{el,\perp} -E)^{-1}|z_b\rangle$,
673: while $\psi_1(z)$ is the ground-state wave function of the potential
674: (\ref{eq4.05})
675: \begin{eqnarray}
676: \psi_1(z) = \left[{\Gamma(\kappa+1/2)\over \sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(\kappa)}\right]
677: ^{1/2} {1\over {\rm cosh}^{\kappa} z}.
678: \label{eq4.06}\end{eqnarray}
679: The ground-state energy of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq4.05}) is
680: given by
681: \begin{eqnarray}
682: E_1 = {\kappa\over 2}.
683: \label{eq4.07}\end{eqnarray}
684: The energy $E$ in Eq. (\ref{eq4.02}) reads as follows
685: \begin{eqnarray}
686: E = -{k^2_{\parallel}\over 2} - l_{RM}^2 + {\kappa \over 2}.
687: \label{eq4.08}\end{eqnarray}
688:
689:
690: The energy-dependent Green function of the system can be represented
691: in the form\cite{kleinert,flm}:
692: %\widetext
693: \begin{eqnarray}
694: && G(z_a,z_b;E) = \nonumber \\[3mm]
695: && {\Gamma(\nu + \kappa+1) \Gamma(\nu-\kappa)\over
696: \Gamma^2(\nu+1)}\,
697: {1\over (4\,{\rm cosh}\,z_a\, {\rm cosh}\, z_b)^{\nu}}\times \nonumber \\
698: &&\phantom{q}_2F_1\left(\nu-\kappa, \nu+\kappa+1;\nu+1;{1-{\rm tanh}\, z_>
699: \over 2}\right) \times \nonumber \\
700: &&\phantom{q}_2F_1\left(\nu-\kappa, \nu+\kappa+1;\nu+1;{1+{\rm tanh}\, z_<
701: \over 2}\right),
702: \label{eq4.09}\end{eqnarray} \narrowtext\noindent
703: where $z_{>}\ (z_{<})$ denotes the maximum (minimum) of $z_a$ and $z_b$.
704: %%%and $P^{-\nu}_{\kappa}(z)$ is an associated Legendre function.
705: The parameter $\nu$ is defined by the relation
706: \begin{eqnarray}
707: \nu=\sqrt{-2\left(E-{\kappa (\kappa+1)\over 2}\right)}=
708: \sqrt{k^2_{\parallel} + \kappa^2 +2 l_{RM}^2}.
709: \label{eq4.10}\end{eqnarray}
710:
711: The polaron effective mass can be represented in a similar way
712: \begin{eqnarray}
713: {\Delta_2 m\over m} &=&\alpha{l^3 \over 2\sqrt{2}}
714: \int\limits_0^{\infty} dk_{\parallel}\, k^2_{\parallel}
715: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_a \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_b\
716: e^{-k_{\parallel}|z_a-z_b|} \nonumber \\
717: && \psi_1^*(z_a) \psi_1(z_b)\ {\partial^2\over \partial E^2} G(z_a,z_b;E).
718: \label{eq4.11}\end{eqnarray}
719:
720: To simplify numerical calculations we may replace the derivative
721: with respect to $E$ by the derivative with respect to $\nu$
722: \begin{eqnarray}
723: {\partial^2\over \partial E^2} = {1\over \nu^2}
724: {\partial^2\over \partial \nu^2} -{1\over \nu^3}
725: {\partial\over \partial \nu}
726: \label{eq4.12}\end{eqnarray}
727: and perform once the integration by parts. As the result, we arrive
728: at the following representation equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq4.11}):
729:
730: \begin{eqnarray}
731: && {\Delta_2 m\over m} =\alpha{l^3 \over 2\sqrt{2}}
732: \int\limits_0^{\infty} dk_{\parallel}\,
733: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_a \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz_b\
734: (1-k_{\parallel}|z_a-z_b|) \nonumber \\
735: && e^{-k_{\parallel}|z_a-z_b|}
736: \psi_1^*(z_a) \psi_1(z_b)\
737: \left[-{1\over \nu} {\partial\over \partial \nu}\right] G(z_a,z_b;E).
738: \label{eq4.13}\end{eqnarray}
739:
740:
741: Note that $m, \alpha, \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}$ in all these formulae
742: stand for the mean characteristics of the medium. The wave function
743: in their definitions is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq4.06}).
744: The numerical results are plotted
745: in Fig.~\ref{fig3} and discussed in the last Section.
746:
747:
748:
749: \subsection{Effective width}
750:
751: If we decide to compare the results for the rectangular and
752: Rosen-Morse potentials, we have to define a parameter which plays
753: the role of the effective width of the Rosen-Morse potential.
754: That is, this parameter (for which we use a notation $L$)
755: should be close to $2L_{RM}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq4.01}) being also related
756: to the rectangular potential. We accept the following definition: let
757: us call the effective width of the Rosen-Morse
758: potential the width $L$ of the rectangular well of the same height
759: with the same ground-state energy in the
760: absence of the electron-phonon interaction (that is, at $\alpha =0$).
