## Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz Oscillator Model

## Masud Mansuripur

College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 (U.S.A.) [Published in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 58 , SKKB02 (2019); doi: 10.7567/1347-4065/ab2cc6.]

Abstract . In  his  celebrated  1916-17  papers  in  which  he  proposed  the 𝐴𝐴 and 𝐵𝐵 coefficients  for  the spontaneous  and  stimulated  emission  of  energy  quanta  from  excited  atoms,  Einstein  conjectured  that stimulated emission involves the release of individual quanta (later dubbed 'photons') along the direction of an incident photon with the same energy, momentum, phase, and polarization state as that of the incident photon. According to classical electrodynamics, of course, an oscillating dipole must radiate an azimuthally symmetric  electromagnetic  field  around  its  axis  of  oscillation.  Nevertheless,  Einstein  suggested  that  the release of stored energy from excited atoms in the form of discrete quanta (photons) must be directional, and that, in the case of stimulated emission, the direction of the emitted photon must coincide with that of the incident photon. The goal of the present paper is to show that some of the prominent features of absorption and stimulated emission emerge from Maxwellian electrodynamics in conjunction with the simple mass-andspring model of an atom known as the Lorentz oscillator model.

- 1. Introduction . The goal of the present paper is to show that some of the prominent features of absorption and stimulated emission that were originally discussed in Einstein's 1916-17 papers [1-4], emerge from the classical theory of electrodynamics in conjunction with the simple massand-spring model of an atom known as the Lorentz oscillator model [5-8]. Consider a thin slab of lossy/gainy medium of thickness 𝑑𝑑 and susceptibility 𝜀𝜀 0 𝜒𝜒 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) , where

$$\chi ( \omega ) = \chi _ { b } \pm \frac { \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } } { \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } - i \gamma \omega } \,.$$

Here 𝜀𝜀 0 is  the  permittivity  of  free  space, 𝜒𝜒 𝑏𝑏 is  the  background  susceptibility, 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 is  the resonance  frequency, 𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 is  the  plasma  frequency,  and 𝛾𝛾 is  the  damping  (or  amplification) coefficient of the medium. The ± signs specify whether the medium is lossy (plus sign) or gainy

(minus sign). Note that 𝛾𝛾 is  always positive, and that the sign of the oscillator strength (represented by ± in Eq.(1)), rather than that of 𝛾𝛾 , determines the lossy/gainy nature of the medium. The susceptibility given  by  Eq.(1),  and  also  the  corresponding  refractive  index,  thus satisfy  the  Kramers-Kronig  relations  so  long  as  the  poles  of 𝜒𝜒 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) remain in the lower-half of the complex 𝜔𝜔 -plane.

Fig.1 . A linearly-polarized plane wave of amplitude 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i and frequency 𝜔𝜔 is normally incident on a thin dielectric slab of thickness 𝑑𝑑 and refractive index 𝑛𝑛 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) . The reflected 𝐸𝐸 -field amplitude is 𝐸𝐸 ( r ) , the transmitted field is 𝐸𝐸 ( ) t , and the amplitude of the 𝐸𝐸 -field circulating inside the slab is 𝐸𝐸 ( c ) .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00243v1-figure-99e1b0c9-156f-432e-a36a-929a0114aaff.jpg)

Let us denote by 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i , 𝐸𝐸 ( r ) , 𝐸𝐸 ( ) t the 𝐸𝐸 -field amplitudes of incident, reflected, and transmitted plane-waves at normal incidence at the frequency 𝜔𝜔 , and by 𝐸𝐸 ( c ) the amplitude of the circulating 𝐸𝐸 -field inside the slab, as shown in Fig.1. Denoting by 𝑛𝑛 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) = � 1 + 𝜒𝜒 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) the refractive index of the  material  medium,  the  Fresnel  reflection  and  transmission  coefficients  of  the  vacuumdielectric interface at the front facet of the slab are given by [5,6]

