Can Creation and Annihilation Operators Be Simplified This Way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and simplifications of creation and annihilation operators in quantum mechanics. The original poster seeks to understand the validity of a specific equation involving these operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the equation a_{p_1}^{\dag} a_{p_2}^{\dag} = a_{p_1}^{\dag} + a_{p_2}^{\dag} and question its correctness through various mathematical manipulations and examples.

Discussion Status

Some participants express doubt about the original equation, suggesting that it leads to contradictions when extended to additional operators. Others propose methods for manipulating the operators and discuss the need for further clarification on certain terms and indices.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific equations and properties (e.g., commutation relations) that are referenced but not fully detailed, indicating a reliance on prior knowledge of quantum mechanics concepts. Participants also note potential confusion regarding the notation used for states.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am somewhat new to creation and annhilation operators, but I can reduce the problem to showing that:

[tex]a_{p_1} ^{\dag} a_{p_2} ^{\dag} = a_{p_1} ^{\dag} + a_{p_2} ^{\dag}[/tex]

where
[tex]a_{p_1} ^{\dag}[/tex] is the creation operator for a particle with momentum p1 (if I understand it correctly)

Can someone help prove that?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
[tex]a_{p_1} ^{\dag} a_{p_2} ^{\dag} = a_{p_1} ^{\dag} + a_{p_2} ^{\dag}[/tex]
This can't be right since if it were, then:
[tex]a_{p_1}^{\dag} a_{p_2} ^{\dag} a_{p_3} ^{\dag} = a_{p_1}^{\dag}(a_{p_2}^{\dag} + a_{p_3}^{\dag}) = a_{p_1}^{\dag}a_{p_2}^{\dag} + a_{p_1}^{\dag}a_{p_3}^{\dag} = a_{p_1}^{\dag} + a_{p_2}^{\dag} + a_{p_1}^{\dag} + a_{p_3}^{\dag}[/tex]
In order to do the calculation, apply H and P as defined in equations (10.60) and (10.61) directly to the state in (10.65). Use induction on k.
 
That's weird though. How can it not be true if

[tex] \sum_{\vec{j}} \vec{j} a_j ^{\dag} a_j a_{p1}^{\dag} a_{p2}^{\dag} <br /> =<br /> \sum_{\vec{j}} \vec{j} a_j ^{\dag} a_j a_{p1}^{\dag} <br /> +<br /> \sum_{\vec{j}} \vec{j} a_j ^{\dag} a_j a_{p2}^{\dag} [/tex]

?
 
In general, for operators, AB = AC does not imply B = C even when A is non-zero.
 
Yes. I was wrong.

But then somehow you need to split up that long product of [tex]a_{p_k}^{\dag}[/tex] operators. You can commute them by 10.59, but they doesn't really help. Is there another way to split it into two terms?
 
ehrenfest said:
Yes. I was wrong.

But then somehow you need to split up that long product of [tex]a_{p_k}^{\dag}[/tex] operators. You can commute them by 10.59, but they doesn't really help. Is there another way to split it into two terms?
The formula [A,BC] = B[A,C] + [A.B]C will do nicely.
 
Ah, I see. Thanks.

For QC 10.7, I am trying to use

[tex]\sum_{\vec{p}} a_p^{\dag} a_p | \Omega > = \sum_{\vec{p}} (a_p a_p^{\dag} -1) | \Omega >[/tex]So, there should probably be a Kronecker delta that has an index that gets summed over or something but I am not really sure where this comes in?

Just to be sure, I want to show that [tex]\sum_{\vec{p}} a_p^{\dag} a_p | \Omega > = n | \Omega >[/tex].

where n is the number of particles in the state omega, right?

By the way, I should probably not be using omega because we are using that for the vacuum state and we want an arbitrary state here, right?
 
Last edited:
QC 10.7 is done exactly the same way that QC 10.6 is done.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K