What is the frequency of the harmonic potential?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the frequency of harmonic potentials used in trapping atoms, specifically how they relate to forces and oscillations in multiple dimensions. The harmonic potential is expressed in terms of frequencies for each spatial dimension, leading to the conclusion that it behaves like a single harmonic oscillator with independent oscillations in x, y, and z. When the frequencies in the x and y directions are significantly larger than in the z direction, approximations can be made, treating the z direction as changing slowly compared to the fast oscillations in x and y. This leads to confusion about whether to consider the average motion in x and y as constant or if the z direction can be treated as constant, highlighting the need for clarification on these approximations in the context of the physics involved. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately applying the harmonic oscillator model in practical scenarios.
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"?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top