Hello.

 

I am at my U.G in electronics, and i have come across a disturbing scene in which i am to consider holes as particles, ie contained mass.

Could someone please explain this....in a language more soothing to a novice student of electronics, is warmly welcomed

nah just keep thinking of it as a gap that can move. it won't matter and the equations still come out the same

That's very nice. But I want to take it a little bit more seriously:-)...

As a matter of fact, that very statement you made, seems to scare me a bit...how is it that a void is treated as a particle of mass, equivalent more or less, to that of an electron.

I once heard that in the process of formation of the void, some amount of energy is released, which in turm is converted to/treated as a mass...could you elucidate a bit on that please...

It is similar to the problem of describing the bahevior of a bubble in water. Do you explain the motion of all of that water, or do you explain the behavior of the small volume that is void of water?

I understand that the motion of the void is analogous to that of a bubble in water, as in the void goes to place of previous occupation of the occupant of the void, so to say.

But the fact that the void then deserves a mass, is still incomprehendible to me.

Could you explain a bit more?

I understand that the motion of the void is analogous to that of a bubble in water' date=' as in the void goes to place of previous occupation of the occupant of the void, so to say.

But the fact that the void then deserves a mass, is still incomprehendible to me.

Could you explain a bit more?[/quote']

 

Using that analogy, if the fluid is massive and viscous, the bubble will look like it has mass when viewed under some idealized circumstances. Similarly, electrons and the matrix of atoms that make up the semiconductor are not entirely free to flow, so a hole moving will look like it has mass.

I donot understand how, under 'idealised conditions', it can be viewed to have a mass.I thought it is supposed to have mass all the time:-)as long as it is a hole.

But in the atom model, as electron jumps from its orbital in the valence band to some other position, which may be in the conduction or in the valence band itself, the emptiness in the orbital is given a mass, even though the emptiness is spread across the boundaries of the orbital, i.e its position isnt very deterministic, we still give the 'void', a point mass and charge.

Should it not be, perhaps like, no electron=>no mass;no electron=> + charge since atom is neutral and maintains neutrality by maintaining a probabilistic positive charge within the boundaries of the given orbital?

Perhaps treating it as a point mass/charge just helps in solving equations, without jeopardising other optimisations.

Or am i wrong?Is it in reality still a point object?

Please share your knowledge.

"idealized conditions" are whatever is incorporated in the model.

 

Here's the Wikipedia article.

 

Or perhaps Britney can help.

thank you