A Adiabatic theorem for a 3 level system

Click For Summary
In a 3-level quantum system with energy levels E1, E2, and E3, the discussion explores the applicability of the adiabatic approximation when the energy splitting between levels satisfies the condition ω12 << ωP << ω23. The user questions whether the coupling term f12(t) can be ignored due to the slow dynamics of the first two levels compared to the perturbation frequency ωP. They propose a simplified Hamiltonian that eliminates f12(t) while retaining f23(t) and f13(t). The conversation acknowledges that while this approach may overlook some transitions from level 1 to level 3 via level 2, it is a valid approximation for certain scenarios. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this approximation depends on the specific dynamics and interactions within the system.
Malamala
Messages
348
Reaction score
28
Hello! If I have a 2 level system, with the energy splitting between the 2 levels ##\omega_{12}## and an external perturbation characterized by a frequency ##\omega_P##, if ##\omega_{12}>>\omega_P## I can use the adiabatic approximation, and assume that the initial state of the system changes slowly in time while for ##\omega_{12}<<\omega_P## I can assume that the perturbation doesn't have any effect on the system (it averages out over the relevant time scales). I was wondering if I have a 3 level system with ##E_1<E_2<E_3## such that ##\omega_{12}<<\omega_P<<\omega_{23}##. In general, the Hamiltonian of the system would look like this:

$$
\begin{pmatrix}
E_1 & f_{12}(t) & f_{13}(t) \\
f_{12}^*(t) & E_2 & f_{23}(t) \\
f_{13}^*(t) & f_{23}^*(t) & E_3
\end{pmatrix}
$$

But using the intuition from the 2 level system case, can I ignore ##f_{12}(t)##, as the system of these 2 levels (1 and 2) moves on time scales much slower than ##\omega_P##, and assume that ##f_{23}(t)## and ##f_{13}(t)## move very slow and thus use the adiabatic approximation? In practice I would basically have:

$$
\begin{pmatrix}
E_1 & 0 & f_{13}(t) \\
0 & E_2 & f_{23}(t) \\
f_{13}^*(t) & f_{23}^*(t) & E_3
\end{pmatrix}
$$

Or in this case I would need to fully solve the SE, without being able to make any approximations? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems like a reasonable approach to me. This might miss some processes transiting from 1 to 3 via 2, but this is all about making approximations.
 
An antilinear operator ##\hat{A}## can be considered as, ##\hat{A}=\hat{L}\hat{K}##, where ##\hat{L}## is a linear operator and ##\hat{K} c=c^*## (##c## is a complex number). In the Eq. (26) of the text https://bohr.physics.berkeley.edu/classes/221/notes/timerev.pdf the equality ##(\langle \phi |\hat{A})|\psi \rangle=[ \langle \phi|(\hat{A}|\psi \rangle)]^*## is given but I think this equation is not correct within a minus sign. For example, in the Hilbert space of spin up and down, having...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K