An excited atom in a small cavity is precisely such as antenna, albeit a microscopic one. If the cavity is small enough, the atom will be unable to radiate because the wavelength of the oscillating field it would "like" to produce cannot fit within the boundaries. As long as the atom cannot emit a photon, it must remain in the same energy level; the excited state acquires an infinite lifetime.
In 1985 research groups at the University of Washington and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrated suppressed emission. The group in Seattle inhibited the radiation of a single electron inside an electromagnetic trap, whereas the M.I.T. group studied excited atoms confined between two metallic plates about a quarter of a millimeter apart. The atoms remained in the same state without radiating as long as they were between the plates.
Millimeter-scale structures are much too wide to alter the behavior of conventionally excited atoms emitting micron or submicron radiation; consequently, the M.I.T. experimenters had to work with atoms in special states known as Rydberg states. An atom in a Rydberg state has almost enough energy to lose an electron completely. Because this outermost electron is bound only weakly, it can assume any of a great number of closely spaced energy levels, and the photons it emits while jumping form one to another have wavelengths ranging from a fraction of a millimeter to a few centimeters. Rydberg atoms are prepared by irradiating ground-state atoms with laser light of appropriate wavelengths and are widely used in cavity QED experiments.
The suppression of spontaneous emission at an optical frequency requires much smaller cavities. In 1986 one of us (Haroche), along with other physicists at Yale University, made a micron-wide structure by stacking two optically flat mirrors separated by extremely thin metallic spacers. The workers sent atoms through this passage, thereby preventing them from radiating for as long as 13 times the normal excited-state lifetime. Researchers at the University of Rome used similar micron-wide gaps to inhibit emission by excited dye molecules.
The experiments performed on atoms between two flat mirrors have an interesting twist. Such a structure, with no sidewalls, constrains the wavelengths only of photons whose polarization is parallel to the mirrors. As a result, emission is inhibited only if the atomic dipole antenna oscillates along the plane of mirrors. (It was essential, for example, to prepare the excited atoms with this dipole orientation in the M.I.T. and Yale spontaneous-emission inhibition experiments.) The Yale researchers demonstrated these polarization-dependent effects by rotating the atomic dipole between the mirrors with the help of a magnetic field. When the dipole orientation was tilted with respect to the mirrors' plane, the excited-state lifetime dropped substantially.
Suppressed emission also takes place in solid-state cavities—tiny regions of semiconductor bounded by layers of disparate substances. Solid-state physicists routinely produce structures of submicron dimensions by means of molecular-beam epitaxy, in which materials are built up one atomic layer at a time. Devices built to take advantage of cavity QED phenomena could engender a new generation of light emitters [see "Microlasers," by Jack L. Jewell, James P. Harbison and Axel Scherer; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, November 1991].
These experiments indicate a counterintuitive phenomenon that might be called "no-photon interference." In short, the cavity prevents an atom from emitting a photon because that photon would have interfered destructively with itself had it ever existed. But this begs a philosophical question: How can the photon "know," even before being emitted, whether the cavity is the right or wrong size?
Part of the answer lies in yet another odd result of quantum mechanics. A cavity with no photon is in its lowest-energy state, the so-called ground state, but it is not really empty. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sets a lower limit on the product of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity (or anywhere else for that matter) and thus prevents them from simultaneously vanishing. This so-called vacuum field exhibits intrinsic fluctuations at all frequencies, from long radio waves down to visible, ultraviolet and gamma radiation, and is a crucial concept in theoretical physics. Indeed, spontaneous emission of a photon by an excited atom is in a sense induced by vacuum fluctuations.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add Comment"spontaneous emission of a photon by an excited atom is in a sense induced by vacuum fluctuations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Induced"? I knew about vacuum fluctuations as an explanation for the Casmir effect, but I'd not heard this theory. While the beginning of this article is written in a tone of "old news" (which is always the best kind of science to deeply reflect on), I wonder if this theory is still new enough to be controversial.
I'm especially curious about the "in a sense" part. Can someone here explain that to me? Such complications are frequently omitted and/or horribly abused by pseudo-scientific types who fail to realize that quantum physicists (when deprived of their wave functions) often resort to loose metaphors. I'd like to know where this metaphor breaks down.
---
I'm impressed by the technical feat of a grad student putting a beryllium ion 80 nanometers away from itself (on the order of a thousand times its stationary diameter and ten times the wave packet's width).
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp10/upload/bkthesis.pdf
And likewise impressed by the measurement of decoherence over time.
http://phd.fisica.unimi.it/assets/docs/PC_and_Seminars/0910/SlideHaroche.pdf
Perhaps those quantum optics x-ray lasers could one day be used for fusion ignition?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/nature10721.html
By the way, why weren't Rydberg atoms defined until halfway through the article? If I'd not already known, I would have been a bit confused. And some of the superscripts are missing; for example, 10 to the 23 was rendered as 1023.
"And some of the superscripts are missing; for example, 10 to the 23 was rendered as 1023."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree: Presenting numbers without their proper superscripts and subscripts is dumb, and it should never be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Yes, it was allowed to happen out of human carelessness, and nobody or nothing else can be blamed.
If there is any difficulty in typesetting and presentation, then the people of Scientific American should use 10^23, which is generally understood for exponentiation.
There is also "ten to the 23rd power" - just use Plain English. Never allow it to be presented as a four-digit number.
"Atoms and photons in small cavities behave completely unlike those in free space."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"completely unlike" ?? Very questionable.
If even one similiarity can be found, then that is a false statement. I am sure that some similarities can be found.
For a quick example of one, the rest mass of a photon is zero, no matter what.
As for the atoms, their electrons continue to "orbit" the nuclei of the atoms and the energy levels of those electrons continue to take on discrete levels according to the rules of quantum mechanics.
The nuclei of the atoms continue to behave completely the same, whether the atoms are in cavities, in free space, or in condensed matter.
You remind me of the TV commercials that advertize the products as "perfect" or "ideal". Well, no - No commercial product is perfect or ideal. We don't even have ideal gases here, nor ideal simple machines such as levers.