I am not sure what you mean. In the spectra, you would get 3 peaks, a main one and 2 secondary (with amplitudes half of the main one), which are stationary (in terms of position and amplitude). This is assuming the laser is on resonance (this is a Mollow triplet). So I am not sure I understand...
Hello! Can someone explain to me in an intuitive way (or a nice mathematical demonstration) or point me towards some accessible papers about the AC Stark effect (Autler-Townes effect)? I am mainly confused by how can one start from a 2 level system (consider a 2 level system for simplicity) add...
@vanhees71 I have one more questions about this topic. I see that in all the papers I read (see e.g. the Appendix of this) they start with the normal Hamiltonian that one would write down assuming a nuclear EDM, which is:
$$H = \sum_i{(K_i+V_i+e\phi(r_i)-eE_0r_i)}-dE_0$$ where the sum is over...
Thank you again for the reply. I know that in reality the nucleus is not a point like object, but isn't this precisely the assumption we are making in this derivation, that IT IS a point object? Isn't this the core reason as to why we are getting the delta function, because we are assuming that...
I am really sorry for being so dumb, but I am still a bit confused. In this formula: $$\rho_{\ell,m}=\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 r' r^{\prime \ell} \text{Y}_{lm}^*(\vartheta',\varphi') \rho(\vec{r}')$$
what is ##r'## referring to and what is the integration volume? I would normally assume that the...
Thank you for this (and sorry for the late reply)! So in this derivation if we take the limit ##r_{<} \to 0## we would get the results we got originally? However, I am still confused by this statement: "It's just that you approximate the charge distribution entirely as a point-like object"...
I came across the Schiff theorem and I am a bit confused about cases in which it doesn't apply. The statement for the theorem I found in all the papers/slides I read is of the form: "For a non relativistic system made up of point, charged particles which interact electrostatically with each...
Ohhh I see! Thank you so much! So this has nothing to do with QM, atomic physics, EDM etc. That Schiff term is supposed to be there (and it arises naturally) in classical EM, too. The reason why it is ignored and I didn't notice it, is that it is zero anywhere except at the origin but in...
Right! To be honest I didn't do the math of it yet (trusted them with the separation of terms). Could it be that in classical EM books they just, somehow, keep the reducible tensor, without doing this separation (I should also go back in more details in my EM derivation, too). Please let me know...
Exactly! This is my confusion. So did Vanadium 50 answer help you understand? Could you explain it to me in more details? I am not sure I see how the fact that we have an atom matter (assuming d=0)?
I am not sure why the fact that we have atoms or not matters. As I said my confusions starts from ##\rho(r)##. I could have just posted this question (even in the classical mechanics forum) from the beginning by writing down equations 1-5 in the original paper (with d=0), without mentioning...
Thank you for this! So I read a bit more about it and I actually realized that I am confused about the point 2. i.e. finite size effects. In the Schiff original paper, when he writes down the Hamiltonian of the system, equation 1, he uses ##\rho(r)## to describe the nuclear charge density (and a...
Thank you for your reply. I am a bit confused about this statement: "Only with the additional term involving a possible electric dipole moment of the nucleus you get such P- and T-odd contributions, and that's calculated in detail in Eqs. (1)-(5)." If I don't missunderstand it, they state in the...
I looked at that reference. That is the derivation as to why one can't see the EDM of a nucleus (in the case of a point like nucleus). But my questions is purely classical, and it has to do only with the derivation between equations 1 and 5. It seems like the term in equation 5 appears naturally...
A: Sorry, it seems like the PRL link is not working. I replaced it with the arXiv one.
B: It is not high energy physics. The paper I mentioned above is a nuclear physics paper, so I assumed this is the best place to post the question. I am not sure where it would fit better.
Hello! I just found out about the Schiff moment. This is the paper where I encountered it, equations 3 and 4. The paper covers other things, too, that are not related to my question.
The main question I have is that, it seems like the derivation from equation 1 to 4 is purely classical (one can...
Hello! I am a bit confused about the mechanism behind the Pauli exclusion principle. From what I read, it is motivated based on QFT arguments (for example if you don't impose antisymmetry of the fermionic wavefunction you get non-locality, or infinitely negative energies etc.) so mathematically...