Talk:Stark effect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Science B‑class
WikiProject iconStark effect has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science (Physics). If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpectroscopy B‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

give the details of stark effect—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Splendid idea. Unfortunately, I don't understand the details of Stark Effect. Do you perhaps? Anyone can contribute of course! Oh, and next time, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. We can then see who is giving the comment. The result is somewhat like this: Gerritholl 20:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unless someone beats me to it, I'll write up what the effect is. I'll just add it to the bottom of my to do list... Laura Scudder 01:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quantum confined Stark effect[edit]

Discussion of the quantum-confined Stark effect (QCSE) needs to be expanded. Is it worth an article in itself?

Unclear phrase[edit]

What does the phrase below mean? It needs to be made clearer.

so the exciton is not merely pulled apart by the field

History Stark effect[edit]

  • Could somebody provide a source for the following sentence (which I temporarily commented out):
While first-order perturbation effects for the Stark effect in hydrogen are in agreement for the Bohr-Sommerfeld model and the quantum-mechanical theory of the atom, higher order effects are not. Measurements of the Stark effect under high field strengths confirmed the correctness of the quantum theory over the Bohr model.
  • I do not have easy access to Z. f. Physik (1920). Whitaker gives p. 199 for Kramer's 1920 paper. Earlier author of this article gives p. 169. Who is right?

--P.wormer 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I got the answer for the 2nd question from the national Dutch public library helpdesk (al@din): it is page 199. Thank you al@din! --P.wormer 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The explanation of the drawing of the Stark splitting requires introduction of parabolic coordinates and discussion of the Schr. eq. in terms of these coordinates. To my taste this goes (too) far. Either we omit the drawing, or we introduce parabolic coordinates+discussion. Any opinions? --P.wormer 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it is useful to have a graphical representation of the stark effect illustrating the effect of an electric field on atomic energy levels. The caption does include a lot of unexplained information, I included the full details for completeness.
It may be more useful with a simple caption (for example see Atomic_line_filter#Relevant_phenomena) as the form of the curves illustrates the essential points: breaking of the degeneracy and shifting of the energy levels. Anyone can of course edit the caption.
The fact that a new quantum number is required to describe the (otherwise degenerate) energy levels in an electric field is important and can be understood conceptually without any knowledge of parabolic coordinates or the Schrodinger equation. For anyone who wishes the look further, there are extensive articles on both.
It may be better to use a simpler schematic diagram as in Zeeman_effect#Introduction, however I think it is nice to see the form of the energy shift.--DJIndica 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<<PROPOSED ALTERATION>> I have created a new diagram, it is displayed with a new caption in my sandbox. Comments/suggestions would be appreciated, if I receive none I will transfer it to Stark effect in the near future.--DJIndica 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, comments welcome.--DJIndica 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article states: "Coincidentally, both physicists, Stark and Lo Surdo, later became ardent followers of the dictators (Hitler and Mussolini) ruling their respective countries." How is this in any way significant or relevant? It seems totally out of place to me.

Agreed. — Laura Scudder 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wrote this sentence assuming that human interest is not forbidden, not even in science. In science history there is an eternal struggle on how to divide attention between the works and the personalities of scientists. To me a sentence of 20 words not directly science related in an otherwise completely technical article is not overstretching the personal. But, indeed, the Johannes Stark lemma has already a paragraph about Stark's political ideas. So, when Antonino Lo Surdo gets an article that mentions (however briefly) his political ideas, then the sentence can go from the present article. Until then I am in favor of reentering the sentence.--P.wormer 08:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I re-entered the sentence about the political beliefs of Stark and Lo Surdo (now with reference to a peer-reviewed journal). If somebody wants to delete it again, then I ask him/her to ponder the following. (i) An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. (ii) For Wikipedia size is not an issue, in contrast to a paper encyclopedia. (iii) Why and in what manner will it improve Wikipedia if this sentence is deleted? Please explain this before deletion. (iv) Who determines relevance? For instance, I took great care to collect the titles of the articles that the present lemma refers to. Is this relevant? I think so, but others may disagree. Those who don't care about titles can simply ignore them. Why bother to delete them or anything else that is true and has bearing on the subject?--P.wormer 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just a casual, 1st time reader of the article and I came away quite confused. First, the two diagrams at the upper right hand side are not really explained in the article and so, while nice diagrams, don't help the reader understand the Stark effect. Also, as I read both this Start Effect article and the article on the Zeeman effect, I saw they both mention their counterparts (Electric Field vs Magnetic field) but in neither write-up is it mentioned that the similarity is that in both cases the interaction is with a field and a "moment". My last observation/suggestion is this: why not have a beginning section the describes the effect (Stark or Zeeman) is very simplified terms (like in beginning Physiscs class),, the progress to Undergraduate level, and finally to graduate level. That way we may be able to educate more people and not turn them off by showing just how smart/advanced we are. Thanks for listening. HankG520 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fine structure[edit]

Christovac changed a sentence of mine to:

Kramers also included the effect of fine structure, by which, before the discovery of spin in 1926, was the relativistic increase of electron mass with velocity.

In the original version of this sentence I wanted to express the fact that after 1926 the term "fine structure" related to spin effects. Around 1919 by "fine structure" one meant [is this bad grammar?] the relativistic effect of increase in mass. Is there a stylistic expert in the Wiki-room that can put this sentence straight? Now it is rambling. Thank you.--P.wormer 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, did it myself--P.wormer 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about Electric Field NMR[edit]

Is the Stark effect etc related to Electric field NMR? If so please edit that stub article, and add references from this and related articles. I know nothing about it. GilesW (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's barely related. Evgeny (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC Stark -shift[edit]

adding some information about the AC-stark Shift would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, a whole article explicitly devoted to the AC Stark effect would be nice. I visited Wikipedia as a reader this past week, really wanted to learn some more about the AC Stark effect, and have found surprisingly little on Wikipedia's site. There appears to be an article about the Autler-Townes effect. I have no idea what the Autler-Townes effect is, and the article is barely even a paragraph long. What I really wanted to learn about (I think...again, I'm learning stuff as I read it right now) was the "Mollow triplet." Did Autler/Townes have anything to do with that? "AC Stark effect" redirects to "Stark effect," but there is actually no content on the AC Stark effect in the Stark effect page. What seems most amazing to me, though, is that when I type "AC stark" effect into Google, these two user pages pop up:

Seems a little odd that user pages on the AC Stark shift get more attention from Google than the official encyclopedia. @Jemlzs or @Jchdavis, would one (or both) of you be willing to put together an article that actually purports to be official? @Aggie80 Maybe you could help find a way to fix the issue? (Is it really true that the Autler-Townes effect and AC Stark effect are the same thing? Someone commented on the Autler-Townes effect talk page that they are not.) Finally, it doesn't quite seem right to me to have AC Stark effect redirect to Stark effect. Csmallw (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]