Relation between decay rate (lifetime) and spectral width

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the decay rate (or lifetime) of atomic levels and the spectral width of transitions to these levels. Participants explore the nature of the natural lineshape, particularly why it is Lorentzian, and seek a deeper understanding beyond common explanations like Fermi's golden rule and time-energy uncertainty.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Chen seeks a clearer understanding of how the lifetime of an atomic level influences the spectral width and why the natural lineshape is Lorentzian.
  • Some participants question the vagueness of Fermi's golden rule and suggest alternative calculations or explanations, including Quantum Field Theory.
  • One participant presents a derivation involving the time-dependent wavefunction and Fourier transform, asserting that the energy spectrum exhibits a Lorentzian shape.
  • Others express a desire for more intuitive explanations, discussing concepts like pressure broadening and Doppler broadening in relation to natural linewidth.
  • A participant introduces the idea of poles in the S-matrix element in complex energy space as a means to explain the Lorentzian shape and the relationship between width and lifetime.
  • Another participant emphasizes the connection between the uncertainty principle and the spectral width, suggesting that this principle is not exclusive to quantum mechanics.
  • Discussion includes a consideration of hybridized states and their spectral functions, leading to a Lorentzian shape due to damping in the time domain.
  • Questions are raised about the definition of "natural" lineshape and its comparison to classical systems like LC circuits or antennas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and intuitiveness of various explanations. There is no consensus on a singular explanation for the relationship between decay rate and spectral width, nor on the nature of the natural lineshape.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the case of atomic levels is complex and may require advanced concepts from quantum field theory. The discussion also touches on the limitations of intuitive understanding in quantum mechanics and the need for familiarity with mathematical tools like Fourier transforms.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in physics, particularly those focused on quantum mechanics, atomic physics, and spectroscopy.

Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I am trying to understand exactly how and why the lifetime, or decay rate, of an atomic level determines the spectral width of the transition to this level. Also I would like to understand why the natural lineshape is a Lorentzian. I am familiar with the vague explanations involving Fermi's golden rule and time-energy uncertainty, but I am looking for a more convincing description.

Thanks,
Chen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
why is Fermis Golden rule vauge? Do you want a Quantum Field Theory calculation or what?
 
Well, doesn't it give the wrong result for the lineshape (sinc and not Lorentzian)?
 
ok I give you a quick derivation then:

the time-dependent excited state wavefunction, with lifetime tau and energy E_f:

[tex]\Psi _f (\vec{r},t) = \Psi _f (\vec{r},0)\exp (-iE_f(t/\hbar) - t/\tau)[/tex]

Fourier transform:

[tex]\Psi _f (\vec{r},0)\exp (-iE_f(t/\hbar) - t/\tau) = \int \frac{\hbar / \tau }{ (E_f-E)^2 + (\hbar/\tau)^2}e^{-iE_f(t/\hbar)}dE[/tex]

thus the energy spectrum has a Lorentzian shape
 
Thanks, although that's not derived from Fermi's golden rule is it...

I was hoping for a more intuitive explanation. Pressure broadening stems from enhanced stimulated emission, doppler broadening is obvious... where does the natural linewidth comes from?
 
Not it is not, just basic QM.

What is intuitive and not is relative, this is going from time to Energy, why is not a good old Fourier transform intuitive enough? It was you who wanted the real explanation, well here it is... it is just basic QM, it comes from the formalism itself -> Energy (the Hamiltonian) is the generator of Time evolution.

The intuition must be within the realm where the physics is taking place, this is quantum physics, one must therefore develop intuition for Fourier transforms etc.
 
Ok. Maybe someone else can provide a different explanation.
 
Chen said:
Ok. Maybe someone else can provide a different explanation.

what do you want? The real deal or a fairy tale? Why is intuition always linked to classical physics? I mean, I think it is good that you did not accept the Energy-Time uncertainty relation, because that is such fairytale. The most convincing explanation must be the correct one, don't you think?