761: The advantage of this definition is that while calculating the polaron
762: binding energy for the Rosen-Morse and rectangular potentials
763: we subtract the same quantity in both the cases and can compare only
764: energy shifts due to the electron-phonon interaction.
765:
766: The ground-state energy of a rectangular potential with the height $V_0$
767: and width $L$ is given by the relations
768: \begin{eqnarray}
769: E_{RC} &=& {\hbar^2 k^2 \over 2m},\nonumber \\
770: \mbox{\rm tan} \,{ {kL}\over 2} &=&
771: \sqrt{{V_0\over E_{RC}} - 1},
772: \label{eq4.15}\end{eqnarray}
773: while the RM ground-state energy looks like
774: \begin{eqnarray}
775: E_{RM} = {\hbar^2 \over m L_{RM}^2}\,{\kappa\over 2}
776: \label{eq4.16}\end{eqnarray}
777: and the height $V_0$ of the potential is given by Eq. (\ref{eq4.01}).
778: With the equality $E_{RM} = E_{RC}$ we arrive at the
779: relation between the parameter $L_{RM}$ of the Rosen-Morse potential and its
780: effective width defined as has been discussed:
781: \begin{eqnarray}
782: {L \over L_0} &=& 2\sqrt{\lambda}\,\mbox{\rm arctg}\sqrt{\lambda -1},
783: \nonumber \\
784: \lambda &=& \kappa +1 = {1\over 2}\left[1+
785: \sqrt{1+\left({2L_{RM}/L_0}\right)^2}\right].
786: \label{eq4.17}\end{eqnarray}
787: Here we introduce the distance scale
788: \begin{eqnarray}
789: L_0 = \sqrt{\hbar^2 \over 2m V_0}.
790: \label{eq4.18}\end{eqnarray}
791: The relation to the other dimensionless parameter $l_{RM}$
792: of Eq. (\ref{eq4.03}) is given by
793: \begin{eqnarray}
794: {L_{RM}\over L_0} = l\sqrt{2V_0 \over \hbar \omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}} }.
795: \label{eq4.19}\end{eqnarray}
796: At small $L_{RM} \ll L_0$ we obtain $L \sim 2L_{RM}$ from Eq. (\ref{eq4.17}),
797: that is indeed the parameter $L_{RM}$ plays a role of the half-width
798: of the Rosen-Morse potential in this case. When $L_{RM} \gg L_0$,
799: it follows from Eq. (\ref{eq4.17}) that $L \sim \pi \sqrt{L_{RM}L_0}$.
800:
801: The effective width $L$ defined in this subsection allows us to
802: apply the results for the rectangular potential to the Rosen-Morse
803: quantum well. The example is given in Fig.~\ref{fig3} where we
804: plotted also the energy and the mass shifts for the rectangular
805: potential vs. the parameter $L_{RM}$ related to $L$ as is described.
806:
807: \section{Numerical results and discussion}
808:
809:
810: To proceed to the numerical calculations we need now the dependence
811: of medium parameters on the $AlAs$ mole fraction $x$.
812: At first we present the parametrization from the review by
813: Adachi\cite{adachi}:
814: \begin{mathletters}
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: \alpha (z) = 0.068 + 0.058 x,
817: \label{eq5.01a}
818: \end{eqnarray}
819: \begin{eqnarray}
820: m(z) = m_e \cdot (0.0665 + 0.0835 x),
821: \label{eq5.01b}\end{eqnarray}
822: \begin{eqnarray}
823: \hbar\omega (z) =
824: (36.25 + 1.83 x + 17.12 x^2 -5.11 x^3)\ {\rm meV},
825: \label{eq5.01c}\end{eqnarray}
826: \label{eq5.01}
827: \end{mathletters}\noindent
828: %%% which was used in numerical calculations by Haj, Peeters and
829: which was used in numerical calculations by Hai, Peeters and
830: Devreese\cite{hpd2,hpd3}.
831: Here $m_e$ is the electron mass in vacuum and $m(z)$ --- its band mass
832: in the subsequent layer; the values of the electron-phonon coupling
833: constant $\alpha(z)$ and the LO-phonon frequency $\omega(z)$
834: are also related to this layer.
835:
836: Some comments are to the point. The expression for the electron band mass
837: is nothing else but the linear
838: interpolation between the values $m=0.0665m_e$ for $GaAs$ and
839: $m=0.150m_e$ for $AlAs$. As to the LO-phonon frequency there are two
840: phonon modes with different frequencies $\omega^{(G)}(z)$
841: and $\omega^{(A)}(z)$ for the $GaAs$-like and $AlAs$-like modes
842: in $Al_x Ga_{1-x}As$ crystal. Experimental results of Ref.~\onlinecite{kim}
843: are interpolated by the following formulae:
844: \begin{mathletters}
845: \begin{eqnarray}
846: \hbar\omega^{(G)}(z) =
847: (36.25 - 6.55 x + 1.79 x^2)\ {\rm meV},
848: \label{eq5.02a}
849: \end{eqnarray}
850: \begin{eqnarray}
851: \hbar\omega^{(A)}(z) &=&
852: (44.63 + 8.78 x - 3.32 x^2)\ {\rm meV}.
