Frustrated spontaneous emission

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of frustrated spontaneous emission, particularly focusing on how an atom's ability to emit light may be influenced by its surroundings, specifically in contexts where the environment cannot absorb the emitted light. Participants explore theoretical implications, experimental evidence, and the effects of placing atoms in cavities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that spontaneous emission can be suppressed by placing atoms in environments where certain frequencies of emitted light cannot be absorbed.
  • Others argue that the decay of atomic states can be influenced by selection rules and the interaction with the quantized electromagnetic field.
  • A participant questions whether placing an atom in a mirror cavity prevents it from emitting light, indicating a need for clarification on the effects of cavity boundaries.
  • Another participant references the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, suggesting it has not been successfully extended to a consistent quantum theory.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of boundary conditions in finite versus infinite cavities and how they affect the states of photons and atomic emission.
  • One participant notes that in a cavity, there may simply be no available states for photons at certain frequencies, leading to suppression of emission.
  • Technical details are provided regarding the quantization of fields in finite volumes and the implications for allowed momenta and boundary conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the mechanisms behind frustrated spontaneous emission, with no consensus reached on the specifics of how cavity effects influence atomic emission or the implications of different theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of the interactions in cavities, the dependence on specific definitions of emission and absorption, and the complexities introduced by different boundary conditions in quantum field theory.

Trollfaz
Messages
144
Reaction score
16
I have heard of frustrated spontaneous emission that somehow says that an atom that normally emit light will cease to do so when its surroundings is incapable of absorbing light. How is this possible, and is this experimentally proven?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jilang
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understand your question, because it's not a point whether radiation can be absorbed or not but whether it can be emitted. There are many ways a decay can be surpressed.

I refer also to the usual electromagnetic spontaneous transitions in atoms as a "decay" of a state due to interaction with the quantized radiation field; note that spontaneous emission is the very point, where you really need photons, i.e., the quantized em. field, while for nearly everything else you can come very far with the semiclassical approximation, where the em. field is taken as a classical field.

Most common are the dipole selection rules, i.e., for electric dipole radiation the angular-momentum quantum number must stay the same or change by 1 (transitions ##l=0 \rightarrow l=0## are always forbidden) and the magnetic quantum number must stay the same or change by 1. All other transitions are "forbidden" (or maybe allowed but suppressed due to higher-order multipole transitions):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_rule#Angular_momentum

Another possibility is that you put the atom in a cavity. Then an decay, "allowed" in free space, can become forbidden or at least suppressed, if the corresponding frequency of the photon is not close enough to a resonance frequency of the em. field in this cavity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jilang
Does placing an atom in a mirror cavity prevents it from emitting light?
 
The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory has never been extended to a consistent quantum theory. In standard QED, putting an atom in a cavity, suppresses radiation whose wave length doesn's "fit" into the cavity.
 
It's very interesting. How does it know in advance that it won't fit?
 
Nothing needs to know that it doesn't fit. In the cavity there's simply no state that describes a photon at that frequency.
 
Yes, the boundary conditions would dictate that. How would that be different for an infinite cavity?
 
The "infinite cavity" has its own problems, as you know when studying QFT in the high-energy-particle context. One way to get well defined observables (S-matrix elements) is indeed to first use a finite "quantization volume". In this context it's wise to use periodic boundary conditions, because this admits the definition of a well-defined momentum operator. So take a cube with length ##L## as the quantization volume. We consider free photons and use the formalism starting from the fully gauge fixed description, i.e., we describe the field by a four-potential ##A^{\mu}## subject to the radiation-gauge condition (only possible for free fields)
$$A^0=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}=0.$$
The remaining two field components fulfill the wave equation
$$\Box \vec{A}=0.$$
Now we look for plain-wave solutions, leading to
$$\vec{A}_{\vec{k}}=A \vec{\epsilon}_{\vec{k},\lambda} \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \cdot x)|_{k^0=\omega_{\vec{k}}=|\vec{k}|}+\text{c.c.}.$$
##\lambda## labels the two unit vectors (polarization vectors of the wave) perpendicular to ##\vec{k}## since the gauge condition imposes that the waves are transvers:
$$\vec{k} \cdot \vec{\epsilon}_{\vec{k},\lambda}=0.$$
The boundary conditions impose
$$\vec{k} \in \frac{2 \pi}{L} \mathbb{Z}^3,$$
i.e., we have a discrete set of "allowed" momenta. The grid becomes the finer the larger the size of the quantization volume gets, and in the limit of ##L \rightarrow \infty##.

A general field is given by the Fourier series
$$\vec{A}(t,\vec{x})=\sum_{\lambda=1}^2 \sum_{\vec{k} \ in 2 \pi/L \mathbb{Z}^3} [A_{\lambda}(\vec{k}) \epsilon_{\vec{k} \lambda} \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \cdot x)|_{k^0=|\vec{k}|}+\text{c.c.}]$$
The quantization is then straight forward, using the usual Lagrange-Hamilton procedure.

In the infinite-volume limit the sum goes over to an integral over ##\vec{k} \in \mathbb{R}^3##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jilang

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K