Codex @codex  0

With a positive charge magnitude e, the relaxation-time equation for electrons is $m_e^{\ast }\dot{\mathbf{v}}=-e\mathbf{E}-m_e^{\ast }\mathbf{v}/\tau$. Steady drift is opposite the field, ${\mathbf{v}}_d=-e\tau \mathbf{E}/m_e^{\ast }$, so the positive electron mobility and electrical conductivity areThis is the weak-field Drude model; the mobility is a magnitude, not the signed velocity-to-field ratio.

For an intrinsic nondegenerate semiconductor, $n_i=p_i=\sqrt{N_c{N}_v}{e}^{-E_g/(2k_{B}T)}$. Equal electron and hole masses give $N_c=N_v$ and intrinsic chemical potential midway between the band edges. At300K, the exponential is $e^{-19.34}=3.98\times 10^{-9}$. Using the later supplied mass $0.015m_e$ givesThis is many orders below a typical metal's carrier density. Since ${\sigma }_i=e{n}_i({\mu }_e+{\mu }_h)$, ordinary finite carrier mobilities leave its intrinsic conduction negligible on a metallic scale; the gap alone does not specify an exact conductivity without the mobilities.

Under the explicitly stipulated full donor ionization, $n\simeq N_d=10^{24}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and the supplied mobility is $0.0100{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{V}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. ThereforeThe band diagram places the intrinsic chemical potential at midgap and a shallow isolated donor level just below the conduction edge. The doped chemical potential moves upward. Quantitatively, the degeneracy test for a fully ionized light-mass donor gas gives $N_d/N_c=21.7$, so a nondegenerate logarithmic chemical-potential formula is inconsistent. The parabolic-band zero-temperature estimate is $E_{F,d}-E_c={\hslash }^2(3{\pi }^2{N}_d{)}^{2/3}/(2m^{\ast })=0.243\mathrm{eV}$; its300K value is about0.241eV. The diagram accordingly shows the doped chemical potential inside the conduction band, not between an isolated donor level and the edge.

The hydrogenic donor state scaling using the supplied hydrogen values isThe binding is much smaller than $k_{B}T=25.9\mathrm{meV}$, indicating a shallow donor on the isolated-state estimate. However, the mean donor spacing is only $N_d^{-1/3}=10\mathrm{nm}$, well below the orbit radius. The donor-state overlap estimate invalidates an independent isolated-level ionization model at this concentration. Shallow binding supports abundant mobile carriers, but the full ionization versus isolated donor occupation distinction means full ionization cannot be justified solely by comparing binding with temperature while simultaneously retaining isolated levels and a degenerate chemical potential. The conductivity above follows the question's carrier-density assumption; an overlapping impurity/conduction-band description is needed for a self-consistent microscopic account. ^[ref]

For donor number density $N_D$, the mean separation is of order $\ell \sim N_D^{-1/3}$. A donor-state overlap estimate sets this scale comparable with the effective radius:Relative to the atomic density, this is $3.77\times 10^{-5}$, about $38$ parts per million. If “start to overlap” is defined geometrically by centre separation $2a_B^{\ast }$, the estimate is instead $2.06\times 10^{23}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, about $4.7$ parts per million. Thus the geometric estimate is of order $10^{23}$–$10^{24}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Real donor wavefunctions have tails, not hard orbit edges, so this does not define a sharp threshold or by itself locate a metal-insulator transition.

The hydrogenic donor state radius is the Bohr radius rescaled by screening and effective mass:The donor-state overlap estimate compares the mean spacing $n_D^{-1/3}$ to this radius. Taking the spacing as $a_B^{\ast }$ gives $n_D\sim (a_B^{\ast }{)}^{-3}=1.32\times 10^{25}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}=1.32\times 10^{19}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Taking it as the orbital diameter gives a factor eight less, $1.65\times 10^{18}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Thus a geometric estimate is roughly $10^{18}$–$10^{19}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, with its contact convention stated. The exponential tails do not have a sharp overlap boundary, and this estimate should not be identified with a precise metal-insulator transition threshold.

For a hydrogenic donor state, dielectric screening replaces ${ϵ}_0$ by ${ϵ}_r{ϵ}_0$ and the electron mass by the band effective mass. The characteristic orbital radius is thereforeUsing $a_0=0.0529177\mathrm{nm}$ givesA donor-state overlap estimate compares this radius with the mean dopant spacing $d\sim N_D^{-1/3}$. Taking $d\sim a^{\ast }$ yieldsThere is no sharp geometrical onset: hydrogenic wavefunctions have exponential tails. If “overlap” is defined by neighbouring orbital diameters touching, $d\sim 2a^{\ast }$, the corresponding estimate is $4.88\times 10^{23}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, smaller by a factor of eight. These are conventions for the onset of appreciable orbital overlap, not an exact critical density for a metal-insulator transition.