853: \label{eq5.02b}
854: \end{eqnarray}
855: \label{eq5.02}
856: \end{mathletters}
857: Because the exact theory of the two-phonon interaction in alloys
858: where there are two-mode phonons present has not been reported,
859: Adachi suggested to use the effective phonon frequency
860: $\omega = (1-x)\omega^{(G)} + x \omega^{(A)}$, that is the linear
861: interpolation between these two modes.
862: Inserting here the expressions (\ref{eq5.02}) one arrives at the result
863: (\ref{eq5.01c}).
864:
865: As to the interpolation formula (\ref{eq5.01a}) for the Fr\"ohlich
866: coupling constant $\alpha$, the situation seems to be a bit
867: inconsistent. Indeed, $\alpha$ depends on the values of the
868: static $\varepsilon_0$ and the high-frequency $\varepsilon_{\infty}$
869: dielectric constants:
870: \begin{eqnarray}
871: \alpha &=& {1 \over \hbar \omega}
872: {{\bar e}^2 \over \sqrt{2}} \sqrt{m \omega \over \hbar}
873: \left({1\over \varepsilon_{\infty}} - {1\over \varepsilon_{0}}\right)
874: \nonumber \\
875: &= & 116.643 \left({1\over \varepsilon_{\infty}}-
876: {1\over \varepsilon_{0}}\right) \sqrt{m\over m_e}
877: \sqrt{1\ {\rm meV}\over \hbar\omega}.
878: \label{eq5.03}\end{eqnarray}
879: Earlier measurements of $\varepsilon_0$ of $GaAs$ have yielded
880: widely different values ranging from 9.8 to 13.3
881: (see Ref.~\onlinecite{strzal} and references therein).
882: For instance, Kartheuser\cite{karth}
883: reports the values $\varepsilon_{\infty} =10.9$ and $\varepsilon_0=12.83$
884: and $\hbar \omega = 36.75\ {\rm meV}$ for $GaAs$.
885: This leads to the result $\alpha =0.068$, which is widely known and used
886: by many people.
887:
888: On the other hand, Adachi used
889: the more recent results for $GaAs$\cite{samara}:
890: $\varepsilon_0=13.18\pm 0.40$ and $\varepsilon_{\infty}=10.89$,
891: and for $AlAs$\cite{fern}: $\varepsilon_0 = 10.06 \pm 0.04$
892: and $\varepsilon_{\infty}=8.16 \pm 0.02$.
893: This gives birth to his interpolation formulae\cite{adachi}:
894: \begin{mathletters}
895: \begin{eqnarray}
896: \varepsilon_0 = 13.18 - 3.12 x,
897: \label{eq5.04a}
898: \end{eqnarray}
899: \begin{eqnarray}
900: \varepsilon_{\infty} = 10.89 - 2.73 x,
901: \label{eq5.04b}
902: \end{eqnarray}
903: \label{eq5.04}
904: \end{mathletters}
905: Inserting formulae (\ref{eq5.01b}), (\ref{eq5.01c}) and (\ref{eq5.04})
906: into Eq.~(\ref{eq5.03}) Adachi declared the result $\alpha = 0.126$
907: for $AlAs$. Together with the value
908: $\alpha=0.068$ reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{karth} this leads
909: to the interpolation formulae (\ref{eq5.01a}). The problem is that
910: both these values for $\alpha$ do not follow from the parametrizations
911: mentioned above.
912:
913: Taking the same values for $AlAs$ as Adachi did take
914: ($m=0.150m_e,\ \hbar\omega = 50.09\ {\rm meV},\ \varepsilon_0 = 8.16,\
915: \varepsilon_{\infty} = 10.06$) we arrive at the result
916: $\alpha = 0.1477$. Moreover, if one takes the same interpolation
917: formulae (\ref{eq5.04}) at $x=0$ one obtains the value
918: $\alpha=0.0797$ for GaAs. That is, Adachi had to obtain
919: the formula
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: \alpha(z) = 0.0797+0.0680 x
922: \label{eq5.05}\end{eqnarray}
923: as a linear interpolation between the values of $\alpha$
924: in $GaAs$ and $AlAs$. Note, that this formulae
925: can be presented in the form $\alpha(z) = 1.172(0.068+0.058x)$.
926: The expression between the brackets coincide (probably occasionally)
927: with the Adachi interpolation formulae for $\alpha$
928: (cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq5.01a})).