$$\rho _ { 1 2 } ( \omega ) = \frac { 1 - n ( \omega ) } { 1 + n ( \omega ) },$$

$$\tau _ { 1 2 } ( \omega ) = \frac { 2 } { 1 + n ( \omega ) } \cdot$$

The corresponding Fresnel coefficients of the dielectric-vacuum interface (i.e., from inside the slab to the outside) are

$$\rho _ { 2 1 } ( \omega ) = \frac { n ( \omega ) - 1 } { n ( \omega ) + 1 },$$

$$\tau _ { 2 1 } ( \omega ) = \frac { 2 n ( \omega ) } { n ( \omega ) + 1 } \cdot$$

$$E ^ { ( c ) } = \tau _ { 1 2 } E ^ { ( i ) } + \rho _ { 2 1 } ^ { 2 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] \, E ^ { ( c ) },$$

$$E ^ { ( \mathbf r ) } = \rho _ { 1 2 } E ^ { ( \mathbf i ) } + \tau _ { 2 1 } \rho _ { 2 1 } \exp [ \mathbf i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] \, E ^ { ( \mathbf c ) },$$

$$E ^ { ( t ) } = \tau _ { 2 1 } \exp [ \text{in} ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] \, E ^ { ( c ) }.$$

In the above equations, 𝑐𝑐 = 1 �𝜇𝜇 𝜀𝜀 0 0 / is  the  speed of light in vacuum, 𝜀𝜀 0 and 𝜇𝜇 0 being the permittivity  and  permeability  of  free  space,  respectively.  Upon  solving  Eq.(4)  for 𝐸𝐸 ( c ) ,  and incorporating the result into Eqs.(5) and (6), we find

$$\frac { E ^ { ( r ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } = \frac { \rho _ { 1 2 } + ( \tau _ { 1 2 } \tau _ { 2 1 } - \rho _ { 1 2 } \rho _ { 2 1 } ) \rho _ { 2 1 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } { 1 - \rho _ { 2 1 } ^ { 2 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } \,,$$

$$\frac { E ^ { ( t ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } = \frac { \tau _ { 1 2 } \tau _ { 2 1 } \exp [ i n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } { 1 - \rho _ { 2 1 } ^ { 2 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } \,.$$

Substitution from Eqs.(2) and (3) into Eqs.(7) and (8) now yields

$$\frac { E ^ { ( r ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } = \frac { [ n ^ { 2 } ( \omega ) - 1 ] \{ \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] - 1 \} } { [ n ( \omega ) + 1 ] ^ { 2 } - [ n ( \omega ) - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } \,,$$

$$\frac { E ^ { ( t ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } = \frac { 4 n ( \omega ) \exp [ i n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } { [ n ( \omega ) + 1 ] ^ { 2 } - [ n ( \omega ) - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \exp [ i 2 n ( \omega ) \omega d / c ] } \cdot$$

Equations (9) and (10) are the exact expressions of the Fresnel reflection and transmission coefficients  for  a  slab  of  thickness 𝑑𝑑 and  refractive  index 𝑛𝑛 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) ,  surrounded  by  vacuum  and illuminated  at  normal  incidence  by  a  monochromatic  plane-wave  of  frequency 𝜔𝜔 . For  a sufficiently thin slab, we will have exp[i 𝑛𝑛 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 ] ≅ 1 + i 𝑛𝑛 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 , and, therefore,

$$\frac { E ^ { ( r ) } } { E ^ { ( l ) } } \cong \frac { [ n ^ { 2 } ( \omega ) - 1 ] ( i \omega d / c ) } { 2 - [ n ( \omega ) - 1 ] ^ { 2 } ( i \omega d / c ) } \cong \mathcal { J } _ { 2 } [ n ^ { 2 } ( \omega ) - 1 ] ( i \omega d / c ).$$

$$\frac { E ^ { ( t ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } \cong \frac { 1 + n ( \omega ) ( i \omega d / c ) } { 1 - \Sigma _ { 2 } [ n ( \omega ) - 1 ] ^ { 2 } ( i \omega d / c ) } \cong 1 + \Sigma _ { 2 } [ n ^ { 2 } ( \omega ) + 1 ] ( i \omega d / c ).$$

