Codex @codex  0

In the straight-trajectory dipole model, retain the Coulomb-coupling convention of $V(t)=Z{e}^2(bx+vty)/(b^2+v^2{t}^2{)}^{3/2}$. In SI units the coupling denoted $e^2$ here is $e^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)$. First-order time-dependent perturbation theory expresses a transition through the Fourier transform of this pulse at the transition angular frequency.

For positive $\omega$ put $\beta =\omega b/v$. The two Cartesian pulse transforms arewhere $K_{\nu }$ is a Modified Bessel function of the second kind. One may derive these from the Fourier transform of $(1+s^2{)}^{-1/2}$, differentiating in its scale and integrating its spatial derivative by parts. For $\beta \ll 1$, $\beta K_1(\beta )\to 1$ while $\beta K_0(\beta )\to 0$, so the transverse impulse gives the probability in the title. If the $x$ matrix element vanishes, the smaller longitudinal term can be the leading nonzero contribution.

The conditions include $b$ large compared with the atomic extent for the electric-dipole approximation, a small total transition probability for first-order theory, and a collision time $b/v$ short compared with $1/|\omega |$. Large $\beta$ instead gives exponentially suppressed excitation in this model through the large-argument behavior of $K_{\nu }$.

Stimulated emission adds a photon to an already occupied radiation mode; spontaneous emission can occur when that mode initially contains no photons. In the electric-dipole approximation the atom-field interaction is $H_{\mathrm{int}}=-\mathbf{d}\cdot \mathbf{E}$. Quantizing the radiation field makes the emission matrix element into a mode with occupation $n$ proportional toThis photon occupation enhancement of emission makes the emission rate into that mode proportional to $n+1$: the part proportional to $n$ is stimulated and the remaining part is spontaneous. Absorption is proportional to $|⟨n-1|a|n⟩{|}^2=n$. The photon energy is the atomic energy difference, up to any specified recoil or line broadening.

The stimulated contribution preferentially populates the stimulating mode, including its propagation direction and polarization; it provides optical gain. Spontaneous photons populate the available modes according to the transition's dipole matrix elements and radiation environment. They are not universally isotropic. An excited bare atom with the field vacuum is not an eigenstate of the fully coupled Hamiltonian, which resolves the apparent paradox of a nominally stationary excited state radiating.^[ref]

For lower and upper levels 1 and 2, with radiation spectral energy density $u_{\nu }$ per unit ordinary frequency, the rates areThermal detailed balance with the Planck spectrum givesThe statistical weights $g_i$ here are level degeneracies, not Landé g-factors. A definition of $B$ multiplying intensity or angular-frequency density would change the normalization factors.

For a specified free-space electric-dipole transition, summing radiation modes givesAppropriate sums over final magnetic substates and averages over initial substates are needed for an unresolved degenerate level. The radiative lifetime is $1/A_{21}$ only when this is the sole decay channel. In a laser, net stimulated gain requires $N_2/g_2>N_1/g_1$, as well as sufficient gain to overcome cavity loss; population inversion alone does not specify the lasing threshold.

Expand the time-dependent quantum state in unperturbed energy eigenstates, factoring out free dynamical phases:The Schrödinger equation gives the exact interaction picture coefficient equationsInitially $c_n(-\infty )={\delta }_{ni}$. To first order in time-dependent perturbation theory, replace the coefficients on the right by these zeroth-order values and integrate. ThusFor a transition $j\ne i$, this is the desired leading probability amplitude, and $P_{ji}=|{\gamma }_{ji}^{(1)}{|}^2$ to leading order. The formula is understood with free asymptotic phases removed. For $j=i$, the full survival amplitude also contains the zeroth-order $1$; the displayed integral alone is its first-order correction, not the whole amplitude. This specifies the usual scattering operator meaning of the paper's notation at infinite times.

