Can Anything Explain No Matter = No Photon?

In summary, the professor is explaining how he can trap an atom in a magnetic field and keep it in a spin-down state even though it is unstable. If you isolate an atom from the environment, it will not be able to radiate because there will be no absorbers. If you generate a magnetic field around an atom, then it will be trapped in that field and cannot flip to a spin-up state.
  • #1
fargoth
320
6
this is something that bothers me:
a professor explained today how he can preserve spin-down in a magnetic field in the +z direction even though its unstable (the energy is for spin-down in a +z field is [tex]u=\mu B[/tex] and the energy for spin-up is [tex]u=-\mu B[/tex].

he says that if we isoltate an atom in spin-down (excited state) from the enviorement it won't be able to radiate (flip to the ground state spin-up) because there won't be anything that would absorb the photon...

its wierd... so if i got it right, the atom only goes to ground-state if a photon was detected, so the probability it would emmit a photon in proportional to the density of absorbers around it...

can anyone explain this?
and id be happy to see an equation with that relation (probability vs. density)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
fargoth said:
this is something that bothers me:
a professor explained today how he can preserve spin-down in a magnetic field in the +z direction even though its unstable (the energy is for spin-down in a +z field is [tex]u=\mu B[/tex] and the energy for spin-up is [tex]u=-\mu B[/tex].

he says that if we isoltate an atom in spin-down (excited state) from the enviorement it won't be able to radiate (flip to the ground state spin-up) because there won't be anything that would absorb the photon...

its wierd... so if i got it right, the atom only goes to ground-state if a photon was detected, so the probability it would emmit a photon in proportional to the density of absorbers around it...

can anyone explain this?
and id be happy to see an equation with that relation (probability vs. density)

There is a distinct possibility that you have misinterpreted this. This is especially true in the meaning of "isolating an atom from the environment".

The probability of transition of an atom from a high to low energy state depends on 2 things: (i) the probability of going from the initial state to the final state, typically described via the Fermi Golden rule, and (ii) the probability that the emitted energy can be "taken up", either as radiation to the vacuum or via absorption by other entities.

The confusion here comes from what is meant by "isolating an atom from the environment". What your prof. probably meant that it is decoupled even from the vacuum surrounding it, meaning it can't even radiate such energy. In such a case, just because there is a finite probability of going from the initial to the final state, since the emitted energy has nowhere to go, such a transition is prohibited.

This is an illustration of several phenomena. In tunneling, the probability of tunneling is governed not only on the tunneling matrix element, which dictates the probability that a particle can transverse through a potential barrier, but also the probability that there is an available state at the same energy (for elastic tunneling) for the particle to end up in. In pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance (which I think is closer to the example you were given), after a 90 degree spin flip, the rate at which the magnetization grows not only depends on the probability of going from the high spin state to the low spin state, but also the ability of the surrounding lattice to take up the energy given off. So this give a good measure of the nature of the surrounding material, because there is a difference in the rate of energy absorption for different types of material.

Zz.
 
  • #3
i see, and how can one isolate an atom from the vacuum (zero point energy i guess)?

he said they put an atom in vacuum on an atom chip that generates the desired magnetic field which traps the atom when its in the spin-down state.
is there any special machanism he didnt tell me about that decouples it from the vacuum itself?
 
  • #4
fargoth said:
i see, and how can one isolate an atom from the vacuum (zero point energy i guess)?
he said they put an atom in vacuum on an atom chip that generates the desired magnetic field which traps the atom when its in the spin-down state.
is there any special machanism he didnt tell me about that decouples it from the vacuum itself?

In that case, the generate energy is in the form of a magnetic field, so the "receiver" in this case is not just the vacuum field but rather the magnetization. So you are transfering Delta(E) in the form of a magnetic field energy that is absorbed by another spin or angular momentum state. This is definitely what is going on an NMR.

Zz.
 
  • #5
ok, but how can you prohibit the transition of energy and keep your atom excited forever? (thats what he does, he has an atom trapped there, and it won't escape because it can't flip its spin)

i.e. how far does other atoms have to be so that no angular momentum could be transferred to them?
is there a way to isolate the atom so that even if an atom is close to it there will be no way for the momentum to be transfered?
what about the vacuum? it still can absorb angular momentum can't it (circular polarized photon)? - how do you prohibit the vacuum from absorbing it?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
fargoth said:
ok, but how can you prohibit the transition of energy and keep your atom excited forever? (thats what he does, he has an atom trapped there, and it won't escape because it can't flip its spin)

i.e. how far does other atoms have to be so that no angular momentum could be transferred to them?
is there a way to isolate the atom so that even if an atom is close to it there will be no way for the momentum to be transfered?
what about the vacuum? it still can absorb angular momentum can't it (circular polarized photon)? - how do you prohibit the vacuum from absorbing it?

It's conservation of energy! A "vacuum" cannot absorb energy because that would be energy lost into nowhere.

I am guessing that the atom is maintained inside a static magnetic field, but not knowing what the setup looks like or what is involved, that is just a pure guess. Maybe this is a good time to actually ASK your prof. the questions you just asked here. After all, he/she was PAID to do just that.

Zz.
 