Note that the 𝐸𝐸 -field radiated by the thin slab has the same amplitude in the reflection and transmission  directions,  with  the  only  difference  between 𝐸𝐸 ( r ) and 𝐸𝐸 ( ) t in  Eqs.(11)  and  (12) being  the  addition  of  the  (properly  delayed)  incident  amplitude,  namely, 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i exp(i 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 ) ≅ 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i (1 + i 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 ) , to the radiated beam in the transmission direction.

Upon  substituting 1 + 𝜒𝜒 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) for 𝑛𝑛 2 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) in  Eqs.(11)  and  (12) - without  any  additional approximations - we find

$$\frac { E ^ { ( r ) } } { E ^ { ( 0 ) } } \cong \mathbb { I } _ { 2 } \left ( \chi _ { b } \pm \frac { \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } } { \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } - i \gamma \omega } \right ) ( i \omega d / c ) = \mp \frac { \mathbb { I } _ { 2 } ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \omega ^ { 2 } } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } + \mathbb { I } _ { 2 1 } \left [ \chi _ { b } \pm \frac { \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } \right ] ( \omega d / c ).$$

We may now write

$$\frac { E ^ { ( t ) } } { E ^ { ( i ) } } & \cong 1 + \left ( 1 + \frac { \gamma _ { 2 } \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } } { \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } - i \gamma \omega } \right ) \text{(} \imath \omega d / c ) \\ & = \left [ 1 \mp \frac { \gamma _ { 2 } ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \omega ^ { 2 } } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } \right ] + i \left [ 1 + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \chi _ { b } \pm \frac { \gamma _ { 2 } \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } \right ] } ( \omega d / c ). \\ \text{We amnhacio one again that the field related by the oscillating divide of the thin clash}$$

We emphasize, once again, that the fields radiated by the oscillating dipoles of the thin slab in  the  forward  (transmission)  and  backward  (reflection)  directions  are  identical,  and  that  the crucial difference between the reflected and transmitted beams is the coherent superposition of the (slightly delayed) incident beam, 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i exp(i 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 ) , onto the co-propagating radiated beam in the forward direction. We also remind the reader that all the parameters appearing in Eqs.(13) and (14), namely, 𝜔𝜔 , 𝑑𝑑 , 𝜒𝜒 𝑏𝑏 , 𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 , 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 , 𝛾𝛾 , are real-valued and positive. In each equation, the upper sign ( + or -) corresponds to an absorptive (i.e., lossy) medium, whereas the lower sign ( -or + ) represents an amplifying (i.e., gainy) medium of the thin slab.

- 2. Reflection and transmission of a narrow-band light pulse .  Suppose now that the incident 𝐸𝐸 -field is a narrow-linewidth pulse of center frequency 𝜔𝜔 0 and linewidth 2 ∆𝜔𝜔 in the form of

$$\tilde { E } ^ { ( i ) } ( t ) = ( 2 \pi ) ^ { - 1 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) \exp ( - \text{i} \omega t ) \, \text{d} \omega.$$

In Appendix A we show that the incident optical energy per unit cross-sectional area is given by

$$\mathcal { E } ^ { ( i ) } = Z _ { 0 } ^ { - 1 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } \tilde { E } ^ { ( i ) ^ { 2 } } ( t ) d t = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi Z _ { 0 } } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } | E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) | ^ { 2 } d \omega.$$

Here 𝑍𝑍 0 = �𝜇𝜇 /𝜀𝜀 0 0 is the impedance of free space. Similar expressions as above hold for the reflected and transmitted beams.

