Is this the correct way to estimate the natural lifetime of an atomic state?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the natural lifetime of an atomic state based on its emission line characteristics, specifically its wavelength and natural width. The problem involves concepts from quantum mechanics and atomic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply relevant equations related to energy and time uncertainty to estimate the natural lifetime. They express concern about not incorporating the natural width into their calculations. Some participants question the relationship between energy and wavelength in the context of the uncertainty principle.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's approach, providing feedback on the use of equations and clarifying the relationship between energy and wavelength. There is a recognition of a potential correction in the original poster's reasoning regarding the natural width.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is working from a past exam question and is navigating the constraints of the provided information, particularly the natural width of the emission line, which they initially overlooked.

doomhalo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I've just been having a little trouble with this short question from a past exam paper...

Homework Statement


"An atomic state has a dominant decay mode which produces an emission line of wavelength 6 \times 10^{-7} m and natural width 10^{-13} m. Estimate it's natural lifetime.

Homework Equations


\Delta E \Delta T \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}
E = \frac{hc}{\lambda}

The Attempt at a Solution



\tau \approx \frac{\hbar}{2E}
\tau \approx \frac{\lambda}{4\pi c} \approx 1.59 \times 10^{-16}

I was just wondering if this seemed right? I'm concerned that I've not used the natural width provided in the question but I'm not sure whether it's a case of I've a) Missed a relevant equation, or b) I've used the equations I do have wrong.

Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The mistake here is that you used:\Delta E = \Delta \lambda

What is ##\Delta E## in terms of ##\lambda## and ##\Delta \lambda##?
 
unscientific said:
The mistake here is that you used:\Delta E = \Delta \lambda

What is ##\Delta E## in terms of ##\lambda## and ##\Delta \lambda##?

Ah I see, so
\Delta E = \frac{hc}{\lambda^2} \Delta\lambda

And then

\tau \approx \frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi c \Delta\lambda}

?

Thank you very much!
 
Yes that's right. That gives a reasonable answer. (0.3s I think)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K