We briefly review the classical model of a Lorentz atom interacting with an optical field. We then ask how the equations describing the atom’s behavior should be modified to include atomic energy level quantization. Simply discussing what modifications make sense provides a strong plausibility argument for the optical Bloch equations. Contrasted with the standard derivation, this argument is less rigorous but has a certain pedagogical appeal: It simply assumes two atomic states with energy difference ℏω, rather than invoking the Schrödinger equation. Also, because our goal is more-or-less to guess the correct equations with minimal formalism, this discussion focuses on the physical meaning of the Bloch equations.
REFERENCES
1.
Richard P.
Feynman
, Frank L.
Vernon
, Jr., and Robert W.
Hellwarth
, “Geometrical representation of the Schrödinger Equation for solving maser problems
,” J. Appl. Phys.
28
, 49
–52
(1957
).2.
Pierre Meystre and Murray Sargent III, Elements of Quantum Optics (Springer, New York, 1999), 3rd ed.
3.
Peter W. Milonni and Joseph H. Eberly, Lasers (Wiley, New York, 1988), especially Chaps. 6 and 8.
4.
Bruce W. Shore, The Theory of Coherent Atomic Excitation, Simple Atoms and Fields (Wiley, New York, 1990), Vol. 1, especially Chap. 8.
5.
L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms (Dover, New York, 1987).
6.
Marc D. Levenson and Satoru S. Kano, Introduction to Nonlinear Laser Spectroscopy, Revised edition (Academic, New York, 1988), pp. 29–47.
7.
Discussed in many optics books. See, for example, Eugene Hecht, Optics (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1998), 3rd ed., Chap. 3.
8.
Reference 3, pp. 27–39.
9.
David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999), 3rd ed., pp. 398–405.
10.
S. G. Lipson, H. Lipson, and D. S. Tannhauser, Optical Physics (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995), 3rd ed., pp. 383–394.
11.
A spring might seem like a contrived visual image; it’s just a way to picture oscillations about a stable equilibrium.
12.
Jerry B. Marion and Stephen T. Thornton, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Saunders/Harcourt Brace, New York, 1995), 4th ed., Chap. 3.
13.
Keith R. Symon, Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1971), Chap. 2.
14.
S. C. Bloch, Introduction to Classical and Quantum Harmonic Oscillators (Wiley, New York, 1997).
16.
Reference 2, pp. 68–69.
17.
Reference 4, p. 423.
18.
H. Haken, Light, Vol. 1, Waves, Photons, Atoms (North-Holland, New York, 1981), pp. 14–15, 133–135.
19.
Reference 10, pp. 419–422.
20.
For a discussion of phasors see, for example, Ref. 7 or Ferrel G. Stremler, Introduction to Communication Systems (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990), 3rd ed.
21.
Mary B.
James
and David J.
Griffiths
, “Why the speed of light is reduced in a transparent medium
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(4
), 309
–313
(1992
).22.
Joshua B.
Diamond
, “Comment on ‘Why the speed of light is reduced in a transparent medium,’ by Mary B. James and David J. Griffiths [Am. J. Phys. 60, 309–313 (1992)]
,” Am. J. Phys.
63
(2
), 179
–180
(1995
).23.
Bruce A.
Sherwood
, “Answer to Question #21 [‘Snell’s law in quantum mechanics,’ Steve Blau and Brad Halfpap, Am. J. Phys. 63 (7), 583 (1995)]
,” Am. J. Phys.
64
(7
), 840
–841
(1996
).24.
P. W.
Milonni
, “Answer to Question #21 [‘Snell’s law in quantum mechanics,’ Steve Blau and Brad Halfpap, Am. J. Phys. 63 (7), 583 (1995)]
,” Am. J. Phys.
64
(7
), 842
(1996
).25.
Bart G.
de Grooth
, “Why is the propagation velocity of a photon in a transparent medium reduced?
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
(12
), 1156
–1164
(1997
).26.
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963), Vol. I, Chap. 31.
27.
Reference 7, pp. 91–95.
28.
Reference 10, pp. 389–393.
29.
Reference 5, pp. 5–7. We use different normalization for U and
30.
One check, for example, is that differentiating and then using Eqs. (10) and (11) with give as required for exponential decay.
31.
Over any whole number of cycles, and
32.
Too much should not be read into the fact that we use the same symbols (e.g., β) in both the classical and semiclassical cases. There are no claims here about assigning a numerical value to β. By extension, there are no claims about comparing values of parameters between the two theories. We keep the same symbols only to facilitate comparing the forms of various equations.
33.
The length squared of the Bloch vector is The time rate of change of is Using Eqs. (25), this becomes This last form shows that if β=0, an atom starting in the ground state with will always have Hence, when putting the atom completely in the upper or lower eigenstate, the atom has no dipole moment, as required. (Additionally, means that can never exceed 1, showing that the dipole moment for this quantum transition has an upper limit.) Now, for cases with β≠0, can be either positive or negative. But it cannot be positive if because can never be less than −1. This means that L can never grow beyond 1. So whether β is zero or not, the length of the Bloch vector cannot exceed 1, assuring that there is no dipole moment whenever (This endnote addresses only the form of the equations, without bringing to bear additional information that the physical interpretation of the equations would allow.)
34.
They are the optical Bloch equations in the dipole approximation and rotating wave approximation.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2000 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2000
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.