If one assumes that the center frequency 𝜔𝜔 0 of the incident beam is far from the resonance frequency 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 of the material medium, then, for all the incident frequencies in the relevant range ( 𝜔𝜔 0 -∆𝜔𝜔 ) ≤ 𝜔𝜔 ≤ ( 𝜔𝜔 0 + ∆𝜔𝜔 ) , one will have |( 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 𝜔𝜔 / ) 2 -1| 𝜔𝜔 ≫ 𝛾𝛾 . To gain a better appreciation for the order-of-magnitude estimates used in approximating Eqs.(13) and (14), let 𝑑𝑑 = 5.0 Å = 5 × 10 -10 m , 𝑐𝑐 = 3 × 10 8 m s / , 𝜔𝜔 0 = 3 × 10 15 rad s / (corresponding  to  a  vacuum  wavelength 𝜆𝜆 0 ≅ 0.63 µ m ), ∆𝜔𝜔 = 10 13 rad s / , 𝜒𝜒 𝑏𝑏 = 4.0 , 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 = 6 × 10 15 rad s / , 𝛾𝛾 = 5 × 10 14 rad s / , and 𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 = �𝑁𝑁𝑒𝑒 2 ( 𝜀𝜀 0 𝑚𝑚e ) / ≅ 10 16 rad s / . (In  the  latter  expression, 𝑁𝑁 is  the  number-density  of  the oscillators, 𝑒𝑒 is  the  charge  of  an  electron,  and 𝑚𝑚e is  the  mass  of  an  electron.)  With  these parameters,  the  expression  on  the  right-hand  side  of  Eq.(14),  evaluated  at 𝜔𝜔 = 𝜔𝜔 0 ,  becomes (1 ∓ 0.000513) + i(3 ± 1.85)(0.005) .  The  transmissivity  of  the  slab  in  the  vicinity  of 𝜔𝜔 0 may now be approximated as follows:

$$\ m v w \ u p p \ u v a u n u u u a o v i v w s. \\ T ( \omega ) = \left | E ^ { ( t ) } / E ^ { ( i ) } \right | ^ { 2 } & \cong \left [ 1 \mp \frac { \nu _ { 2 } ( \omega _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) } { [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } } \right ] ^ { 2 } + \left [ 1 + \nu _ { 2 } \chi _ { b } \pm \frac { \nu _ { 2 } \omega _ { b } ^ { 2 } [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] } { [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } } \right ] ^ { 2 } } ( \omega d / c ) ^ { 2 } \\ & \cong 1 \mp \frac { \omega _ { b } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c } { [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } } \cong 1 \mp \frac { \omega _ { b } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c } { [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \omega _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } \cdot \\ \intertext { N o t a t h a l o c e } \, \text{or as in} \, \sum \, \text{non-nucation through the chain is non-rational to both $v$ and}$$

Note that the loss (or gain) upon transmission through the slab is proportional to both 𝛾𝛾 and 𝑑𝑑 , and that, in any case, this loss (or gain) is fairly small when 𝜔𝜔 0 is well below the resonance frequency 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 . For the parameter set mentioned earlier, Eq.(17) yields 𝑇𝑇 ≅ 1 ∓ 0.001 . The exact values for the reflectance 𝑅𝑅 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) = | 𝐸𝐸 ( r ) 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i / | 2 and transmittance 𝑇𝑇 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) = | 𝐸𝐸 ( ) t 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i / | 2 , obtained from  Eqs.(9)  and  (10)  at 𝜔𝜔 = 𝜔𝜔 0 ,  are ( 𝑅𝑅 = 0.3695 × 10 -3 , 𝑇𝑇 = 0.9986) for  a  lossy  slab  and ( 𝑅𝑅 = 0.8556 × 10 -6 , 𝑇𝑇 = 1.0010) for a gainy slab.

