Semi-classical argument for stimulated emission?

Michael Lazich
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
Laser action by definition requires the presence of stimulated emission in the laser medium. The typical way of treating this semi-classically is to introduce the Einstein coefficients, in essentially an ad hoc way, then derive the Einstein equations for the various level population transitions.

My issue is that the various arguments I've seen for explaining the presence of the stimulated emission term are rather unsatisfying, until you're actually able to show quantum mechanically what is going on.

That is, it's somewhat "intuitive" to discuss stimulated absorption (i.e., photon of proper energy is absorbed by atom causing an upward transition to a specific higher energy state), and spontaneous emission (fluourescence), but there doesn't seem to be a similar argument about stimulated emission short of the QM treatment.

Of course, stimulated emission *is* inherently QM, so there really isn't necessarily a non-QM argument or model for it; but I'm curious if others have thought of semi-classical models/explanations (than those available in, say, Siegman) that could help build a sense of "physical intuition" around the concept.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Should have checked before I posted, I think this has been brought up in earlier threads...

Not sure how to delete though; apologies for redundancy.

Michael Lazich said:
Laser action by definition requires the presence of stimulated emission in the laser medium. The typical way of treating this semi-classically is to introduce the Einstein coefficients, in essentially an ad hoc way, then derive the Einstein equations for the various level population transitions.

My issue is that the various arguments I've seen for explaining the presence of the stimulated emission term are rather unsatisfying, until you're actually able to show quantum mechanically what is going on.

That is, it's somewhat "intuitive" to discuss stimulated absorption (i.e., photon of proper energy is absorbed by atom causing an upward transition to a specific higher energy state), and spontaneous emission (fluourescence), but there doesn't seem to be a similar argument about stimulated emission short of the QM treatment.

Of course, stimulated emission *is* inherently QM, so there really isn't necessarily a non-QM argument or model for it; but I'm curious if others have thought of semi-classical models/explanations (than those available in, say, Siegman) that could help build a sense of "physical intuition" around the concept.

Thanks.
 
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
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...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top