Calculation of the Natural Linewidth

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the calculation of the natural linewidth for the sodium transition at 589.1 nm. The user is confused about the appropriate formula to use, particularly regarding the role of transition energy and lifetime in determining linewidth. It is clarified that the correct value to substitute into the Hyperphysics formula is the energy uncertainty (ΔE), not the transition energy itself. Both the Hyperphysics approach and the PowerPoint slides account for finite lifetimes of both initial and final states, but the slides provide a more comprehensive representation of natural broadening.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of natural linewidth and its significance in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
  • Knowledge of energy transitions in atomic physics
  • Ability to use calculators for quantum mechanical formulas, such as those found on Hyperphysics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of energy uncertainty (ΔE) in quantum mechanics
  • Study the relationship between lifetime and natural linewidth in atomic transitions
  • Explore advanced topics in quantum mechanics related to spectral broadening
  • Examine the differences between simplified and comprehensive models of natural broadening
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, atomic physics, and spectroscopy who are looking to deepen their understanding of natural linewidth calculations and the implications of energy uncertainties.

blaisem
Messages
28
Reaction score
2
Hi, I am trying to understand how one determines the natural linewidth. On my assignment, I am only given an energy (589.1 nm transition in sodium). I have two sources that I have found that seem to contradict each other:

Source 1: Slides 5 and 6

Source 2: Hyperphysics

If I plug in either the lifetime or the energy value provided in the example from the powerpoint (slide 6) into the Hyperphysics calculator, the corresponding value isn't consistent with slide 6.

I am confused on which is the correct formula, as well as how one determines the natural linewidth without knowing the lifetime of a transition. Is the energy of the transition actually relevant?

Can anyone please advise? Thank you for your time and help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
blaisem said:
If I plug in either the lifetime or the energy value provided in the example from the powerpoint (slide 6) into the Hyperphysics calculator, the corresponding value isn't consistent with slide 6.
I didn't check the calculations in detail, but in the slides, both the initial and final states are considered to have finite lifetimes. This may be the source of the discrepancy.

blaisem said:
how one determines the natural linewidth without knowing the lifetime of a transition.
They are usually measured from spectra.

If you need the numbers for sodium, check http://steck.us/alkalidata/.
 
Hi DrClaude. Thanks for your response and the link. Maybe it was implied I had to look up the lifetime. 3 questions, if you have time, since I am having trouble wrapping my head around it conceptually:

1.Hyperphysics provides a relationship of:

2E = Gamma = (reduced plank constant / lifetime)​

where Gamma is the width of the natural broadening

If I substitute the given transition energy of 589.1 nm into E, I get a gamma of 4.2 eV; if I use the lifetime from your source (16.2 ns), I get a gamma of 41 nano Ev.

I am confused about the role of the energy of the transition in natural broadening. Am I substituting the wrong value for energy into the Hyperphysics formula?

2. What would be the correct value of E? Would it be the absolute energy uncertainty of the initial state, and the transition energy I have is entirely irrelevant to determining the natural linewidth?

3. Is the formula in the powerpoint (first link) more precise than Hyperphysics? It seems to be a more complicated representation of natural broadening, implying that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it was presented in Hyperphysics may be a more superficial description of natural broadening. Is my understanding of this correct?

Thanks a lot for your advise!
 
Last edited:
blaisem said:
If I substitute the given transition energy of 589.1 nm into E, I get a gamma of 4.2 eV; if I use the lifetime from your source (16.2 ns), I get a gamma of 41 nano Ev.

I am confused about the role of the energy of the transition in natural broadening. Am I substituting the wrong value for energy into the Hyperphysics formula?
Yes. In the formula, it is ##\Delta E##, the uncertainty on the energy, not the energy of the transition.

blaisem said:
2. What would be the correct value of E? Would it be the absolute energy uncertainty of the initial state, and the transition energy I have is entirely irrelevant to determining the natural linewidth?
If both the initial and final states have finite lifetimes, then both widths must be taken into account (as described in the slides). You have an uncertainty in both the energy of the upper state and the lower state. But the actual value of the center of the peak (the energy "before" taking into account the uncertainty) is not relevant.

blaisem said:
3. Is the formula in the powerpoint (first link) more precise than Hyperphysics? It seems to be a more complicated representation of natural broadening, implying that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it was presented in Hyperphysics may be a more superficial description of natural broadening. Is my understanding of this correct?
Apart from the fact that it takes into account the uncertainty of the energy of the final state, I do not see any difference between the two approaches. The Hyperphysics formulation might be simplified because most of the time the final state is the ground state, which has no uncertainty.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
13K