Next, we examine the case where the center frequency 𝜔𝜔 0 of the incident pulse is at (or in close  proximity  of)  the  resonance  frequency 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 of  the  material  medium.  Within  the  relevant frequency range, | 𝜔𝜔 - 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 | ≤ ∆𝜔𝜔 , a good approximation to the transmissivity of the slab is given by the penultimate expression in Eq.(17), namely,

$$T ( \omega ) = | E ^ { ( t ) } / E ^ { ( i ) } | ^ { 2 } \cong 1 \mp \frac { \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c } { [ ( \omega _ { r } / \omega ) ^ { 2 } - 1 ] ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } } \cdot$$

The loss (or gain) factor is now seen to be confined to a narrow range of frequencies in the vicinity of 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 ,  as  shown in Fig.2(a). The plot in Fig.2(b) depicts the frequency-dependence of another term that also appears in Eq.(17), but can be shown to be negligible in the limit where 𝑑𝑑 ≪𝜆𝜆0 = 2 𝜋𝜋𝑐𝑐/𝜔𝜔 0 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00243v1-figure-8b1eda46-ef93-4b42-bbf6-2070590ceb65.jpg)

𝑟𝑟

Fig.2 .  Plots  of  two  functions  that  appear  in  Eqs.(13)  and (14) versus  the  incident  frequency 𝜔𝜔 . Both functions peak at or near the resonance frequency 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 . For 𝛾𝛾 ≪𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 , the width 𝛿𝛿𝜔𝜔 of the loss (or gain) region in the neighborhood of 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 is proportional to 𝛾𝛾 . Whereas the function depicted in (a)  contributes  significantly  to  the  transmissivity  of  the  slab,  the  contribution  of  the  function shown in (b) is negligible - for sufficiently thin slabs - in a first approximation.

If  the  linewidth ∆𝜔𝜔 of  the  incident  pulse  were  much  narrower  than  the  natural  linewidth 𝛿𝛿𝜔𝜔 = 𝛾𝛾 of the slab's material, the transmissivity 𝑇𝑇 would vary strongly with detuning 𝜔𝜔 0 -𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 , as can be inferred from the graph in Fig.2(a). For a broadband pulse centered at or near 𝜔𝜔 0 = 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 , however, the overall loss (or gain) upon transmission will depend on the area under the function depicted in Fig.2(a), which is obtained by evaluating the following integral (see Appendix B):

$$\int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \frac { ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \omega ^ { 2 } } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } \, \mathrm d \omega = 1 / 2 \pi \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, d / c.$$

The integrated loss (or gain) over all frequencies 𝜔𝜔 is thus seen to be independent of 𝛾𝛾 , as the contributions of 𝛾𝛾 to the height and width of the loss (or gain) function depicted in Fig.2(a) cancel out. Note that the loss (or gain) is primarily associated with the transmitted beam, since the reflected beam is too weak to carry a significant fraction of the incident optical energy. This is  a  hallmark  of  stimulated  emission,  where  the  excited  medium  radiates  in  the  forward  (i.e., transmission) direction.

It  might  seem  strange  at  first  that  the  overall  transmitted  beam  is  far  stronger  than  the reflected beam, even though the dipoles that are excited within the slab radiate symmetrically in both  forward  and  backward  directions.  The  fundamental  physical  reason  behind  this  curious behavior  is  the  coherent  superposition  of  the  forward-radiated  pulse  with  the  intact  (albeit delayed) incident pulse after its passage through the slab. The superposition of the two waves in the transmission direction gives rise to constructive interference in the case of gainy slabs, and to destructive interference in the case of lossy slabs. Either way, the electromagnetic energy-density of the transmitted beam, being proportional to the square of the corresponding 𝐸𝐸 -field, will have a  large  cross-term  in  consequence  of  interference  between  the  (delayed)  incident  beam emerging  after  passage  through  the  slab - and  the  forward-radiated  beam.  The  cross-term, which is eminently present in the transmitted pulse, contributes substantially to the transmitted energy, whereas the reflected pulse, being solely the result of backward radiation by the dipoles, does not benefit from a similar boosting effect of interference with a stronger beam.

