A Atom-Light Interaction: Understanding d.E vs p.A Hamiltonian

zxontt
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I am reading Cohen-Tannoudji's Atom photon interactions (2004 version), in the Appendix he explains that for atom-light interaction, the electric dipole Hamiltonian (d.E form) is got from the original, "physical" (in line with his language) p.A form Hamiltonian by a time-independent unitary transformation (eq. (72) of the Appendix at page 635).

Basically, ##H_{d.E}=TH_{p.A}T^{\dagger}##, where ##H_{d.E}## is the Hamiltonian in electric dipole form, while ##H_{p.A}## is the p.A form Hamiltonian, and ##T=\exp[ -\frac{i}{\hbar} \mathbf{d} \cdot \mathbf{A}_{\perp}(0) ]=\exp\{ \sum_j (\lambda_j ^* a_j- \lambda_j a_j^{\dagger}) \}## where ##\lambda_j = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2 \epsilon_0 \hbar \omega_j L^3}}\mathbf{\epsilon}_j \cdot \mathbf{d}##, is the unitary transformation.

Then isn't it that if one wants to make calculations using the electric dipole Hamiltonian, one needs to first carry out the transformation on the initial state? That is, the initial state should be ##T \left | \phi_{ini} \right \rangle ## but not simply ##\left | \phi_{ini} \right \rangle##? where ##\left | \phi_{ini} \right \rangle## is the ("physical") initial state under the p.A representation.

However when he calculates the photondetection signal in Complement ##\textrm{A}_{\textrm{II}}## (more specifically see eq. (22) and texts around it in this Complement), there seems no indication that this transformation is carried out. Also, according to my experience, usually when using the d.E form one does not carry out any such transformation on the state. Do one need to or not need to carry out such transformation on state when using the d.E form Hamiltonian?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that in lowest order in the field strength you can replace T by 1.
 
DrDu said:
I think that in lowest order in the field strength you can replace T by 1.
I did a very crude estimation to convince myself of ##d\cdot |A|/\hbar \ll 1## and so that ##T \approx 1##:

I took the dipole moment to be that of a typical atom, approximately ##2 e a_0 \approx 1.6 \times 10^{-29} C \cdot m## (where ##e## is the elementary charge and ##a_0## the bohr radius), and though I am intending this formalism for single optical photon level calculation, I took a quite intense laser intensity for safety, an intensity of ##I= 50 W/ \textrm{cm}^2##, and ##\omega = 0.4 \times 10^{15} \times 2 \pi \, \textrm{Hz}##. Then using the formulas ##I= \frac{c \epsilon_0}{2} |E|^2##, ##|A| \approx |E|/ \omega## where ##c## is the speed of light and ##\epsilon_0## the vacuum permittivity, I end up with the dimensionless number ##d\cdot |A|/\hbar \approx 1.2 \times 10^{-6}##, indeed it is quite small and it should be quite plausible to replace ##T## by 1.

Is this estimation valid?
 
Sounds reasonable.
 
DrDu said:
Sounds reasonable.
Thanks a lot!
 
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...
Back
Top