Where Does the 1/2 Factor in Optical Molasses Force Come From?

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi

I have a question regarding the force that it used in Optical Molasses. The force is generally given by
<br /> F = \frac{\hbar k}{2} \frac{s_0}{1 + s_0+ (2\delta/\Gamma)^2}<br />
where s0 is the saturation parameter. The force saturates to
<br /> F = \frac{\hbar k}{2}<br />
It is normally said that this result is a consequence of the fact that the atom can only absorb and subsequently emit a photon twice during its excited state lifetime. However this latter statement does not make sense to me intuitively. I would say that once the atom has absorbed a photon, then -- on average -- it takes a time 1/\Gamma to emit it. So the remaining factor 1/2, where does this come in when looking at the problem like this?Niles.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just to clarify, my question is the following: The intuitive picture often presented is that when an atom absorbs a photon, on average a time \tau=1/\Gamma passes by until the atom emits the photon again. So the force is (under the condition that the atom is in resonance with the light so that the probability of absorbing a photon is maximal)
<br /> F = \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t} = \frac{\hbar k }{\tau} = \hbar k \Gamma <br />
But we know that the maximum force is given by (see my OP)
<br /> F = \hbar k \frac{\Gamma }{2}<br />
So my question is, where does the factor of 1/2 come from, when this framework is used to interpret the force?Niles.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top