Lineshape Function: Understanding the Emission from Two-Level Systems

  • Thread starter Thread starter George Isaac Aziz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
George Isaac Aziz
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all!

I have a problem understanding the essence of the lineshape function. This function is supposed to describe the linewidth of the emission from a two level system, i.e. practically, the discrete levels of stationary states are not exactly discrete. I thought this be the case when we include the interaction of the electromagnetic wave in the Hamiltonian of the problem. In other words, when we have an isolated atom, the states turn out to be stationary, there is no way for an electron to leave the stationary state if it already exists there as dictated by the time evolution of the wavefunction. In this case, the energy levels turn out to be discrete and everything is OK. I thought that when we include an electromagnetic wave of the correct frequency in the Hamiltonian of the problem, that is the system is no more isolated but interacting with radiation, we should be able to calculate the spread in the discrete energy levels due to the uncertainty principle directly from the Schrodinger equation. Unfortunately this does not turn out to be the case and we have to introduce this spread in an adhoc fashion. I have tried to look for a derivation from first principles to this problem, but I have failed. Does anybody know a solution?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you referring to natural lifetime broadening or just broadening in general?

Claude.
 
Yes I was referring to natural lifetime broadening. I know that in gases the Doppler broadening is more effective, however it is the natural lifetime broadening that I am concerned with
 
George Isaac Aziz said:
Yes I was referring to natural lifetime broadening. I know that in gases the Doppler broadening is more effective, however it is the natural lifetime broadening that I am concerned with

It is quite a subtle issue, and you need to use the full quantum treatment of the EM field, coupled to the atom, in order to understand spontaneous emission. You can find an explanation in section 15.5 of "optical coherence and quantum optics" by Mandel and Wolf. I have to say I don't understand all the details myself yet (need some more time to study it).

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Hello

I think you could benefit from reading the following reference:


Chapter XIII : Approximation methods for time-dependent problems
Complements of chapter XIII, DXIII: Decay of a discrete state resonantly coupled to a continuum of final states

In this chapter the authors consider:

  • the system has a 1 discrete state (say an atom in an excited state and the EM field in the ground state)
  • in addition, the system has a continuous range of state (say the atom in ground state and the EM field in some excited states)
  • the hamiltonian is not time dependent and assumes the form: H = H_{discrete} + H_{continuum} + V_{interaction}
  • the interaction couples only the discrete level and the continuum

This simple model shows quite clearly the salient features of the question you asked.
I just read it myself and I have these comments:

  • there is no exact analytical solution to this problem, although it is the simplest possible
  • there is a convincing good approximation to the solution
  • this solution predicts a line width for the transition probabilities to the continuous spectrum,
    directly linked to the decay rate of the excited state (known effect for atomic transitions)
  • this solution also predicts a displacement of the line as compared to the energy gap between excited and ground atomic state (also known effect for atomic transitions)
  • the continuous part of the spectrum is, of course, the basic reason for the above consequences
  • One key point in the derivation is related to the Fourier transform of the Heaviside step function.
    This math contains physics of the decay!
  • The (slow) decay of the exited state to the ground state produces a width of the emitted spectrum.
    This is simply related to the Fourier transform of a decaying signal.
    This is why the shape, finally.

If you find additional references (on the web), please let me know, I am interrested.

Note that the problem you asked is of a wider interrested.
It relates to other fields of physics, like statistical mechanics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks guys I'll check out the references you gave me and get back to you. I hope that I find a derivation that includes the continuum corresponding to the discrete eigenvalues.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top