929: That is, the discrepancy of (\ref{eq5.01a})
930: and of our interpolation (\ref{eq5.05}) is about 17\%
931: and do not depend on $x$. To be consistent we have to
932: accept the parametrization (\ref{eq5.05}) in what follows.
933:
934: For the confining potential we take the expression
935: derived from the band-gap energy fit of Ref.~\onlinecite{lee}
936: and used in Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd2,hpd3}:
937: \begin{eqnarray}
938: V(z) = 600 \cdot (1.155 x + 0.37 x^2 )\ {\rm meV}.
939: \label{eq5.06}\end{eqnarray}
940: Thus, we use the parametrization (\ref{eq5.01b}), (\ref{eq5.01c}),
941: (\ref{eq5.04a}), (\ref{eq5.04b}), (\ref{eq5.05})
942: and the potential (\ref{eq5.06}) in our numerical calculations.
943:
944: \begin{figure}[h]
945: \hspace*{-2.6cm}
946: \epsfysize=5.5in \epsfbox{fig01.eps}
947: \vspace*{-7.5cm}
948: \caption{Total energy shift $\Delta_2 E$ is shown vs. the rectangular
949: potential width $L$ for $x=0.3$. The contribution of the discrete
950: ($\Delta_{dis} E$) and continuous ($\Delta_{con} E$)
951: spectra are presented separately
952: as well as the result of the leading term approximation ($\Delta_{lt} E$).}
953: \label{fig1}
954: \end{figure}
955:
956:
957:
958:
959:
960: The results of our study for the rectangular
961: potential (which is formed by a layer of $GaAs/Al_x Ga_{1-x} As $)
962: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} for the polaronic energy shift
963: and in Fig.~\ref{fig2} for the polaron effective mass
964: at the $AlAs$ mole fraction $x=0.3$.
965: The contribution of the discrete and continuous spectra are plotted
966: separately for this potential. In Fig.~\ref{fig2}a
967: the relative mass shift
968: $\Delta_2m/m$ is shown where the mean mass $m$ also depends
969: on the potential width $L$. Thus, the ratio
970: $\delta_2m = \Delta_2m/\Delta_2 m_{in}$
971: of the mass shifts in the potential and in $GaAs$ is presented
972: also in Fig.~\ref{fig2}b for the same $AlAs$ mole fraction.
973: Evidently,
974: the asymptotics of this curve is equal to the unity at large $L$ and
975: to the ratio $m_{out}\alpha_{out}/m_{in}\alpha_{in}$ at $L \to 0$.
976:
977: \begin{figure}[h]
978: \hspace*{-0.0cm}
979: \epsfysize=6in \epsfbox{fig02.eps}
980: \vspace*{-4.0cm}
981: \caption{The relative shifts $\Delta_2m/m$
982: and $\delta_2 m = \Delta_2 m /\Delta_2 m_{in}$
983: of the effective polaron mass for the rectangular potential
984: at $x=0.3$. Contributions
985: of the discrete and continuous spectra are shown as well as the result
986: of the leading term approximation.}
987: \label{fig2}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: We may conclude that the continuous spectrum dominates at small
991: potential widths. At large widths its contribution could also be
992: significant although it is smaller than the contribution of the
993: discrete spectrum (especially in deep potential wells). We also confirm
994: the conclusion of the preceding papers that the leading term
995: approximation is not adequate to describe this system and leads to
996: wrong asymptotics at both small and large potential widths
997: (see the dashed lines in Figs~\ref{fig1}, \ref{fig2}).
998:
999: An example of a multilayered heterostructure is presented.
1000: The results for the energy
1001: and the effective mass for the polaron in the Rosen-Morse potential well
1002: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. For the numerical
1003: calculations we fix the value $V_0=227.9$ meV
1004: in Eqs.~(\ref{eq4.01}), (\ref{eq4.04})
1005: which corresponds to the limiting mole fraction
1006: at large distances $x_{\infty}= \lim_{z\to \infty}x(z) = 0.3$.
1007: Thus, we obtain the dependence of the mole fraction $x$
1008: on the coordinate $z$:
1009: \begin{eqnarray}
1010: 600 \cdot (1.155 x + 0.37 x^2 ) = 227.9\ {\rm tanh}^2 z.
1011: \label{eq5.07}\end{eqnarray}
1012: Now Eqs.~(\ref{eq5.01b}), (\ref{eq5.01c}), (\ref{eq5.05})
1013: allow one to define the dependence of parameters
1014: on the coordinate $z$ and to calculate the mean characteristics
1015: of the heterostructure.
