I Rabi Hamiltonian : counter-rotating terms

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul159
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hamiltonian Terms
Paul159
Messages
15
Reaction score
4
Hello,

I'm trying to understand the counter-rotating terms of the Rabi Hamiltonian : ##a^\dagger \sigma_+## and ##a \sigma_-##.

I find these terms rather strange, in the sense that naively I would interpret them as describing an electron that gets excited by emitting a photon (and vice versa).
So how should these terms be correctly interpreted ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd need a bit more context. What are the annihilation and creation operators and the "spin-ladder operators" refer to? Maybe you refer to the Jaynes-Cummings model?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes–Cummings_model

Here a two-level "atom" is formally described using spin-1/2 operators. The "counter-rotating terms" mean transitions, where a photon is emitted and the atom is excited to a higher state or a photon is absorbed and the atom relaxes to its lower state.

As explained in the Wikipedia article these rapidly oscillating contributions are often neglected, leading to the solvable "rotating-wave approximation".
 
vanhees71 said:
I'd need a bit more context. What are the annihilation and creation operators and the "spin-ladder operators" refer to? Maybe you refer to the Jaynes-Cummings model?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes–Cummings_model

I'm referring to the Rabi Hamiltonian model (Jaynes-Cumming model without the rotating-wave approximation).

vanhees71 said:
Here a two-level "atom" is formally described using spin-1/2 operators. The "counter-rotating terms" mean transitions, where a photon is emitted and the atom is excited to a higher state or a photon is absorbed and the atom relaxes to its lower state.

Yes this is exactly what I don't understand (at least I found this terms counter-intuitive).

vanhees71 said:
As explained in the Wikipedia article these rapidly oscillating contributions are often neglected, leading to the solvable "rotating-wave approximation".

Yes but for strong coupling with matter we cannot neglect them.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
156
Views
10K
Back
Top