Fermion creation and annihilation operators

daudaudaudau
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Hi.

If c and c^\dagger are fermion annihilation and creation operators, respectively, we know that cc^\dagger+c^\dagger c=1 and cc=0 and c^\dagger c^\dagger=0. I can use this to show the following
<br /> [c^\dagger c,c]=c^\dagger cc-c c^\dagger c=-cc^\dagger c=-c(1-cc^\dagger)=-c<br />

But on the other hand I have
<br /> [c^\dagger c,c]=c^\dagger[c,c]+[c^\dagger,c]c=[c^\dagger,c]c<br />

Does this not imply that [c^\dagger,c]=-1 and consequently that BOTH the commutator and anti-commutator of c and c^\dagger is equal to unity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it does not imply that. Namely, the commutator is:

[c^\dag , c] = c^\dag c - cc^\dag = c^\dag c - 1 + c^\dag c = 2c^\dag c - 1

As you can see, the first term gives zero when you act with this commutator on the operator c. In other words,

[c^\dag , c]c = (2c^\dag c - 1)c = -c

Which is your result. But for operators you cannot use that if AB = CB, then C = A. The reason is that the operator B is not always invertible (as in this case), but is nilpotent instead. So you have to be careful with these types of manipulations.
 
I see. Thanks.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top