1016:
1017:
1018: The calculations were completely different
1019: in comparison with the rectangular potential: instead of the direct
1020: summation over all intermediate
1021: states we used the analytical expression for the Green function of the
1022: Rosen-Morse potential. The results obtained demonstrate a similar behavior
1023: which is also close numerically to the results for the rectangular
1024: potential. The polaronic energy and mass shifts for the rectangular
1025: quantum well are also plotted here (dashed line) vs. the Rosen-Morse
1026: width $L_{RM}$ obtained from $L$ as is described above. We see that
1027: both the energies almost coincide,
1028: which gives the opportunity to approximate
1029: different quantum wells by the rectangular potential. The discrepancy
1030: in the effective mass is larger but not so crucial.
1031: This serves also as an additional internal criterion of the
1032: validity of our calculations.
1033:
1034: \begin{figure}[h]
1035: \hspace*{-2.2cm}\vspace*{-2cm}
1036: \epsfysize=5.5in \epsfbox{fig03.eps}
1037: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
1038: \caption{Polaron energy and effective mass shifts
1039: for the Rosen-Morse potential (solid curves). The dashed lines present
1040: results for the rectangular potential at $x=0.3$ as functions of
1041: $2 L_{RM}$ recalculated from the width $L$ as is described in the text.}
1042: \label{fig3}
1043: \end{figure}
1044:
1045: Thus, we obtained a monotonous behavior of $\Delta_2 E$ between
1046: the correct 3D limiting values $\alpha_{in}\hbar \omega_{in}$ and
1047: $\alpha_{out}\hbar\omega_{out}$ both for the rectangular and
1048: the Rosen-Morse potentials (see Fig.~\ref{fig1} and Fig.~\ref{fig3}a).
1049: Actually the peaks are ``hidden" and they reveal themselves if we
1050: plot the dimensionless energy shift
1051: $\Delta_2 E/(\hbar\omega_{\mbox{\tiny LO}}\alpha)$ which has the same
1052: 3D limit (the unity) at both small and large potential widths.
1053: But in the ``real" units (meV) the peaks are smoothed.
1054:
1055: \begin{figure}
1056: \hspace*{-0.2cm}
1057: \epsfysize=4.5in \epsfbox{fig04.eps}
1058: % \vspace*{-8.5cm}
1059: \caption{Comparison of the results of the present paper (solid lines)
1060: and those of Ref.~\protect\onlinecite{hpd2} (dotted line)
1061: and of Ref.~\protect\onlinecite{hpd3} (dashed lines)
1062: for the rectangular potential
1063: generated by the $GaAs/Al_{0.3}Ga_{0.7}As$ heterostructure.
1064: For this plot we used in our calculations the same parametrization
1065: (\protect\ref{eq5.01}) and (\protect\ref{eq5.06})
1066: as these authors did.}
1067: \label{fig4}
1068: \end{figure}
1069:
1070: To compare our results with the calculations performed for the one-layer
1071: heterostructure we refer to the papers\cite{hpd2,hpd3}
1072: where the authors took into account
1073: the contributions of different phonon modes as well as mass and dielectric
1074: constant mismatches in the materials of the barrier and the well.
1075: Note that the analytical formulas of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd2}
1076: contain a mistake ---
1077: the wrong expression for the density of states. Namely,
1078: in some parts of the continuous spectrum contribution the integration
1079: is performed not over the wave vector $p$ but over the wave
1080: vector $q$ (that is $\int_{V_0}^{\infty} dE_z/\sqrt{E_z}\, (\ldots)$
1081: in the notations of that paper instead of the correct integration
1082: $\int_{V_0}^{\infty} dE_z/\sqrt{E_z-V_0}\, (\ldots)$).
1083: It is clear that
1084: this mistake results in lowering of the resulting curve for the energy,
1085: and the discrepancy
1086: is larger when the energy is closer to the potential edge, that is at
1087: small widths. This is just what we see in Fig.~\ref{fig4}a
1088: comparing the result of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd2}
1089: (the curve $\Delta_{HPD} E$) with the new calculations
1090: of the same authors (the curve $\Delta_{HPD} E$)
1091: which came to our knowledge when the present paper
1092: was already submitted for the publication.
1093:
1094: Thus, our model does not reproduce the
1095: more complicated structure with the peak and the dip
1096: which was obtained in Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3}. Some hints on the
1097: existence of peaks
1098: can also be seen in our plots but the maximal values are
1099: so close to the asymptotics that the peaks are almost invisible.
1100: Probably, the dip appears because of
1101: the presence of several phonon modes (bulk, interface, etc.).
1102: At widths $L \geq 50\ \AA$ our results for the energy
1103: practically coincide with those of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3}.
1104: The discrepancy at smaller widths seems to be more crucial.
1105: But the difference
1106: between the values in the peak and in the dip for the curve
1107: $\Delta_H E$ in Fig.~\ref{fig4}a
1108: is about 0.1 eV (3\%). This phenomena hardly can
1109: be seen experimentally and this discrepancy
1110: is in the limits of the accuracy of our model estimated above.
1111: This gives indeed a strong support to our model and we
1112: may conclude that the latter provides us with the rather accurate
1113: approximation and can be used for more complicated calculations
1114: in multilayered heterostructures.