For the ion pulse, write $x_{ji}=⟨j|x|i⟩$ and $y_{ji}=⟨j|y|i⟩$. ThenConsider an excitation with ${\omega }_{ji}>0$ and put $\beta ={\omega }_{ji}b/v$, $u={\omega }_{ji}t$. The first real pulse is even in time and the second is odd. Their respective surviving Fourier components are therefore cosine and imaginary sine:Since $\beta \log (1/\beta )\to 0$, the longitudinal term is smaller for comparable position matrix elements. Hence the electric-dipole excitation by a passing ion hasThis leading limit extends to either sign of ${\omega }_{ji}$ using $|{\omega }_{ji}|b/v\ll 1$. If $x_{ji}=0$ by a selection rule, the retained leading term vanishes and the smaller longitudinal term may give the first nonzero probability. The conditions also include a small total transition probability, approximately straight constant-velocity motion, and $b$ large compared with atomic size for the electric-dipole approximation. The paper uses a Coulomb-coupling convention in which the factor is written $Z{e}^2$; in SI units replace $e^2$ throughout by $e^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)$.

The collision duration is of order $b/v$. Excitations with angular frequency ${\omega }_{ji}$ receive an unsuppressed impulse when this is short relative to $1/{\omega }_{ji}$. In contrast, for ${\omega }_{ji}b/v\gg 1$, cancellations in the Fourier transform suppress the transition: a slowly varying distant field approximately preserves the atomic energy eigenstate. The exact dipole-pulse transforms make this explicit:where $K_{\nu }$ is a Modified Bessel function of the second kind. Their large-argument exponential decrease explains the slow-passage cutoff. These transforms are optional refinements of the small-$\beta$ derivation above, not a separate assumption about the target.

To connect the microscopic transition probability to energy loss, suppose the atom begins in a low-energy state. Exciting bound electronic states and causing ionization transfer positive energies $E_j-E_i$ from the ion to the material. For target atomic number density $n_{\mathrm{at}}$ and path length $d$, a schematic independent-encounter sum iswith a continuum integral as well as a sum for ionized final states. The short-collision formula gives $P_{ji}\propto Z^2/(b^2{v}^2)$, so the impact-parameter integral has logarithmic dependence on its cutoffs. Its upper effective cutoff is of order $v/{\omega }_{ji}$, where the transition ceases to be sudden; the lower cutoff must exclude regions where the dipole or weak-collision approximation fails. Thus the leading high-speed charge and isotope scaling of electronic stopping isAlthough a faster ion can access more energetic transitions and a wider range of distant encounters, its shorter interaction time reduces each ordinary excitation probability. In the fast-ion regime shown, the $1/v^2$ decrease dominates the slower variation of the excitation factor. The energy loss consequently falls with increasing incident kinetic energy. The original figure has $\delta E$ increasing downward, so the curves' rise toward the top of the page means decreasing loss, not increasing loss. A low-speed extrapolation of the inverse-square law is invalid because excitation thresholds, slow-passage suppression, changing ion charge and nuclear recoil can then matter.

For nonrelativistic ion mass $M$, $E=M{v}^2/2$. At fixed incident energy the leading prediction becomesThe greater atomic number of nitrogen than carbon than boron therefore gives larger loss; at the same velocity the leading species factor is $Z^2$. Within an isotopic family, the heavier ion moves more slowly at the same $E$ and loses more energy. Equivalently, a heavier isotope needs proportionally greater kinetic energy to achieve the same velocity and approximately the same electronic loss. Comparing at fixed energy per nucleon, rather than fixed total $E$, approximately removes this leading isotope mass dependence. This accounts for the separate isotope bands in the original graph without assigning different electronic excitation spectra to isotopes of the same projectile element.

The charge in this scaling is the effective ion charge if screening by bound projectile electrons is important. The interpretation assumes the same traversed material and thickness and uses the paper's small-fractional-loss regime, $\delta E/E\ll 1$; points with loss comparable to incident energy cannot be described quantitatively by treating $v$ as constant. The plotted curves support the qualitative ordering and high-energy decrease, rather than determining a universal normalization from the supplied single-atom model.

A crystal needs a nonzero effective second-order nonlinear optical susceptibility for the chosen polarizations. In the bulk electric-dipole approximation, centrosymmetry forbids this response. Transparency at the relevant frequencies and phase matching over the interaction length permit efficient buildup. Nonzero local generation can occur without exact phase matching, but contributions then tend to cancel as they propagate.

