What is the frequency of the harmonic potential?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the use of harmonic potentials to trap atoms in space, specifically the mathematical representation of the potential as V = (m/2)(ω_x²x² + ω_y²y² + ω_z²z²). The frequencies ω_x, ω_y, and ω_z correspond to the oscillations in the x, y, and z dimensions, respectively. Participants clarify that the system behaves like a single harmonic oscillator with three independent oscillations, despite the resemblance to three separate oscillators. The conversation also explores the implications of differing frequencies, particularly when ω_x and ω_y are significantly larger than ω_z, leading to approximations in the z-direction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of harmonic oscillators and their mathematical representation
  • Familiarity with the concepts of potential energy in physics
  • Knowledge of the relationship between frequency and oscillation in multidimensional systems
  • Basic grasp of Hooke's law and its application in oscillatory motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of harmonic potentials in quantum mechanics
  • Study the implications of non-isotropic harmonic oscillators in atomic trapping
  • Explore the concept of adiabatic approximation in systems with varying frequencies
  • Investigate the role of degrees of freedom in multidimensional harmonic oscillators
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and researchers in atomic trapping techniques will benefit from this discussion, particularly those focusing on harmonic potentials and their applications in experimental physics.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I am reading an introduction on trapping atoms in space with magnetic potential. The article said the lab usually use a harmonic potential to trap the atoms and the potentials is in the form

##\dfrac{m}{2}(\omega_x^2x^2 + \omega_y^2y^2 + \omega_z^2z^2)##

and ##\omega_{x,y,z}## has the unit of frequency. I wonder how do you understand the frequency in the potential from physical point of view. Why there is frequency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's see what force that potential gives. For the x component, we have F_x=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=-m \omega_x^2 x. But hey, that's Hooke's law!(With the spring constant k_x=m \omega_x^2.) So this potential is actually a non-isotropic harmonic oscillator potential and this is the reason you have frequencies in it.
 
Shyan said:
Let's see what force that potential gives. For the x component, we have F_x=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=-m \omega_x^2 x. But hey, that's hooks law!(With the spring constant k_x=m \omega_x^2.) So this potential is actually a non-isotropic harmonic oscillator and this is the reason you have frequencies in it.

Thanks. So if can I say under that potential, it just like 3 harmonic oscillators along x, y and z each is oscillating at the frequency ##\omega_x##, ##\omega_y## and ##\omega_z## independently?
 
KFC said:
Thanks. So if can I say under that potential, it just like 3 harmonic oscillators along x, y and z each is oscillating at the frequency ##\omega_x##, ##\omega_y## and ##\omega_z## independently?
No, its just one harmonic oscillator having three independent oscillations with different frequencies in different dimensions. But yes, in terms of degrees of freedom, its no different than having three independent harmonic oscillators with different frequencies. But you should note this resemblance may not be usable in the context you're considering.
 
Shyan said:
No, its just one harmonic oscillator having three independent oscillations with different frequencies in different dimensions. But yes, in terms of degrees of freedom, its no different than having three independent harmonic oscillators with different frequencies. But you should note this resemblance may not be usable in the context you're considering.
Got it.

One more question. Usually, if you solve the harmonic oscillator with 3 oscillating frequencies along 3 different frequency, we will get a solution in 3-dimensional also. But if the frequency along x and y are way larger than the ##\omega_z##. In some articles, I saw that people simply approximate the solution along the z direction only. I stuck on the explaining this approximation in physics.

The first thing come to my mind is if the oscillator oscillating along x and y much faster than z, can we consider the system may see the average motion along x and y instead because of high frequency? So we could consider the amplitude of the solution along x and y just like a constant? Only the z direction depends on time?

But before I find the explanation, I am also thing that if ##\omega_z## is way smaller than the
##\omega_{x,t}##, can we consider the profile on the z direction is changing slowly in time, so we could consider the solution in z direction is a constant, the effective solution is along x and y direction.

I know those two statements are contradictory. But I cannot tell which one (or all) is wrong. and why?
 
KFC said:
Got it.

One more question. Usually, if you solve the harmonic oscillator with 3 oscillating frequencies along 3 different frequency, we will get a solution in 3-dimensional also. But if the frequency along x and y are way larger than the ##\omega_z##. In some articles, I saw that people simply approximate the solution along the z direction only. I stuck on the explaining this approximation in physics.

The first thing come to my mind is if the oscillator oscillating along x and y much faster than z, can we consider the system may see the average motion along x and y instead because of high frequency? So we could consider the amplitude of the solution along x and y just like a constant? Only the z direction depends on time?

But before I find the explanation, I am also thing that if ##\omega_z## is way smaller than the
##\omega_{x,t}##, can we consider the profile on the z direction is changing slowly in time, so we could consider the solution in z direction is a constant, the effective solution is along x and y direction.

I know those two statements are contradictory. But I cannot tell which one (or all) is wrong. and why?

Can you point me to one of those "articles"?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K