How is momentum conserved in phase mismatch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Korak Biswas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum Phase
AI Thread Summary
Momentum conservation in phase mismatch during nonlinear optical processes involves the interaction between light and matter, where light of frequency ω generates radiation at frequency 2ω. The amplitude of this generated radiation is influenced by the momentum difference between the incident and created fields. While momentum conservation holds for the combined system of the field and matter, it may appear violated when considering the fields or matter in isolation. The discussion highlights the complexity of explaining this phenomenon through Maxwell's equations. A referenced paper is suggested as a comprehensive resource for further understanding of the topic.
Korak Biswas
Messages
28
Reaction score
8
From classical EM theory, we know that if we shine light of frequency ω on a second order non-linear medium, a radiation of frequency 2ω is created. The amplitude of the radiation of frequency 2ω is dependent on the momentum difference between the incident field and the created field. But I can't understand where this momentum mismatch comes from. The momentum should be conserved always.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The momentum of the field plus the matter is conserved. The momentum of the field alone or the matter alone need not be conserved.
 
  • Like
Likes Korak Biswas
Dale said:
The momentum of the field plus the matter is conserved. The momentum of the field alone or the matter alone need not be conserved.
Thanks for your reply. I guessed it. The fields somehow transfer some amount of momentum to matter. But I couldn't explain this using Maxwell's equations. Will you please elaborate?
 
Korak Biswas said:
Will you please elaborate?
This is a longstanding debate in the literature, but my favorite paper on the topic is this one (which I think completely resolves the debate)

https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0461
 
Dale said:
This is a longstanding debate in the literature, but my favorite paper on the topic is this one (which I think completely resolves the debate)

https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0461
Thanks once again. I will go through this and come back to you if necessary.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top