Write ${\psi }_j=k_{j}z-{\omega }_{j}t+{\varphi }_j$. Expanding the square and using the product-to-sum identity givesThese are respectively optical rectification, the two second-harmonic generation terms, sum-frequency generation and difference-frequency generation. Their phases and wavevectors are the corresponding sums or differences, not independently adjustable quantities.

For a vector field, $P_i^{(2)}=2{ϵ}_0{\sum }_{jk}{d}_{ijk}{E}_j{E}_k$. In the stated single-frequency amplitude convention, $E_j=(A_j{e}^{i\psi }+A_j^{\ast }{e}^{-i\psi })/2$. If $P_i^{(2\omega )}=[{\mathcal{P}}_i{e}^{2i\psi }+{\mathcal{P}}_i^{\ast }{e}^{-2i\psi }]/2$, comparison givesFor a real instantaneous tensor the zero-frequency contribution is $P_i^{(0)}={ϵ}_0{\sum }_{jk}{d}_{ijk}\mathrm{Re}(A_j{A}_k^{\ast })$. In a dispersive treatment, the tensors must carry their respective input and output frequency arguments.

The identical input-frequency pair is symmetric under $j\leftrightarrow k$, allowing contracted nonlinear susceptibility notation: replace the six pairs $xx,yy,zz,yz,zx,xy$ by $J=1,\dots ,6$. ThusThis contraction of a symmetric pair does not turn the physical susceptibility into a rank-two tensor. The factors of two account for both off-diagonal input orderings, and the prefactor follows from the question's explicit $1/2$ field convention.

For the proposed type-I process, energy conservation requires ${\omega }_1={\omega }_2+{\omega }_3$. HenceThe extraordinary pump and two ordinary output waves can be collinearly phase matched ifPut $n_{\ast }={\lambda }_{1}S$. Substituting the supplied angular extraordinary index and solving for ${\sin }^2\theta$ yieldsThe required index $n_{\ast }\simeq 2.2143$ lies between $2.1782$ and $2.2579$, so a real angle exists. Using the rounded 2922 nm wavelength in the supplied data gives $\theta \simeq 46.94^{\circ }$; retaining the energy-conserving 2922.25 nm value gives about $46.98^{\circ }$. Their common meaningful scale is about 47 degrees.

The spatial walk-off angle is the angle between the extraordinary wave's Poynting vector and its wavevector. For an optic-axis angle $\theta$, the extraordinary dispersion surface givesHere the indices are those of the 780 nm pump. Since this is a negative uniaxial crystal, its energy flow is farther from the optic axis than its wavevector. The ordinary waves' energy flows follow their wavevectors. The pump therefore drifts out of spatial overlap by roughly $L\tan \rho \simeq 0.0357L$, about $36\mu \mathrm{m}$ over a millimetre. This limits the useful nonlinear interaction length even when phase matching is exact.

Let $|g⟩,|e⟩$ be the atomic levels, ${\sigma }_{+}=|e⟩⟨g|$, and $a$ the annihilation operator of the single field mode. Choose the joint ground energy to be zero. The resonant Jaynes-Cummings model isThe first term counts field photons, the second the atomic excitation, and the interaction exchanges one photon for one atomic excitation. A phase redefinition makes $g$ real and positive. Resonance means $\omega ={\omega }_{eg}$; the total excitation $\mathcal{N}=a^{†}a+|e⟩⟨e|$ is conserved. Adding an overall constant gives the equivalent convention using ${\sigma }_z/2$ and a zero-point field term.

The model follows from the electric-dipole interaction and the rotating-wave approximation, retaining the energy-conserving terms while dropping $a{\sigma }_{-}$ and $a^{†}{\sigma }_{+}$. We assume a single quantized monochromatic mode and negligible cavity leakage and atomic relaxation over the time considered. With this convention, the resonant population Rabi angular frequency in the one-excitation subspace is $2g$.

