Nonlinear optics: electric dipole moment operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and implications of the electric dipole moment operator in the context of nonlinear optics, particularly as presented in Boyd's text. Participants explore the atomic wavefunction, its relation to electron behavior, and the calculation of susceptibility tensors using both perturbative and density matrix approaches.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes their background in quantum mechanics is limited, raising questions about the meaning of the "atomic wavefunction" and its relation to individual electrons within an atom.
  • Another participant explains that the absolute square of the atomic wavefunction represents the probability density for finding electrons in specific positions, suggesting that the atomic wavefunction generalizes the case for a single electron to multiple electrons.
  • A subsequent reply questions Boyd's treatment of the atomic wavefunction as a one-particle function, arguing that it seems to overlook the multi-electron nature of atoms.
  • Another participant suggests that the dipole moment can be derived from a one-particle density matrix, indicating a possible simplification in the treatment of electron interactions.
  • One participant expresses acceptance of Boyd's approach but seeks clarification on the matrix elements of the electric dipole moment operator and their physical significance.
  • Another participant speculates that only the outermost electron may be involved in the optical processes discussed.
  • A later reply acknowledges the presence of multiple valence electrons and references Boyd's application of the theory to sodium vapor, which has one valence electron.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the atomic wavefunction and the treatment of electron interactions. There is no consensus on whether Boyd's one-particle approach adequately captures the complexities of multi-electron systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in Boyd's treatment, particularly regarding the simplification of multi-electron interactions into a one-particle framework. The discussion highlights unresolved questions about the physical interpretation of matrix elements and the specific contributions of individual electrons to the dipole moment.

elemental09
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I am participating in a reading course on nonlinear optics, which is a little difficult since I haven't had any formal education in quantum mechanics other than the standard introductory solving of Schroedinger's eqn. in 1D. Happily this course takes the semiclassical approach, in which the field is classical while all the atomic physics is treated quantum mechanically. The principle text I'm reading from is Nonlinear Optics, 3rd ed., by Boyd.

As an approximate starting point, (in Ch. 3 if you have the text), Boyd derives expressions for the first, second and third order susceptibility tensors. He takes two approaches: first, perturbatively solving the Schroedinger equation, and second, using the density matrix formalism. For both, the system considered is a single atom. In the first approach, it is assumed isolated. The density matrix approach then allows some consideration of the atom's environment. For both approaches he takes a Hamiltonian of the form

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\hat{H} = \hat{H_{0}}+\hat{V}(t)
Where
gif.latex?\hat{H_{0}}.gif
is the Hamiltonian of the free atom, and
gif.latex?\hat{V}(t)=-\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}\cdot\tilde{E}}.gif


I have two questions to begin with, arising from my lack of background in QM:

1) Boyd refers to the wavefunction under consideration as the "atomic wavefunction". The wavefuntions for the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian then correspond to the quantized energy levels of the atom, but what other meaning is there to the wavefunction? For a single particle, I'm familiar with the probability amplitude for position measurement interpretation of the wavefunction, but this seemingly does not apply to this particular "atomic" wavefunction, as it is not the dynamics of the entire contiguous atom we are interested in, but rather the internal electronic behaviour (polarization and energy). Seemingly, then, we should be considering the wavefunctions of the individual electrons in the atom, though of course I understand that is analytically infeasible. That leads to my next question:

2) What is the meaning of
gif.latex?\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}.gif
? Boyd calls this the electric dipole moment operator. He defines it as
gif.latex?\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}=-e\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}.gif
, where e is the charge on the electron. However, as discussed above, the states under consideration are atomic states. The individual electrons' wavefunctions are never described. I understand how this operator would be used to characterize the interaction energy of an electron with a classical field, but not an entire, neutral atom. Boyd goes on to compute the expectation value of the atom's electric dipole moment, which is given as:
gif.latex?\<\boldsymbol{\tilde{p}}>=<\psi|\boldsymbol{\hat{\mu}}|\psi}>.gif

But this state is that for an atom, not an electron. Intuitively, it seems to me that a calculation of the expectation value of an electric dipole moment should involve the position operator acting on an electron's wavefunction, not an atom's.

I appreciate any effort to help me understand this. Sorry if these are standard textbook questions. If so, please feel free to direct me to a text at a good level (probably late undergrad or early grad QM) that would shed some light on all this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The absolute square of the atomic wavefunction |\Psi(r_1\ldots r_n) |^2=p(r_1 \ldots r_n) yields the probability density to find an electron in a small volume at r_1, another one at r_2 and so on if there are n electrons in the atom. The (electronic contribution to ) the dipole moment is then -e \int dr_1 \ldots \int dr_n \Psi^*(r_1 \ldots r_n) (r_1+\ldots+r_n) \Psi(r_1\ldots r_n). So basically the atomic wavefunction generalizes the 1 electron case you know to the n-electron case.
PS: Please note that I am too lazy to make explicity that r_1 etc is a three dimensional vector and I also suppressed spin as the dipole moment does not depend on it.
 
Thanks. That interpretation seems natural. But Boyd writes the atomic wavefunction for an arbitrary atom as being a function of only one spatial variable, and time, which agrees with what you have only for n=1. Similarly, expectation values are calculated as a single integral over all space, not multiple integrals as you have shown. Somehow he is blurring the multi-electron nature of the atom into a one-particle wavefunction.
 
I don't have the book of Boyd, so I cannot comment on it. However, it is possible to subsume the information relevant for the calculation of one particle properties (and the dipole moment is a sum of the dipole moments of the single electrons, hence it also belongs to that class) in the 1-density matrix.
 
Sorry it took a while to respond.
In fact before introducing any density matrices, Boyd still treats the atomic wavefunction as one-particle. In any case, I'll have to accept his treatment. But here's another question: the expressions obtained for the susceptibilites using this approach depend on the matrix elements of the electric dipole moment operator with respect to a basis consisting of the eigenstates of the atom. What do these matrix elements represent, and how would one measure them?
 
I wonder if the missing information is that only one electron participates in the optical process- specifically, the outermost electron.
 
There could be several valence electrons, though. Though perhaps it is telling that Boyd uses this theory to calculate the third-order susceptibility third-harmonic generation in sodium vapour - sodium having one valence electron.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K