3. Conclusions . Assuming an incident pulse centered at 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 , with a more-or-less flat spectrum of amplitude 𝐸𝐸 0 ( 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 ) ,  and an spectral width ~2 𝛾𝛾 ,  the  incident optical energy (per unit area of the slab)  will  be  proportional  to 2 | 𝛾𝛾 𝐸𝐸 0 | 2 ,  while  the  corresponding  energy  loss  (or  gain)  will  be ½( 𝜋𝜋𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 2 𝑑𝑑/𝑐𝑐 )| 𝐸𝐸 0 | 2 . The fraction of incident energy that is absorbed (or emitted by stimulation) is thus 𝜋𝜋𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 2 𝑑𝑑/ (4 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 ) .  Denoting  the  time-averaged  magnitude  of  the  incident  Poynting  vector  by 〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 ,  the  rate  of  energy  loss  (or  gain)  per  oscillator  is  given  by 𝐵𝐵〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 ,  where 𝐵𝐵 (in  units  of meter 2 ) is the Einstein  coefficient  of  absorption  (or  stimulated  emission)  by  individual oscillators.  Given  that  the  number  of  oscillators  per  unit  area  of  the  slab  is 𝑁𝑁𝑑𝑑 , the  rate 𝑁𝑁𝑑𝑑𝐵𝐵〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 of energy loss (or gain) per unit area must equal [ 𝜋𝜋𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝 2 𝑑𝑑/ (4 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 )] 〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 . We conclude that 𝐵𝐵 = 𝜋𝜋𝑍𝑍 0 𝑞𝑞 2 (4 𝑚𝑚e𝛾𝛾 ) / . [Note that the rate 𝐵𝐵〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 of energy loss (or gain) per oscillator may equivalently be expressed in terms of the incident 𝐸𝐸 -field intensity , in which case the coefficient 𝑍𝑍 0 in the above expression of the Einstein 𝐵𝐵 coefficient will move over to 〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 ,  changing the time-averaged Poynting vector to time-averaged 𝐸𝐸 -field intensity.] If an incident light pulse of cross-sectional  area 𝒶𝒶 ,  duration 𝜏𝜏 ,  frequency 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 ,  linewidth ~2 𝛾𝛾 ,  and  Poynting  vector 〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 , happens  to  have  energy ℰ ( ) i = ℏ𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 = 𝒶𝒶𝜏𝜏〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 , then  the  absorbed  (emitted)  energy  will  be 𝜏𝜏𝐵𝐵〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 = ( 𝐵𝐵/𝒶𝒶 ) ℏ𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 . In other words, the probability of single-photon absorption (or stimulated emission) is given by 𝐵𝐵/𝒶𝒶 .

The  rate  of  spontaneous  emission  by  individual  oscillators,  known  as  the  Einstein 𝐴𝐴 coefficient, may also be written as 𝐵𝐵〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 , provided that 〈𝑆𝑆 ( ) i 〉 is interpreted as a superposition of time-averaged Poynting vectors associated with vacuum fluctuations - i.e., the ground state of  all  the  vacuum  modes  of  the  electromagnetic  field.  Given  that  the  mode-density  at 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 is 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 2 𝛿𝛿𝜔𝜔/ ( 𝜋𝜋 2 𝑐𝑐 3 ) , that each vacuum mode has energy ½ ℏ𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 , and that this energy propagates with the speed of light 𝑐𝑐 in vacuum, we find 𝐴𝐴/𝐵𝐵 = 〈𝑆𝑆 vac 〉 = ½ ℏ𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟 3 𝛿𝛿𝜔𝜔/ ( 𝜋𝜋 2 𝑐𝑐 2 ) . This ratio of 𝐴𝐴/𝐵𝐵 is off by a factor of 2 compared to that obtained by Einstein [3]. The discrepancy is resolved when the effect of radiation resistance on the spontaneous emission process is taken into account [9].