(I am very interested in how physics students think of and reason around QM, that is why I ask these questions)
 
If I knew what I wanted to hear I wouldn't need to ask you for it.

Can you please give others a chance to answer my question as well? I thank you for your answer but I want to hear other possible answers.
 
  • #10
You asked "exactly how and why the lifetime, or decay rate, of an atomic level determines the spectral width of the transition to this level" and "Also I would like to understand why the natural lineshape is a Lorentzian." You called Fermi golden rule and E-t uncertainty relation VAUGE, and you are saying that the explanation I gave you was not "intuitive", clearly I should ask what is wrong?
 
  • #11
Ask an electrical engineer about the Fourier transform from the time domain to the frequency domain. If you have a limited time dt sample of a line frequency w (=2 pi f), the measured linewidth is dw. In particular, dt dw ~=1. Now multiply both sides by h-bar (Planck's constant) and get dE dt ~= h-bar.. So the uncertainty principle is not unique to quantum mechanics.
 
  • #12
The case of an atomic level is quite complicated, because it requires quantum field theory for the emitted photon. Much easier is potential scattering with a resonance. This is discussed in most textbooks (eg, Merzbacher). The atomic-level case is essentially the same; we can think of the decay as a scattering process that starts with the atom in an unstable state, and ends with the atom in a stable state (or perhaps a different unstable state) plus an emitted photon. Then there is a pole in the S-matrix element in the complex energy plane near the real axis; this is what fixes both the Lorentzian line shape and the relation between width and lifetime. Again, this is explained for potential scattering in most QM textbooks.
 
  • #13
I know nothing about quantum mechanics but even a passing knowledge of Fourier transforms makes it obvious that the shorter the transition the wider the line width.
 
  • #14
Avodyne answered the question I gave you in my first post "Do you want a Quantum Field Theory calculation or what? " But you did not answered it ;-)

Now when you have got more replies, you have to ask yourself what is the most intuitive one:
i) Spectral width vs. time due to the energy-time relation which makes it possible to perform Fourier transforms.
ii) Poles in the complex energy plane in the transition S-matrix =D
 
  • #15
I do not know if this is of any help, but I would simply think of a two-level system. Let the energies of the levels are [tex]\epsilon_1[/tex] and [tex]\epsilon_1[/tex]. Without any hybridization, the spectral function for the first level is simply
[tex]A(1,\omega) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \textrm{Im} G_{11}^R \propto \delta (\omega-\epsilon_1)[/tex].
For hybridized states one gets
[tex]G_{11}^R (\omega) = (\omega + i \eta - \epsilon_1 - \frac{|t|^2}{\omega + i \eta - \epsilon_2})^{-1} \approx (\omega + i \eta - \epsilon_1 + i \Gamma/2)^{-1}[/tex].
This leads to the spectral function of Lorentzian shape:
[tex]A(1,\omega) \propto \frac{\Gamma}{(\omega-\epsilon_1)^2+(\Gamma/2)^2}[/tex].
Usually the real part of the self-energy is absorbed into the energy and the imaginary part is responsible for broadening (in this case the broadening may not be weakly energy-dependent, of course). Broadening is also reflected in the fact that the pole of the Green's function is at [tex]z=\epsilon_1 - i\Gamma/2[/tex], away from the real axis. The imaginary part then gives a finite life-time (damping) in time domain, i.e. [tex]\tau = (\Gamma/2)^{-1}[/tex].
 
  • #16
Chen said:
...Also I would like to understand why the natural lineshape is a Lorentzian...

Thanks,
Chen

1. I have to ask if you understand why the lineshape is lorentzian for a classical LC circuit or an ordinary antenna? If so, then your question might be rephrased: why should we expect the physics of the atom to be similar to these classical cases? This is something we could discuss further.

2. I would also like someone to present a working definition of what we mean by "natural" lineshape. There is obviously a "practical" lineshape you could measure by doing spectroscopy on a sample of hot glowing gasses, but this surely not what we are talking about here?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K