Classical Electron Oscillator Model, quantum analogy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conceptual understanding of the classical electron oscillator model in relation to a driving field, specifically focusing on the factor of 2 in the number of electrons absorbed per unit time. The participant has derived equations for time average power and electron absorption but struggles with why the number of electrons is not simply the time average power divided by \hbar\omega. It is suggested that the factor of 2 arises because the oscillator completes two displacements in one period, leading to a periodic work function that is half the frequency of the driving field. The relationship between the power absorbed and the number of photons absorbed is clarified, indicating that the full oscillation cycle accounts for this factor. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of energy absorption in oscillatory systems and the nuances of periodicity in electromagnetic interactions.
buttersrocks
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I originally posted this question in the homework section, but I really don't need any help calculating anything, my answers are right. I'm having conceptual trouble, so I figured that this question belongs here.

So, let's say there is a field driving a single atomic oscillator (hydrogen for arguments sake). As a further simplification, let's say the oscillator has the same frequency as the driving field. I found the time average power absorbed by the oscillator and the time average number of electrons per unit time absorbed. (ie these quantities:)

\bigl \langle P \bigr \rangle &=& \bigl\langle\frac{dW}{dt}\bigr\rangle\\ &=& \frac{1}{2}eE_0\omega\nu
(nu is just a constant that is frequency dependent... this equation is correct)
\bigl\langle\frac{dN}{dt}\bigr\rangle=\frac{eE_0}{\hbar}\nu (this equation should be right but I can't grasp it conceptually.

What I can't understand is the factor of 2 that is associated with the number of electrons absorbed. Why isn't the number of electrons absorbed per unit time simply the time average power divided by \hbar\omega?

Does it have something to do with the fact that the oscillator makes two displacements from and back to equilibrium in one period? Or, does it have something to do with emission? Where is the extra energy going, heat? Any help getting my mind around this one would be VERY much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Possibly along these lines:
http://www.ee.unb.ca/tervo/ee2791/vrms.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't think so. I'm actually close to having the result I think. It just hit me that the \frac{dW}{dt} is periodic with freq \frac{\omega}{2}, whereas the E-field is periodic with frequency \omega I feel like it comes from there. Gonna work through it now.
 
buttersrocks said:
Don't think so.

I see. I thought you were asking about the factor of 2 in the power equation. For the photons, maybe the two polarizations of an unpolarized electromagnetic wave?
 
Got it. Okay, so basically, how this works is that the work done is periodic with half the period of period of full oscillation. So, the time average of the power leaves us with the average power for 1/2 cycle. So, the power absorbed over a full cycle is twice that. Since the photons are absorbed in a full oscillation, (not the half oscillation of the work function) we get that \hbar\omega N = 2W where N is the number of photons absorbed during the full oscillation. (This is due to the fact that the frequency of oscillation is the same for the atom as it is for the photon. The photons drive the atom through an entire cycle, not just to one side.) There's our factor of 2.
 
Okay, changed my mind, that doesn't make sense, does it? Does this work because we started with a function for a full cycle and it just got reduced when we took the time average?
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top