Wording of a question confusion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter malcomson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion
malcomson
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Doing a problem and I'm not entirely sure what the wording is referring to.

I won't get into details of the question unless people want to know (not really relevant) but I'm looking at the quantum ferromagnet and applying the Holstein-Primakoff transformation to find a new form of the Hamiltonian.

"Show that, to order S, the Hamiltonian is Quadratic in the boson annihilation and creation operators a and a-dagger"

basically I'm a bit unsure as to what they're asking - should the equation have an a^2 and (a-dagger)^2 term multiplied by S or does it mean something else?

Earlier on in the question it mentions we're looking at the limit of large S, and there is an expansion in 1/S which is multiplied by S so does the question mean - "If we ignore all terms in the expansion of order less than S, - show the Hamiltonian is quadratic in the boson operators"

I've done some working and if you ignore those constant terms in the expansion you do get a quadratic Hamiltonian in the boson operators, but the quadratic term is not of order S.
The quadratic term is a constant that comes from elsewhere in the equation so I'm not sure if I should count it (it would have been discarded if it were in the expansion so why keep it now).

Apologies if I'm unclear - I'm not entirely sure how to make it better though
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means there is an expansion in 1/S and you keep just the leading term, whatever that may be.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top