Quantize a single electromagnetic normal mode of angular frequency ${\omega }_c$ and represent one isolated atomic transition as a two-level system with raising operator ${\sigma }_{+}=|e⟩⟨g|$. The bare Hamiltonian operator isThe first main approximation is the electric-dipole approximation: the field varies negligibly across an atom, $k{a}_{\mathrm{atom}}\ll 1$, and the leading coupling is $H_d=-\mathbf{d}\cdot \mathbf{E}({\mathbf{r}}_0)$. For states of definite opposite parity, the relevant dipole part is off-diagonal. After choosing operator phases, this gives $H_d=\hslash g(a+a^{†})({\sigma }_{+}+{\sigma }_{-})$, with $g$ fixed by the transition dipole and the one-photon field wave amplitude.

In the interaction picture, $a{\sigma }_{+}$ and $a^{†}{\sigma }_{-}$ oscillate at the difference ${\omega }_a-{\omega }_c$, whereas $a{\sigma }_{-}$ and $a^{†}{\sigma }_{+}$ oscillate at the sum ${\omega }_a+{\omega }_c$. The second main approximation is the rotating-wave approximation: near resonance and for $g\sqrt{n+1}\ll {\omega }_a+{\omega }_c$, the latter terms average away on the interaction time scale. The resulting Jaynes-Cummings model hasThe two-level system and single-normal mode truncations are additional assumptions: other atomic transitions and optical normal modes must be sufficiently far off resonance or weakly coupled. Dissipation is neglected over the interaction time. The retained terms exchange one atomic excitation for one photon, conserving $a^{†}a+{\sigma }_{+}{\sigma }_{-}$.

Noninteracting spectral line. Treat $\mathbf{k}$ as a wavevector, so physical crystal momentum is $\hslash \mathbf{k}$. Write ${\Omega }_{\mathbf{k}}={\epsilon }_{\mathbf{k}}/\hslash$; an energy zero at the chemical potential can be chosen throughout. The temporal factor of a noninteracting state is $e^{-i{\Omega }_{\mathbf{k}}t}$. With the Fourier transform convention $\tilde{\psi }(\omega )=\int dt{e}^{i\omega t}\psi (t)$,Thus its normalized frequency spectral function isOne should not square the delta distribution as if it were an ordinary finite-time transition amplitude. More precisely, the fermionic retarded Green function is $G_0^R(\mathbf{k},t)=-i\Theta (t)e^{-i{\Omega }_{\mathbf{k}}t}$. Its Fourier transform is $(\omega -{\Omega }_{\mathbf{k}}+i{0}^{+}{)}^{-1}$, whose negative imaginary part divided by $\pi$ is the same delta peak.

Interactions and lifetime. Interactions change the dispersion through the real part of the self-energy and permit decay into other excitations through its imaginary part. In the simplest quasiparticle-pole model, exponential decay of the retarded amplitude givesPerforming the causal integral,The corresponding Lorentzian quasiparticle spectral peak isIts total frequency integral is one. The exponential amplitude lifetime is $1/{\Gamma }_{\mathbf{k}}$; the probability lifetime is $1/(2{\Gamma }_{\mathbf{k}})$. Describing ${\Gamma }_{\mathbf{k}}$ as a scattering rate therefore requires the lifetime convention to be specified. The energy half-width is $\hslash {\Gamma }_{\mathbf{k}}$.

A general interacting electron is more accurately described by $G^R=Z_{\mathbf{k}}/(\omega -{\Omega }_{\mathbf{k}}^{\ast }+i{\Gamma }_{\mathbf{k}})+G_{\mathrm{inc}}^R$ near the pole. The coherent peak then integrates to the quasiparticle residue $Z_{\mathbf{k}}$ and an incoherent continuum carries the remaining weight. In an energy-unit self-energy convention,Linearizing the real denominator gives $Z=[1-{\hslash }^{-1}{\partial }_{\omega }\mathrm{Re}{\Sigma }^R{]}^{-1}$ and $\Gamma =-Z\mathrm{Im}{\Sigma }^R/\hslash$ at the pole. The requested unit-weight Lorentzian is the normalized quasiparticle model, not the most general exact interacting spectrum.