## Appendix A

To prove the identity in Eq.(16), we substitute for 𝐸𝐸 � ( ) i ( 𝑡𝑡 ) from Eq.(15), as follows:

$$\varepsilon$$

$$\text{To prove the identity in Eq.(16), we substitute for } \bar { E } ^ { ( 1 ) } ( t ) \text{ from Eq.(15), as follows:} \\ \mathcal { E } ^ { ( i ) } & = Z _ { 0 } ^ { - 1 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } \tilde { E } ^ { ( i ) ^ { 2 } } ( t ) d t \\ & = \frac { 1 } { ( 2 \pi ) ^ { 2 } Z _ { 0 } } \iint _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ^ { \prime } ) \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } \exp [ - i ( \omega + \omega ^ { \prime } ) t ] d t \, d \omega d \omega ^ { \prime } \\ & = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi Z _ { 0 } } \iint _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ^ { \prime } ) \delta ( \omega + \omega ^ { \prime } ) d \omega d \omega ^ { \prime } \\ & = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi Z _ { 0 } } \iint _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) E ^ { ( i ) } ( - \omega ) d \omega = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi Z _ { 0 } } \iint _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } | E ^ { ( i ) } ( \omega ) | ^ { 2 } d \omega. \\ \text{In the above derivation we have used the fact that } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } \exp ( - i \omega t ) \, d t = 2 \pi \delta ( \omega ),$$

In the above derivation we have used the fact that ∫ exp( - 𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡 i ) d 𝑡𝑡 ∞ -∞ = 2 𝜋𝜋𝛿𝛿 ( 𝜔𝜔 ) ,  and  also that 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i ( 𝜔𝜔 ) , being the Fourier transform of the real-valued function 𝐸𝐸 � ( ) i ( 𝑡𝑡 ) , is Hermitian, that is, 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i ( -𝜔𝜔 ) = 𝐸𝐸 ( ) i ∗ ( 𝜔𝜔 ) .

## Appendix B

To evaluate the integral in Eq.(19), note that the denominator is a 4 th order polynomial in 𝜔𝜔 , whose roots are readily found to be

$$( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } = 0 \ \to \ \omega ^ { 2 } \pm i \gamma \omega - \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } = 0 \ \to \ \omega _ { 1, 2, 3, 4 } = 1 \chi \Big [ \pm \sqrt { ( 2 \omega _ { r } / \gamma ) ^ { 2 } - 1 } \pm i ].$$

Here we shall assume that 𝛾𝛾 &lt; 2 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 .  The roots in the upper-half of the complex plane are denoted by 𝜔𝜔 1 and 𝜔𝜔 2 , while those in the lower-half are 𝜔𝜔 3 = 𝜔𝜔 1 ∗ and 𝜔𝜔 4 = 𝜔𝜔 2 ∗ . The integral on the 𝜔𝜔 -axis is evaluated around a closed contour in the upper half of the complex-plane. Invoking Cauchy's theorem and using the residues of the integrand at 𝜔𝜔 1 and 𝜔𝜔 2 , we find

$$\text{$\nu$} \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col: \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col. \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col. \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colots \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colot \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colons \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \color \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colod \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colON \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colo \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col on \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colop \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.} \, \text{$\nu$} \, \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col:\, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \col.: \, \colon \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col. \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col. \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \, \col.: \col.:$$

An alternative evaluation of the integral using the Table of Integrals † leads to the same result:

