Talk:Atomic spectral line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top importance within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh The idea of an atomic spectral line is of "top" importance for physics. The explanation of these was THE big prediction of early quantum mechanics and motivated developments in all other areas of physics. I think this article is just a "start" though. It has some discussion of Einstein coefficients and such, but perhaps material that is more related to atomic physics would be useful too -- eg, explain the Balmer or Lyman series, mention the idea of jumping between energy levels defined by the Schrodinger equation, etc, to get a wider viewpoint. Also some introduction for the non-scientifically-literate user in the beginning would be nice too. Wesino 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1. In section oscillator strength: is undefined.

2. Comparing the formular connecting and with the expression in the book of Bransden&Joachain "Physics of atoms and molecules", one get's the impression that CGS-units are used here, where the permeability of vacuum, , is . Maybe SI units are more appropriate here on wikipedia.

3. Comparing the expressions for and to Bransden&Joachain, would be , inconsistent with point(2.). It seems like the "c" in the denominators should not appear there.

Contents 1 Question 2 stimulated emission image 3 B12, is it function of ν ? 4 rewritten introduction

[edit] Question

These questions were moved from the article. PAR 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: The Wikipedia article on Einstein refers to his publishing the concept of spontaneous emission in Physikalische Zeitschrift in 1917, not 1916. Is there documentary evidence for the 1916 date?

Also, Bertolotti's book on the history of masers and lasers says that Einstein did not actually use the term "stimulated emission", which was only introduced later by Van Vleck. Comments on this?

[edit] stimulated emission image

I believe that the created photon in the stimulated emission image should be moving in the same direction as the catalyst photon.

Good idea - I have changed it. PAR 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B₁₂, is it function of ν ?

and : shouldn't they be replaced to , ?

[edit] rewritten introduction

A few points

• Yes, the distinction between emission and absorption lines should be noted in the beginning.
• absorption is not the same as the photoelectric effect. In the photoelectric effect the electron is ejected from the material, not pushed to a higher energy level.
• Continuum radiation is well defined. Continuum radiation comes about when the distribution of photon energies is continuous over a relatively large interval. The spectrum itself may not be continuous in the usual sense, but the probability distribution for photon energies is.
• Spectral lines only occur in bound-bound transitions. Bound-bound transitions are crucial to the understanding of atomic lines and should not be stuck at the end of the article under a "terminology" section. Bound-free transitions form a continuum, not a spectral line.

PAR 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)