1115:
1116: As to the shift of the electron band mass we found clear peaks
1117: for both the rectangular and the Rosen-Morse potentials
1118: (see Figs.~\ref{fig2}, \ref{fig3}). As is seen in
1119: Fig.~\ref{fig2}
1120: the effective mass shift for the polaron in the rectangular quantum well
1121: has a peak at $L \approx 20 \AA\ (x=0.3)$.
1122: Calculations show also that the larger is $x$ the smaller is the
1123: potential width corresponding to the peak.
1124: For the Rosen-Morse potential at $x_{max}=0.3$ the peaks in the
1125: effective mass occur at $2L_{RM} \approx 20 \AA$.
1126: Note, that again the authors
1127: of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3} obtained curves with peaks and dips
1128: in contrast with our results (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}b).
1129: The maximal discrepancy for the mass is about 11\% at $L \approx 3 \AA$
1130: which is beyond the region available for experiments.
1131: Our results are very close to those of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3}
1132: at $L \geq 10 \AA$ and practically coincde with them at $L \geq 20 \AA$.
1133:
1134:
1135: To compare our results with those of Ref.~\onlinecite{china}
1136: we need now another parametrization used by these authors
1137: (although they refer also to the paper by Adachi\cite{adachi}).
1138: Namely, they took a slightly different expression
1139: for the confining potential:
1140: \begin{eqnarray}
1141: V(z) = 600 \cdot (1.266 x + 0.26 x^2 )\ {\rm meV},
1142: \label{eq5.08}\end{eqnarray}
1143: which follows from the band gap of Ref.~\onlinecite{abram}.
1144: Furthermore, instead of the effective LO-phonon frequency
1145: they used the expression (\ref{eq5.02a}) for the energy of
1146: the $GaAs$-like phonons. The Fr\"ohlich coupling constant $\alpha$
1147: was calculated then using also the parametrization (\ref{eq5.01b})
1148: and (\ref{eq5.04}).
1149: Note, that these numerical calculation, as we found,
1150: can be approximated by the interpolation formula
1151: \begin{eqnarray}
1152: \alpha(z) =0.0797 + 0.0772 x + 0.0295 x^2.
1153: \label{eq5.09}\end{eqnarray}
1154: The results of the comparison are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}
1155: (we used in our calculations for this plot the same
1156: parametrization as was used in Ref.~\onlinecite{china}).
1157:
1158: The curve $\Delta_{Ch}E$ in Fig.~\ref{fig5}a
1159: for the energy shift taken from Ref.~\onlinecite{china}
1160: has also a small dip (qualitatively similar to this of
1161: Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3}). But the discrepancy between energy shifts
1162: is much more drastic in this case, and
1163: we have no explanation for this.
1164:
1165: \begin{figure}
1166: \hspace*{-0.2cm}
1167: \epsfysize=6in \epsfbox{fig05.eps}
1168: \vspace*{-4.0cm}
1169: \caption{Comparison of the results of the present paper and
1170: those of Ref.~\protect\onlinecite{china} for the rectangular potential
1171: generated by the $GaAs/Al_{0.25}Ga_{0.75}As$ heterostructure.
1172: For this plot we used the parametrization of these authors as
1173: is described in the text.}
1174: \label{fig5}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177:
1178:
1179: It is clear that
1180: at large potential width only a bulk phonon mode inside the
1181: quantum well contributes so these curves should have
1182: the same limiting value $\alpha_{in}\omega_{in}$. Numerically
1183: we found $\alpha_{in} = 0.0797$ and $\omega_{in} = 36.25$ meV,
1184: so $\alpha_{in}\omega_{in} = 2.89$ meV. Moreover, the behavior
1185: of the curves at large $L$ should be qualitatively and quantitatively
1186: the same which was the case when we compared our model
1187: with Refs.~\onlinecite{hpd2,hpd3}.
1188: In contrast with our model and the cited results by Hai, Peeters
1189: and Devreese
1190: the curve $\Delta_{Ch} E$ in Fig.~\ref{fig5}b approaches the asymptotics
1191: from below and the subsequent mechanism remains unclear.
1192: On the other hand there are some reasons why the curve have to
1193: approach its asymptotics from above. Indeed, at large potential width
1194: the particle does not feel yet the finite height of the potential,
1195: and the energy shift takes the same value as in the infinitely high
1196: potential which is a bit larger than the free polaron energy.
1197:
1198: As to the opposite limit of the small width of the confining potential,
1199: it is surprising that the asymptotic value is not reached even
1200: at $L \sim 0.3\ \AA,$ as is found in Ref.~\onlinecite{china}.
1201: Numerically we obtained $\alpha_{out} = 0.1014$ in this scheme
1202: and $\omega_{out}= 34.72$ meV, so $\alpha_{out}\omega_{out} = 3.52$ meV.
