Calculating Lifetimes in a Three-Level System with Einstein A & B Coefficients?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around calculating lifetimes in a three-level atomic system using Einstein A and B coefficients. Participants explore the implications of light presence on stimulated emission and absorption, and how these factors relate to the definition of lifetimes in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the setup of the problem, questioning whether light is present and its relevance to lifetime calculations. There is an exploration of the differential equations governing the system and how to define lifetimes based on the behavior of the populations in different states.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on focusing solely on the relevant decay processes and the definitions of lifetimes, suggesting that the presence of photons may not be necessary for these calculations. There is an ongoing exploration of how to simplify the equations and the implications of ignoring certain transitions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem does not specify the presence of light, which raises questions about assumptions in the calculations. The definition of "lifetime" is also under discussion, with references to specific coefficients and their roles in determining lifetimes.

bananabandana
Messages
112
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Screen Shot 2016-06-03 at 17.23.13.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Very confused by this problem. For one thing, it doesn't specify if there is or isn't any light present to drive the stimulated emission/absorption. I guess there's no reason to assume that there is no light - but since the question is asking about lifetimes, that would seem more sensible...[plus introducing an unspecified ##\rho(\omega_{0})## seems odd]

Assuming there is no light involved, then this is just a three level system, with three sets of coupled differential equations describing the behaviour - let ##N_{i}## be the number of atoms in state ##i##:
(1) $$ \frac{dN_{A}}{dt} = -(A_{ac}+A_{ab})N_{A} $$
(2) $$ \frac{dN_{B}}{dt} = A_{ab}(N_{A} -N_{B}) $$
(3) $$ \frac{dN_{C}}{dt} = A_{ac}N_{A}+A_{bc}N_{B} $$
[Though,one of them is made redundant by the fact that total particle number must be constant.]

We can easily solve the first equation:
$$ N_{A} = N_{A0}exp\bigg[ - (A_{ac}+A_{ab})t) \bigg] $$
By substituting this into the equation (2), we can then solve for ##N_{B}##:

$$ \frac{dN_{B}}{dt} +N_{B}A_{ab} = A_{ab}N_{A0}exp\bigg[ - (A_{ac}+A_{ab})t) \bigg] $$

So by using the standard method of integrating factors:
$$ N_{B} = Cexp(-A_{ab}t)-\frac{A_{ab}}{A_{ac}}N_{A0}exp(-A_{ac}+A_{ab}t) $$
But how am I meant to define a lifetime for that?, Assuming ##N_{B}(t=0)=0##, i.e:
$$ N_{B} =\frac{A_{ab}}{A_{ac}}N_{A0}exp(-A_{ab}t)\bigg[1-exp(-A_{ac}t)\bigg]$$
Do we take the dominant exponential to define the lifetime?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are only told to consider the decays a-c and b-c.
The presence of photons is not relevant to the lifetime calculation for a state ... check the definition of "lifetime" in your notes.
 
Simon Bridge said:
You are only told to consider the decays a-c and b-c.
The presence of photons is not relevant to the lifetime calculation for a state ... check the definition of "lifetime" in your notes.

Ah,okay, so lifetimes are generally defined to only involve the Einstein ##A## coefficients.
So I can just ignore completely ##\psi_{A} \rightarrow \psi_{B}##? I wasn't sure the question implied that... I guess if it does:

$$ \frac{dN_{A}}{dt} = -A_{ac}N_{A} $$
$$ \frac{dN_{B}}{dt} = -A_{bc} N_{B} $$

Implying that ## \lambda_{a} = A_{ac}## ##\lambda_{b} = A_{bc}##. We know that ## \frac{1}{\tau} = \lambda## where ##\tau ## is the lifetime, so:
$$ \frac{\tau_{A}}{\tau_{C}} = 2 $$

and then the information about the matrix element is completely redundant? It's that simple??
[Edit : I mean, it tells us the same thing]
Thanks!
 
Well done.
 
Oh dear, that's embarrassing.. Ah well, many thanks for the help, much appreciated!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K