Peak position and width. At fixed $\mathbf{k}$, put $\gamma =\gamma (\mathbf{k})>0$ and $\Omega =\hslash k^2/(2m^{\ast })$. Differentiation givesIt is positive for $\omega <\Omega$ and negative for $\omega >\Omega$, so the only maximum is at $\Omega$, with height $1/(\pi \gamma )$. Setting $A$ to half this height gives $(\omega -\Omega {)}^2={\gamma }^2$. ThereforeIn energy units the maximum is ${\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m^{\ast })$ and the half-width is $\hslash \gamma (\mathbf{k})$. Frequency dependence of the self-energy would require reconsidering both the shape and peak position.

Fermi gas and Fermi liquid. A noninteracting Fermi gas has a delta-function spectral line at its bare dispersion for every momentum. A normal three-dimensional Fermi liquid has a shifted coherent peak plus incoherent spectral weight; close to the Fermi surface its width scales as $(\epsilon -\mu {)}^2+(\pi k_{B}T{)}^2$. At zero temperature the peak becomes arbitrarily sharp at the Fermi surface, while it broadens farther away. Spectral functions include addition and removal weight; occupied-only photoemission contains an extra Fermi factor.

Photoemission measurement. A photon of known energy $h\nu$ ejects an electron. Measure its kinetic energy $E_{\mathrm{kin}}$ and emission direction. For binding energy $E_B\ge 0$ below the Fermi level and the appropriate calibrated work function $\Phi$, conservation of energy givesConservation of momentum parallel to a periodic surface giveswhere ${\mathbf{G}}_{\parallel }$ is a surface reciprocal-lattice vector. At suitable photon energies the photon momentum can be neglected; at higher energies it must be retained. The surface breaks perpendicular translation symmetry, so the perpendicular crystal momentum generally needs a final-state model. A two-dimensional band can be reconstructed directly from the parallel components.

Within the sudden approximation and electric-dipole approximation, photoemission intensity and spectral function are related byHere $E$ is measured relative to the chemical potential. Instrumental resolution convolves the product and inelastic scattering adds background. Thus ARPES maps the occupied electron removal spectral function, weighted by a matrix element; it does not measure the full unoccupied spectrum or an unweighted spectral function automatically. Bright ridges give dispersions, and intrinsic widths give decay information after instrumental effects are removed.

Reading the supplied image. Its bright ridges form a graphene-like cone. The crossing near $k_y=0$ is the Dirac point, not in general the Fermi level. In the paper's plotted energy coordinates its energy is roughly $E_D\sim 1.4$–$1.5\mathrm{eV}$. A velocity follows from a branch slope independently of the energy zero:For example, the lower branch moves by about $0.3\mathrm{eV}$ between $|k_y|\sim 0.03$ and $0.11{\mathring{\mathrm{A}}}^{-1}$. This gives $dE/dk\sim 3.8\mathrm{eV}\mathring{\mathrm{A}}$ andReading other points changes the estimate by tens of percent. The original exam image has unequal energy increments on nearly equally spaced labelled ticks, so it does not justify a precise fitted velocity. The value is an estimate of the cone slope extrapolated to the Fermi crossing, rather than a measured derivative exactly at a visibly identified Fermi cutoff.

To determine a Fermi energy, first calibrate the Fermi edge, then subtract the chosen reference energy. Neither a Fermi-level marker nor an explicit energy-zero convention is supplied in this crop. If its upper termination near $1.9\mathrm{eV}$ is intended to represent the Fermi cutoff, the conditional graph answer is $E_F\simeq 1.9\mathrm{eV}$ on that axis, or $E_F-E_D\sim 0.4\mathrm{eV}$ relative to the Dirac crossing. Identifying the crossing itself as the Fermi energy would incorrectly assume undoped graphene.

The research article cited by the exam identifies this as linearly polarized graphene ARPES and independently states $E_F-E_D\simeq 0.4\mathrm{eV}$ for the substrate-doped sample. That resolves the relative energy when this external calibration is admitted.^[ref] The crop alone does not uniquely fix an absolute Fermi energy; the source-supported relative value and the conditional $1.9\mathrm{eV}$ axis reading should be distinguished.