  • #7
ok, you confused me, you said
"The probability of transition of an atom from a high to low energy state depends on 2 things: (i) the probability of going from the initial state to the final state, typically described via the Fermi Golden rule, and (ii) the probability that the emitted energy can be "taken up", either as radiation to the vacuum or via absorption by other entities.

The confusion here comes from what is meant by "isolating an atom from the environment". What your prof. probably meant that it is decoupled even from the vacuum surrounding it, meaning it can't even radiate such energy. In such a case, just because there is a finite probability of going from the initial to the final state, since the emitted energy has nowhere to go, such a transition is prohibited."


anyway, how can the atom "know" if there is something to absorb its photon?
cant it just release a photon to the vacuum like the sun does? (or does the sun emmit energy only when there is a body to receive it too?)
if so, when our universe will get big enough all the spontaneous processes would be slower...




and as for asking him... well, actually he isn't paid to teach me... he just came and told us about his research... and theyre all too busy there to answer my questions... (atleast that's the impression i got when i came there and asked if i could do my project there)
 
  • #8
fargoth said:
ok, you confused me, you said
"The probability of transition of an atom from a high to low energy state depends on 2 things: (i) the probability of going from the initial state to the final state, typically described via the Fermi Golden rule, and (ii) the probability that the emitted energy can be "taken up", either as radiation to the vacuum or via absorption by other entities.
The confusion here comes from what is meant by "isolating an atom from the environment". What your prof. probably meant that it is decoupled even from the vacuum surrounding it, meaning it can't even radiate such energy. In such a case, just because there is a finite probability of going from the initial to the final state, since the emitted energy has nowhere to go, such a transition is prohibited."
anyway, how can the atom "know" if there is something to absorb its photon?
cant it just release a photon to the vacuum like the sun does? (or does the sun emmit energy only when there is a body to receive it too?)
if so, when our universe will get big enough all the spontaneous processes would be slower...
and as for asking him... well, actually he isn't paid to teach me... he just came and told us about his research... and theyre all too busy there to answer my questions... (atleast that's the impression i got when i came there and asked if i could do my project there)

In an atomic dipole transition, a photon is emitted into vacuum, i.e. this is [tex]h\nu[/tex]. In the magnetic transition case, this is not a "photon" as in "light". It is a "photon" in the sense of QED field. So when you flip the spin from antiparallel to parallel (for a + magnetic moment), a "receiver" must also be able to take up the "magnetic energy" by changing its magnetic state. A vacuum can't do that.

I strongly suggest you ask this person. It is irresponsible to simply throw out something like this and expect people to not have any ability to ask.

Zz.
 
  • #9
i thought the only difference between dipole transition and magnetic moment transition is only the polarization of the photon (i.e. linear vs. circular), i mean we do measure photons with energy equal to [tex]\hbar \omega_L[/tex] where [tex]\omega_L=\frac{\Delta E}{\hbar}[/tex] that's the larmour freq...

so there's a difference between the things i measure from NMR and the things i measure from excited phosphor? (other then polarization?)

and is there a difference between the spectral lines that rise due to radius shift (the lines predicted by the primitive hydrogen model) and the ones that rise due to angular moment change (the lines predicted by the fine structure model)?

seems odd...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
ok, its just an idea... but i think that around the atom there is an electric potential so that only certain energies of photon can be emmited, so if the energy difference between the up-spin and down-spin isn't one of these mods, the atom won't flip.

so if I am right, the "thing" that has to be absorbed from this transition is no different then the one that has to be absorbed from a dipole transition, and i want to call this "thing" a photon... this means i can have an excited atom in a potential box, and he won't be able to go back to ground state.

hmmm... i wonder if its possible to capture an atom and inflate it - i mean excite it to energy with big "radius" and it won't be able to relax... id have a gigantic atom =) not that i can do anything with it, because any photon would then blow away the electron from the atom...
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Can Anything Explain No Matter = No Photon?

What is the concept behind "No Matter = No Photon"?

The concept behind "No Matter = No Photon" is based on the relationship between matter and light. According to the theory of relativity, matter and energy are interchangeable. This means that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. Photons, which are particles of light, are a form of energy. Therefore, if there is no matter present, there can be no photons.

Why is it important to understand the concept of "No Matter = No Photon"?

Understanding the relationship between matter and light is crucial in fields such as physics and astronomy. It helps explain phenomena such as how light is affected by gravity and how particles and antiparticles are created. Additionally, this concept has practical applications in technologies such as lasers and solar panels.

Can there be photons without matter?

No, according to the theory of relativity, there cannot be photons without matter. Photons are a form of energy and can only exist in the presence of matter. This is because matter and energy are two sides of the same coin and cannot exist independently.

How does this concept relate to the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter was created. This matter then interacted with energy, leading to the creation of photons. Therefore, the concept of "No Matter = No Photon" is crucial in understanding the early stages of the universe.

Are there any exceptions to the concept of "No Matter = No Photon"?

There are some rare exceptions to this concept. In certain situations, photons can be created without the presence of matter, such as in the production of gamma-ray bursts. However, these exceptions are still based on the conversion of energy into matter and vice versa.

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
25
Views
11K
Replies
36
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top