Interaction of light with matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interaction Hamiltonian between an electron in an atom and an electromagnetic wave, particularly focusing on the presence of a factor of 2 in the Hamiltonian expressions. Participants explore the implications of different formulations of the Hamiltonian and their relation to classical and quantum descriptions of electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two forms of the interaction Hamiltonian, questioning which is correct: H_{int} = \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \cos(\omega t) or H_{int} = 2 \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \cos(\omega t).
  • Another participant suggests that the choice of field representation is a matter of convention and emphasizes the importance of consistency in the chosen conventions.
  • A different participant challenges the idea that it is merely a convention, asserting that the amplitude of the field should be E, not 2E.
  • One participant notes that the dipole moment operator is defined as E.r, indicating that the factor of 2 must arise from the field's definition.
  • Another participant mentions that the factor of 2 may stem from the quantum nature of the electromagnetic field and suggests that including it is necessary for obtaining correct classical results.
  • A later post introduces a coupling assumption using the electromagnetic field operator in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and questions whether a classical result can be recovered under this framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the factor of 2 is a matter of convention or a necessary component for accurate calculations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the correct formulation of the interaction Hamiltonian.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the electromagnetic field and the implications of quantum versus classical treatments. The discussion does not clarify the specific contexts in which each formulation may be applicable.

paweld
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure what is the correct interaction hamiltonian between an electron
in an atom and electromagnetic wave (described classically). According to
me there exist two version of this hamiltonian which differ by factor 2:
<br /> H_{int} = \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \cos(\omega t) <br />
or
<br /> H_{int} = 2 \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \cos(\omega t) = \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \exp( \textrm{i} \omega t ) + \vec{E_0} \vec{r} \exp(- \textrm{i} \omega t )<br />.
Which one is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can specify whatever form of the field you want. Some people specify the field to be 2Ecos(wt) so they can write it as an exponential without carrying the factor of two around throughout the calculation. As long as you know what conventions you are using you should be able to get the right answer.
 
Are you sure that it's only convention. It looks like the amplitude of the field was E not 2E.
 
Well you'd have to show the specific example to clarify why a particular author used the factor of 2, but the fact is that the dipole moment operator is just E.r , no matter how you define the field (doesn't need to be a simple sinusoid at all). The 2 must come from something in the definition of the field.
 
Somebody has told my that the factor 2 comes from quantum nature of electromagnetic
field and if I want to obtain correct answer treating radiation classically then I should
include the factor 2.
 
I wonder what is the answer if we assume that the coupling is:
<br /> H_{int} = \hat{\vec{E}} \vec{r} <br />
where \hat{\vec{E}} is the electromagnetic field opperator (derivative of potential opperator
introduced in QED) and the field is initially in coherent state in one of its modes.
Is it possible to recover "classical" result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K