1203:
1204: Both asymptotic values coincide with what was obtained by the authors
1205: of Ref.~\onlinecite{china}.
1206: Looking at the behavior of the mass shift, we see that both curves
1207: coincide at large widths as it should be. At widths smaller than 100 \AA\
1208: the discrepancy becomes evident. But we may conclude that
1209: something is wrong with the numerical job
1210: of Ref.~\onlinecite{china} because their curve approaches the wrong
1211: limit at $L \to 0$. Indeed, in this limit
1212: the asymptotical value of the plotted ratio should
1213: be equal to $\alpha_{out}m_{out}/ \alpha_{in}m_{in}$.
1214: As it follows from our analysis of the energy shift,
1215: we obtained the same values for the Fr\"ohlich coupling constants.
1216: The values for the band masses follow from Eq.~(\ref{eq5.01b}):
1217: $m_{in} = 0.0665m_e$ and $m_{out} = 0.0874m_e$ at $x=0.25$.
1218: Then, the asymptotical value of the plotted ratio should be equal
1219: to $1.67$, instead of 1.83 what was found in Ref.~\onlinecite{china}
1220: That is, the discrepancy is about 10\% in this limit and we cannot explain
1221: its origin as well.
1222:
1223: It would be highly desirable to include a comparison of our
1224: results and the results by other authors
1225: with corresponding experiments. To the best of our
1226: knowledge, no such experiments do exist at the moment.
1227:
1228: \section{Conclusions}
1229:
1230: To conclude, we suggested an approximate
1231: model to describe a multilayered
1232: $GaAs/Al_x Ga_{1-x} As$ heterostructure as an effective medium
1233: with one (bulk) phonon mode.
1234: The fundamental entity is the confining
1235: potential generated by these layers which we take into account
1236: explicitly. Then we calculate the mean characteristics of the electron
1237: in the effective medium (such as its band mass, phonon frequencies etc.)
1238: which depend on the form of the confining potential.
1239: With these parameters
1240: we calculated the energy and the effective mass of a polaron
1241: confined to a quasi-2D quantum well $GaAs/Al_x Ga_{1-x} As$
1242: for different $AlAs$ mole fractions. The calculations include
1243: the full energy spectrum as intermediate states.
1244: Peaks are found for the effective mass at some potential widths while
1245: the energy demonstrates rather monotonous behavior between
1246: the correct 3D-limits. Finally, some discrepancies
1247: in the interpolation formulae for the experimental results are discussed
1248: as well as discrepancies with the previously obtained
1249: theoretical results. We demonstrated that our model gives practically
1250: the same (or very close) results
1251: as the explicit calculations of Ref.~\onlinecite{hpd3}
1252: for potential widths $L \geq 10 \AA$.
1253:
1254: \acknowledgments
1255: We thank J.~T. Devreese, V.\ N. Gladilin, G.\ Q. Hai, H. Leschke, V.~M. Fomin,
1256: F.~M.~Peeters, E.~P. Pokatilov, and J.~W\"usthoff
1257: for useful discussions and valuable remarks and advices.
1258: Special thanks
1259: are to the authors of the paper \cite{hpd3}
1260: for making their results available to us prior to publication
1261: and to the authors of the paper \cite{china}
1262: who kindly provided us with their data-files.
1263:
1264: M.O.D. and M.A.S. are grateful to Dortmund University
1265: for the kind hospitality during their visits to Germany.
1266: Financial support of the Heisenberg-Landau
1267: program (Germany-JINR collaboration in theoretical physics)
1268: and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Graduiertenkolleg GKP 50/2)
1269: is gratefully acknowledged.
1270:
1271:
1272: \begin{references}
1273: \bibitem[*]{x1} Electronic mail: smond@thsun1.jinr.dubna.su
1274: \bibitem[\dag]{x2} Current address:
1275: National High Magnetic Field Laboratory,
1276: Florida State University,
1277: Tallahassee, Florida, 32304, USA.
1278: \bibitem{sarma} S. Das Sarma and B. A. Mason. Ann. Phys. {\bf 163}, 78 (1985).
1279: \bibitem{pwd} F. M. Peeters, X. Wu, and J. T. Devreese.
1280: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 31}, 3420 (1985); {\bf 33}, 3926 (1986)
1281: \bibitem{selugin} O. V. Seljugin and M. A. Smondyrev. Physica A {\bf 142}, 555 (1987).
1282: \bibitem{sarma2} S. Das Sarma.
1283: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 2590 (1983).
1284: \bibitem{sarma3} S. Das Sarma and M. Stopa.
1285: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 9595 (1987).
1286: \bibitem{firsov} V. V. Bryskin and Yu. A. Firsov. Fiz. Tverd. Tela
1287: {\bf 13}, 496 (1971) [Sov. Phys.---Solid State].
1288: \bibitem{evrard} J. J. Licari and R. Evrard. Phys. Rev. B {\bf 15}, 2254 (1977).
