We study the problem of an electron and a hole interacting with each other and with longitudinal optical phonons. Our method consists of examining the poles of the t matrix for dressed-particle-hole scattering due to the Coulomb interaction and the exchange of phonons. This approach is carried out in the two limits: (i) EBω₀ and (ii) EBω₀, where EB is the binding energy of the exciton state formed and ω₀ is the optical phonon energy. In both cases, we have an effective-mass equation for the electron-hole pair with the same form of nonlocal potential: however, in case (i) the self-energies occurring are polaron self-energies, while in case (ii) the self-energies are eliminated. We find that the first corrections in both limits are more important for the self-energy than for the interaction potential. We make the ansatz that this is true for arbitrary values of EBω₀ so that the potential is left unaltered, but the self-energy scales with the parameter EBω₀. The calculated binding energies obtained from this procedure are in excellent agreement with the measured binding energy of excitons in a variety of ionic semiconductors. The effective nonlocal potential we obtain satisfies the physical requirements of going asymptotically to (ε₀r)^-1, where ε₀ is the static dielectric constant, for rpolaronradius and EBω₀1, and to (ε_∞r)^-1, where ε_∞ is the high-frequency dielectric constant for rpolaronradius, and EBω₀1. The first corrections go as r^-2. We discuss in detail the form of the potential and its nonlocality, etc., as the parameters EBω₀, ε_∞ε₀, and mₑmₕ (ratio of electron mass to hole mass) vary. We define EB^' as the energy to separate to infinity the electron and the hole without altering the self-energy they have in the bound state. For appreciable electron-phonon coupling strength, EB^' and EB differ considerably. The exciton radius and the oscillator strength is to be estimated from EB^'. For TlCl, the actual exciton radius is estimated to be about three times smaller than one might estimate from EB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahanti et al. (1972) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: