Two two-level atoms and form of the Hamiltonian

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter McLaren Rulez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Form Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hamiltonian for a system of two two-level atoms interacting with light, specifically examining the inclusion of terms that represent simultaneous photon absorption by both atoms. Participants explore the implications of these terms within the framework of quantum electrodynamics and perturbation theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why terms representing simultaneous photon absorption, such as σ₁⁺σ₂⁺aₖ, are not commonly included in the Hamiltonian, suggesting it may be due to their lower likelihood.
  • Another participant proposes that the fundamental interaction in quantum electrodynamics is linear in the electromagnetic vector potential, which influences the form of the Hamiltonian and suggests perturbative approaches to include higher-order terms.
  • A different participant discusses the interaction Hamiltonian's coefficient, ε, and its relation to the fundamental processes in quantum electrodynamics, indicating that higher-order terms could be corrections that are small due to the coupling strength.
  • One participant mentions that terms of interest arise from projecting the Hamiltonian onto a sub-space of electronic states, with the strength of these new couplings depending on the coupling strength and the energetic distance of other states, referencing the Löwdin projection operator method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and treatment of higher-order terms in the Hamiltonian. While some suggest these terms can be neglected due to small coupling strengths, others argue for their inclusion based on projection methods and perturbation theory. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity and impact of these higher-order terms.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the specific coupling strength and the energetic distance of other electronic states, which are not fully quantified in the discussion. The effectiveness of perturbative methods in estimating the contributions of higher-order terms is also not clearly established.

McLaren Rulez
Messages
289
Reaction score
3
Hello,

If we look at a system of two two-level atoms interacting with light, most papers start with a Hamiltonian

[tex] H_{int}=(\sigma_{1}^{+}+\sigma_{2}^{+})a_{\textbf{k},\lambda} + h.c.[/tex]

That is, we absorb a photon and lost one excitation in the atoms or vice versa. Why do we never consider terms like
[tex] \sigma_{1}^{+}\sigma_{2}^{+}a_{\textbf{k},\lambda}a_{\textbf{k},\lambda}[/tex]

Here, the two photons are absorbed simultaneously and we transition directly from the ground state of both to the excited state of both atoms. I suspect that it is because this process is much less likely but how do I prove it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it is due to the fundamental interaction in quantum electrodynamics being of the form jA where j is the charge-current density operator and A is the electromagnetic vector potential. j induces transitions between electronic states and A is linear in a and a*.
You could try to perturbatively diagonalize your hamiltonian in powers of the coupling strength ##\lambda##,
## H=H_0+\lambda H_{int}##. If you do this to first order, you will get new couplings second order in lambda of the form you proposed.
 
The interaction Hamiltonian appears in the full Hamiltonian with some coefficient which we can call ##\epsilon##. So ##H = H_0 + \epsilon H_{int}##. We can determine roughly what the value of ##\epsilon## is by considering the fundamental process that leads to ##H_{int}##. This is the quantum electrodynamics interaction term

$$L_{int} = e A_\mu\bar{\psi} \gamma_\mu \psi$$

that describes the interaction of a photon, described by the quantum field ##A_\mu##, with the electron, described by the field ##\psi##. Of course ##e## is the electric charge, which in natural units is ##e\sim 1/\sqrt{137} \sim 0.09##. Clearly ##\epsilon## is related to this value, but in order to more accurately estimate it, we would need to add details about the atomic wavefunction, etc.

Now, the 2nd order interaction that you consider is an additional correction. It is generated at 2nd order in pertubation theory in QED using the interaction ##L_{int}##. It would also have some coefficient ##\epsilon_2## that is now related to ##e^2##, so it is about 10% as large as the 1st order term.

On the other hand, we can also generate 2-photon processes in the 2nd-order perturbation theory of the effective theory using ##H_{int}##. Including this order of correction clearly accounts for some of the lack of precision that we lost by not including the 2nd order term that you wrote down. I don't think it's easy to estimate the difference between the two methods for describing 2-photon processes.
 
Thank you for the replies. The point then, if I understand you correctly, is that the coupling strength is small and therefore higher order processes can be neglected.

Thank you!
 
Terms of the form you are interested in also arise when you project the hamiltonian for the full atomic system onto the sub-space spanned by the two electronic states you are interested in. The strength of the new couplings depends on the square of the coupling strength of H_int divided by the energetic distance of the other electronic states you are projecting out. This is known as "Löwdin projection operator method" as it was invented by Per-Olov Löwdin.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K