1289: \bibitem{fomin} V. M. Fomin and E. P. Pokatilov. phys. stat. sol. (b)
1290: {\bf 132}, 69 (1985).
1291: \bibitem{wendler1} L. Wendler and R. Pechsted. phys. stat. sol. (b)
1292: {\bf 138}, 196 (1986); {\bf 141}, 129 (1987).
1293: \bibitem{wendler2} L. Wendler and R. Haupt.
1294: phys. stat. sol. (b) {\bf 143}, 487 (1987).
1295: \bibitem {pfb} E. P. Pokatilov, V. M. Fomin, and S. I. Beril. {\em Vibrational
1296: excitations, polarons and excitons in multi-layer systems and superlattices}
1297: (Shtiintsa, Kishinev, 1990).
1298: \bibitem{fomin2} V. M. Fomin and E. P. Pokatilov. In: {\em ``Formation of
1299: Semiconductor Interfaces''}. Proc. of the 4th International Conference.
1300: Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
1301: 14-18 June, 1993. --- Singapore: World Scientific, 1994, pp. 704 - 707.
1302: \bibitem{fomin3} S.N. Klimin, E.P. Pokatilov, and V.M. Fomin,
1303: phys. stat. sol. (b), {\bf 190}, 441 (1995).
1304: \bibitem{licari} J. J. Licari. Solid State. Commun. {\bf 29}, 625 (1979).
1305: \bibitem{liang} X. X. Liang, S. W. Gu, and D. L. Lin. Phys. Rev. B {\bf 34},
1306: 2807 (1986).
1307: \bibitem{cosmas} F. Cosmas, C. Trallero-Giner, and R. Riera.
1308: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39}, 5907 (1989).
1309: \bibitem{degani} M. H. Degani and O. Hip\'olito. Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35}, 7717 (1989).
1310: %%%\bibitem{hpd} G. Q. Hai, F. M. Peeters, and J. T. Devreese. Phys. Rev. B
1311: %%% {\bf 42}, 11063 (1990).
1312: \bibitem{hpd2} G. Q. Hai, F. M. Peeters, and J. T. Devreese. Phys. Rev. B
1313: {\bf 48}, 4666 (1993).
1314: \bibitem{hpd3} G. Q. Hai, F. M. Peeters, and J. T. Devreese.
1315: Private communication (May 2000).
1316: \bibitem{china} J.~J. Shi, X.~Q. Zhu, Z.~X. Liu, S.~H. Pan, and X.~Y. Li.
1317: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 4670 (1997).
1318: \bibitem{kleinert} H. Kleinert and I. Mustapi\'c. J. Math. Phys. {\bf 33}, 643 (1992).
1319: \bibitem{flm} W. Fischer, H. Leschke, and P. M\"uller. In:
1320: {\em ``Path Integrals from meV to MeV: Tutzing '92''}, ed. H. Grabert, A. Inomata,
1321: L. S. Schulman, U. Weiss (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993), p. 259;
1322: Ann. Phys. {\bf 227}, 206 (1993).
1323: \bibitem{adachi} S. Adachi. J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 58}, R1 (1985).
1324: \bibitem{kim} O.~K. Kim and W.~G. Spitzer. J. Appl. Phys., {\bf 50}, 4362 (1979).
1325: \bibitem{strzal} I. Strzalkowski, S. Joshi, and C. R. Crowell,
1326: Appl. Phys. Lett., {\bf 28}, 350 (1976).
1327: \bibitem{karth} E. Kartheuser. In: {\em ``Polarons in Ionic Crystals
1328: and Polar Semiconductors''}, ed. J.~T.~Devreese, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1972;
1329: pp. 717-733.
1330: \bibitem{samara} G.A. Samara, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 3494 (1983).
1331: \bibitem{fern} R. E. Fern and A. Otton, J. Appl. Phys., {\bf 42}, 3499 (1971).
1332: \bibitem{lee} H.~J. Lee at al. Phys. Rev. B {\bf 21}, 659 (1980).
1333: \bibitem{abram} M.A. Afromowitz, Solide State Comm. {\bf 15}, 59 (1974).
1334: \end{references}
1335:
1336: \end{document}
1337: #!/bin/csh -f
1338: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1339: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1340: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
1341: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., qwpol.uu
1342: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1343: # then say csh qwpol.uu
1344: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1345: # uudecode qwpol.uu ; uncompress qwpol.tar.Z ;
1346: # tar -xvf qwpol.tar
1347: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1348: # filename in "begin" line below to qwpol.tar_Z , then execute
1349: # uudecode qwpol.uu
1350: # compress -d qwpol.tar_Z
1351: # tar -xvf qwpol.tar
1352: #
1353: uudecode $0
1354: chmod 644 qwpol.tar.Z
1355: zcat qwpol.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1356: rm $0 qwpol.tar.Z
1357: exit
1358:
1359: