Why does the rate of transitions depend on the population of the ground state?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marco1235
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluorescence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dependence of transition rates on the populations of quantum states in the context of a fluorophore's excitation and stimulated emission. Participants explore the implications of population differences in the equations governing these processes, particularly in relation to classical Einstein coefficients.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the transition rate includes a term with the difference in populations (##n_1 - n_0##) rather than a simpler form, expressing confusion about the role of ##n_0##.
  • Another participant suggests an alternative equation format, indicating a preference for clarity in how the terms are represented.
  • It is noted that the term involving ##n_1## accounts for stimulated emission, which is a transition from the excited state back to the ground state.
  • Participants discuss the correct interpretation of the transition terms and their signs, with one asserting that the rate of transitions generally depends on the population of the initial state.
  • A later reply indicates that the initial confusion was resolved upon reviewing the Einstein coefficients, suggesting that the original understanding was correct.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the initial interpretation of the equations, as participants express differing views on the correct formulation and the significance of the population terms. However, one participant later acknowledges that their confusion was resolved, implying some level of agreement on the underlying principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference classical Einstein coefficients and the roles of different states in transition rates, but the discussion does not resolve all uncertainties regarding the specific forms of the equations or the implications of the population differences.

marco1235
Hi all. I need a help about a stupid thing which is puzzling me! I'm studying a paper where it's described a classical excitation of a fluorophore from a ground state to an excited state.

See the attached image!

There are two laser beams which act on the sample, the first one which is an excitation laser (it runs the ##L_{0}## to ##L_{1}## transition) and a second laser beam called STED (yes the same of the "new" fancy way of getting super resolute images, I'm actually studying the theory of this super resolution technique).

Now the eqs are the classical Einstein like, but what I don't understand is (let's take for example the first one) why there's a factor like ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01} ( n_1- n_0)##. I would had expected something like "minus" a quantity which told me that the temporal variation of the ground state is diminished because of absorption. In fact the second term of the right hand side is of the form ##1/\tau_{vibr} * n_3## which is telling me that atoms are coming from the level ##L_3##.

Same reasoning applies for the other equations, but it would be great to have an understanding of just the first one, the other will be the same thing.
Thanks in advance and forgive me if my English is not so correct. I did my best.

Have a wonderful day everybody! Ciao
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 384
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that in the first equation you have n_1 - n_0, not n_0 - n_1. It is a negative number, just written by flipping the n terms instead of with the negative sign explicitly out in front of the term.
 
Yeah I noticed it, but the question is, why that term with a difference in population number and not a simple ##- h_{exc} \sigma_{01} n_1## !? I don't understand the part with ##n_0##.
It has no sense to me.
 
I would had written the equation like this: ## dn_{0}/dt = -h_{exc}\sigma_{01} * n_1 + 1/\tau_{vibr} * n_3 ##

Not as in the paper. Maybe now my objection is more clear, I hope so. :wink:
 
The +hexcσ01∗n1 term accounts for stimulated emission.
 
Did you mean the ##+h_{ecx}\sigma n_0## ? ##n_0## not ##n_1## as you wrote in the last message
 
No, what I wrote is correct. Can you explain why you think ## dn_{0}/dt = -h_{exc}\sigma_{01} * n_1 + 1/\tau_{vibr} * n_3 ## is the correct form? Which transition does the ##-h_{exc}\sigma_{01}## term account for and what transition does the ##1/\tau_{vibr} * n_3## account for?
 
Solved! I went a bit fast and after reviewing Einstein coefficients everything is right!
 
The basic thing to remember is that the rate of transitions from state A to state B will almost always depend on the population of state A. So, for example, if you're looking at the rate of excitation of electrons from L0 to L1, the rate will be ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01}*n_o## not ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01}*n_1##. Similarly, because stimulated emission is a transition from L1 to L0, the rate will be ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01}*n_1##. Thus, when you look at the contributions of excitation from L0 to L1 and stimulated emission from L1 to L0 on the population of n0, the ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01}*n_o## term will have a negative sign (because it involves electrons transitioning from L0 to L1, and the ##h_{exc}\sigma_{01}*n_1## will have a positive sign (because it involves electrons transitioning from L1 to L0).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K