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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on calculating lifetimes in a three-level quantum system using Einstein A and B coefficients. The equations governing the system are derived from coupled differential equations, specifically: $$ \frac{dN_{A}}{dt} = -(A_{ac}+A_{ab})N_{A} $$, $$ \frac{dN_{B}}{dt} = A_{ab}(N_{A} -N_{B}) $$, and $$ \frac{dN_{C}}{dt} = A_{ac}N_{A}+A_{bc}N_{B} $$. The participants conclude that lifetimes are defined solely by the Einstein A coefficients, allowing for simplification in calculations. The presence of photons does not influence the lifetime determination in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of three-level quantum systems
  • Familiarity with Einstein A and B coefficients
  • Knowledge of differential equations
  • Concept of lifetime in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Einstein A and B coefficients in detail
  • Learn about the implications of coupled differential equations in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of lifetimes in various quantum systems
  • Investigate the role of stimulated emission and absorption in three-level systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on atomic and molecular physics, as well as anyone involved in the study of photonics and quantum optics.

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
955
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K