Identical atoms in the Dicke model

  • Thread starter Thread starter lfqm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Model
lfqm
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Hey guys, I've recently read about the Tavis-Cummings and Dicke models and I got a little bit confused about them. They are suppoused to model N identical atoms interacting with a one-mode EM field, however the atomic operators are defined in the basis (for the case of two atoms):

\left\{{|e_{1},e_{2}>, |e_{1},g_{2}>, |g_{1},e_{2}>, |g_{1},g_{2}>}\right\}

which obviously makes a distinction between the atoms.
Then it gets even more confusing, as they start working in a spin basis \left\{{|j,m>}\right\} which makes the atoms identical for the case j=N/2... I don't even undestand why they fix j=N/2

Concretely, my question is: What is the basis of the hilbert space the Dicke hamiltonian is acting on (the atomic part)?

The 2^N elements basis (distinguishable atoms), the \displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{N/2}(2j+1) elements basis (considering all spin values) or the N+1 elements basis (fixing j=N/2).

And what is the form of the atomic operators in this basis?

Thanks :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Haris
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think I can answer your question (I am not even sure I understand it).

However, the Dicke model deals with pseudo-spins, i.e. collective excitation of an ensemble of spin 1/2 systems. The N/2 factor comes from re-writing the sums over N spins as collective pseudo-spins (the collective angular momentum). You basically re-write it so that you end up with a Hamiltonian with no sums in it, even though you are dealing with an ensemble; i.e. the basis would certainly be of the size N/2 since that is the size of representations of the pseuo-spin operators.

Note that for all systems I can think of the atoms are identical from an "EM" point of view in that they have the same energy splitting and (ideally) the same coupling to the field mode of interest; But this does not imply that they are indistinguishable, they would certainly be separated spatially. There has also been quite a bit work done looking at generalized models, i.e. what happens if the coupling is non-uniform etc. which means you can waves and so on.

A typical experimental realization of the Dicke model would be an ensemble of e.g. ions in a high-Q cavity. The ions are tuned (using for example a Zeeman shift) so that they behave like spin 1/2 systems (i.e. simple two-level systems) and have energies resonant with the cavity frequency.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top