QM: Understanding Quantization Axis for 2-Level Atoms

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the choice of quantization axis for a two-level atom in a laser field. The user explores how different quantization axes affect the transitions driven by the electromagnetic field, specifically comparing the y-axis and z-axis choices. They question whether a quantization axis angled in the (y, z)-plane can be decomposed into components that drive pi and sigma transitions. The response emphasizes that the quantization axis is an auxiliary concept, suggesting that the results should remain consistent regardless of the chosen axis. Ultimately, the choice of quantization axis does not impact the physical outcomes of the transitions.
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

I have a question on how to work with quantization axis. The setup I am looking at is a single two-level atom placed at the origin (0, 0, 0), which is not perturbed by any magnetic field.

I now send in a laser resonant with the transition of the atom. With a right-handed coordinate system in mind, the field is linearly polarized along y and propagagtes along +x. Since there is no magnetic field applied, I am allowed to choose the quantization as I wish.

1) The easiest choice is to choose the y-axis directly such that the EM-field drives the pi-transition of the atom. All OK here.

2) If I had chosen the z-axis instead, then the EM-field would drive sigma-transitions instead. Since no magnetic field is applied, they are equal to the pi-transition, so we get exactly the same signal as we should. All OK here too.

3) Now say I had instead chosen to put my quantization axis along in the (y, z)-plane with an angle Ω relative the y-axis.

Am I allowed to decompose the quantization axis into a cos(Ω)-part (driving the pi transition) and a sin(Ω) part (driving the sigma transitions)? Or is this reasoning wrong?


Niles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you want to find out? Quantization axis seems to be just an auxiliary notion; the results should not depend on its choice.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
11K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K