What Determines the Lineshape in a Two-Level System with Spontaneous Emission?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the factors that determine the lineshape in a two-level system with spontaneous emission. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involving the density matrix, dipole moments, and the implications of these on the lineshape derived from spontaneous emission and fluorescence.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about deriving the lineshape from the population of the excited and ground states, questioning whether a Fourier transformation of the diagonal density matrix element is appropriate.
  • Another participant suggests that the lineshape can be expressed as the Fourier transform of the trace of the product of dipole moments and the density matrix, noting a typical constant factor related to the line profile.
  • Clarification is sought regarding the dipole moment's role and its constancy in calculations, with a participant asserting that the density matrix is time-dependent.
  • A participant emphasizes the need for matrix elements of the dipole moment to perform the trace and mentions the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in this context.
  • One participant raises a question about the apparent contradiction between the contributions of diagonal and off-diagonal terms to the lineshape and fluorescence, suggesting that only off-diagonal terms contribute to the trace due to parity considerations.
  • Another participant counters this by providing an example involving a diagonal density matrix, arguing that the relative contribution to a line is proportional to the upper level population, which relates to the diagonal matrix element of the density matrix.
  • It is noted that contributions to the lineshape may involve multiple states, and the operator in question is specified as the product of the density matrix and dipole moments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the contributions of diagonal versus off-diagonal terms to the lineshape and fluorescence, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the treatment of dipole moments, the role of parity in the density matrix, and the specific contributions of various states to the lineshape.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Take two level system as example, if I know the population (density matrix element) of excited and ground state, how do I get the lineshape of the spontaenous emission? Can I take the Fourier transformation on the diagonal density matrix element?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lineshape is FT of
Tr[d(0).d(t) rho] (if you do not include the omega**4 power which is typically
a constant over the line profile)
 
Thanks. What is d is your explanation? dipole moment? In my calculation, I have dipole moment to be constant and rho is time dependent
 
d is dipole moment. rho is the density matrix. Why is d constant? You need matrix elements of d to do the trace. You can get a constant reduced matrix element out of d, but you still have the Clebsch-Gordan to sum
e.g. Ly-a:(sum over m)
<100|d|21m><21m|d(t)|100>
 
Thanks. I am thinking the following question. For two-level system, if you take an average on dipole moment (trace), because of the parity, the diagonal terms vanish. So only the off-diagonal terms contribute to Tr[d(0).d(t) rho], namely, the line shape is from the off-diagonal terms? But as I read in other books, the fluorescence is same as the spontaneous spectrum (i.e. line shape obtained above), right? The fluorescence should be proportional to the diagonal terms (i.e. population), how come does this contradiction occurs?
 
Look in my example for Ly-a: Assuming a diagonal density matrix,
the Trace is
sum_m <21m|rho|21m><21m|d|100><100|d(t)|21m>

no parity issue here.
The relative contribution to any particular line is proportional to the upper level population,
which (for a diagonal density matrix) is proportional to the diagonal matrix element of rho.
Even this is not that simple, because what counts are ALL states that contribute to the line in question, e.g. 210,211,21-1, but NOT 310 for example. When you talk about diagonal matrix elements, you are referring to the operator :rho d.d(t), not rho
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K