Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026

Resonance Fluorescence of an InGaAs Quantum Dot in a Planar Cavity Using Orthogonal Excitation and Detection
Published on: October 13, 2017
Exciton transfer in quantum dot arrays: comparison of eigenbasis and site basis representations
Yoji Kubota1, Katsuyuki Nobusada
1Department of Theoretical and Computational Molecular Science, Institute for Molecular Science, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444-8585, Japan.
Abstract:
We discuss differences between eigenbasis and site basis representations for models of exciton transfers in an array of quantum dots. The exciton relaxation processes are well described by the master equation in the eigenbasis representation. The site basis evolution equation up to the second order of the interdot interaction is straightforwardly derived from the eigenbasis equation by using perturbation theory when the interaction is sufficiently small compared to the energy difference between the exciton states in each quantum dot. Although the higher order site basis equations can be derived similarly, the resultant equations are too complicated to use in the actual calculations. The master equation in the eigenbasis representation has several advantages over the site basis one: (i) the system described in terms of the eigenbasis representation can evolve into thermal equilibrium because the equation satisfies the detailed balance, (ii) the site basis equation does not reasonably describe the exciton state trapped in a local energy minimum at very low temperature, and (iii) it is computationally less demanding to carry out the eigenbasis evolution equation.
Related Concept Videos
The Quantum-Mechanical Model of an Atom
Interpreting ¹H NMR Signal Splitting: The (n + 1) Rule
The Pauli Exclusion Principle
Quantum Numbers
Atomic Nuclei: Nuclear Spin State Overview
Crystal Field Theory - Tetrahedral and Square Planar Complexes
Crystal field theory (CFT) is applicable to molecules in geometries other than octahedral. In octahedral complexes, the lobes of the dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals point directly at the ligands. For tetrahedral complexes, the d orbitals remain in place, but with only four ligands located between the axes. None of the orbitals points directly at the tetrahedral ligands. However, the dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals (along the Cartesian axes) overlap with the ligands less than the dxy,...

