Talk:Mott transition

Think, there is a mistake within the following sentence as given in the article on Mott transition:

It has been observed that higher dopant concentrations in a semiconductor creates internal stresses that increase the free energy (acting as a change in pressure) of the system,[2] thus reducing the ionization energy as shown in the figure below (www.ecse.rpi.edu):

A strange link is given and no picture is shown on the article. Did someone copy this sentence without checking from another page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.39.252 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Porridge

The section "Conceptual explanation" is confusing. It veers between all kinds of transitions, distinctions, and explanations, but doesn't integrate them into a coherent narrative.

Are they all the Mott transition? Are they being contrasted with the Mott transition? What the relationships? Hard to tell from the fragments presented here. Need to read a book.

1) First paragraph: There is a description of a temperature-induced transition in a semiconductor. Is this a Mott transition?

2) Second paragraph: An explanation is given for high-temperature conduction in n- (p-) type semiconductors, and contrasted with a Mott transition.

Are these n- (p-) semiconductors the same as the semiconductors in the first paragraph, or a subset? Is the mechanism for the n- (p-) semiconductors given in this paragraph supposed to be the same as the mechanism in the previous paragraph, just described differently?

Does a Mott transition occur in semiconductors? Only in semiconductors? Is a Mott transition another way the temperature transition of the first paragraph can occur, alternative to the n- (p-) semiconductors of the first half of the paragraph? Or is it an alternative to the first paragraph?

3) Third paragraph: "Simply put, a Mott Transition is a change in a material's behavior from insulating to metallic due to various factors."

But we just characterized a Mott transition in the previous paragraph. Are we defining it again? Isn't "various factors" a step backward (into vagueness) after the characterization in terms of a band structure change in the previous paragraph?

4) Third/fourth paragraph:

"the origin of this behavior is correlations between electrons and the close relationship this phenomenon has to magnetism"

"The physical origin of the Mott transition is the interplay between the Coulomb repulsion of electrons and their degree of localization (band width)."

These two statements seems to be competing for the same space, and they're vague to boot.

Why is "degree of localization" being presented as synonymous with "band width"?

5) Fourth paragraph:

"Once the carrier density becomes too high (e.g. due to doping), the energy of the system can be lowered by the localization of the formerly conducting electrons (band width reduction), leading to the formation of a band gap, e.g. by pressure (i.e. a semiconductor/insulator)."

Is "localization of the formerly conducting electrons" synonymous with "band width reduction" or is there some other relationship, such as causation or reinterpretation? The parenthesis avoids making the relationship explicit.

Is the process happening by pressure, or by doping? Both? If these are alternative causations, shouldn't they be placed next to each other, using "or"?

What does this mean: "(i.e. a semiconductor/insulator)"? Is it both? Again, the parenthesis is a lazy way of trotting out vocabulary without stating relationships.

6) Fifth and sixth paragraphs: These also seem to be all over the place.

7) Eighth paragraph:

"Other examples of metal–insulator transition include:"

Are these alternatives to the Mott transition or examples of it? If the former, why is a Mott transition included, as the last item?

In any case, the list looks like a potpourri of random facts and chemicals. Maybe eliminate the explanations and just gives links to the articles, if they exist.

The article is a mishmash of different explanations, claims, and properties. The relationships are not made clear. In the end, there is no clear definition of a Mott transition. It needs to be rewritten.

2001:171B:2274:7C21:EC3D:A24B:2DC0:8C22 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)