† I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products , 7 th edition, Academic Press, New York (2007); see equation 3.252 -12:

$$\int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \frac { x ^ { \mu - 1 } } { x ^ { 2 } + 2 a x \cos t + a ^ { 2 } } d x = - \frac { \pi a ^ { \mu - 2 } \sin [ ( \mu - 1 ) t ] } { \sin ( t ) \sin ( \mu \pi ) } ; \ \ a > 0, \quad 0 < | t | < \pi, \quad 0 < \text{Re} ( \mu ) < 2. \\ \quad \. \quad \ \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

Here, 𝑎𝑎 = 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 2 , 𝜇𝜇 = 3 2, / 𝑡𝑡 ≅ 𝜋𝜋 -( 𝛾𝛾/𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 ) → cos 𝑡𝑡 = -1 + ½( 𝛾𝛾/𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟 ) 2 .

$$\int ^ { \infty } ( \omega _ { n } ^ { 2 } \nu d / c ) \omega ^ { 2 } \quad. \quad \tilde { \ } t \quad. \quad \dots \, \int ^ { \infty }$$

$$\int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \frac { ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \omega ^ { 2 } } { ( \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } - \omega ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + \gamma ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } } d \omega & = ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \frac { \omega ^ { 2 } } { \omega ^ { 4 } - 2 \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } [ 1 - \gamma _ { 2 } ( \gamma / \omega _ { r } ) ^ { 2 } ] \omega ^ { 2 } + \omega _ { r } ^ { 4 } } d \omega \\ & = \frac { 1 } { \gamma _ { 2 } } ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \frac { \sqrt { x } } { x ^ { 2 } - 2 \omega _ { r } ^ { 2 } [ 1 - \gamma _ { 2 } ( \gamma / \omega _ { r } ) ^ { 2 } ] x + \omega _ { r } ^ { 4 } } d x \\ & \cong \frac { 1 } { \gamma _ { 2 } } ( \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \gamma d / c ) [ - ( \pi / \omega _ { r } ) ( \omega _ { r } / \gamma ) ( - 1 ) \cos ( \gamma / 2 \omega _ { r } ) ] \cong \frac { 1 } { 2 } \pi \omega _ { p } ^ { 2 } \, d / c.$$

## References

- 1. A. Einstein, 'Strahlungs-emission und -absorption nach der Quantentheorie' (Emission and Absorption of Radiation in Quantum Theory), Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 18 , 318-323 (1916).
- 2. A. Einstein, 'Quantentheorie der Strahlung' (Quantum Theory of Radiation), Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft , Zürich, 16 , 47-62 (1916).
- 3. A. Einstein, 'Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung' (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation), Physikalische Zeitschrift 18 , 121-128 (1917).
- 4. D. Kleppner, 'Rereading Einstein on Radiation,' Physics Today S-0031-9228-0502-010-7, pp 30-33 (2005).
- 5. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (3 rd edition), Wiley, New York (1999).
- 6. A. Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2012).
- 7. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields , Pergamon Press, Oxford (1962).
- 8. M. Mansuripur, Field, Force, Energy and Momentum in Classical Electrodynamics (revised edition), Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (2017).
- 9. P. W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum , Academic, New York (1994).
Masud Mansuripur
Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz Oscillator Model
In his celebrated 1916-17 papers in which he proposed the A and B
coefficients for the spontaneous and stimulated emission of energy quanta from
excited atoms, Einstein conjectured that stimulated emission involves the
release of individual quanta (later dubbed "photons") along the direction of an
incident photon with the same energy, momentum, phase, and polarization state
as that of the incident photon. According to classical electrodynamics, of
course, an oscillating dipole must radiate an azimuthally symmetric
electromagnetic field around its axis of oscillation. Nevertheless, Einstein
suggested that the release of stored energy from excited atoms in the form of
discrete quanta (photons) must be directional, and that, in the case of
stimulated emission, the direction of the emitted photon must coincide with
that of the incident photon. The goal of the present paper is to show that some
of the prominent features of absorption and stimulated emission emerge from
Maxwellian electrodynamics in conjunction with the simple mass-and-spring model
of an atom known as the Lorentz oscillator model.