Bogoliubov transformation / Interpretation of diagonalized Hamiltonian

Abigale
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I consider a diagonalized Hamiltonian:

H=\sum\limits_{k} \underbrace{ (\epsilon_{k} u_{k}^2 -\epsilon_{k} v_{k}^2 -2\Delta u_{k} v_{k} )}_{E_{k}}(d_{k \uparrow}^{\dagger}d_{k \uparrow} + d_{k \downarrow}^{\dagger}d_{k \downarrow}) +const
with fermionic creation and annihilation operators.

From solution I know that: E_{k} =\sqrt{\Delta^2 +\epsilon_{k}^2} but how can I get this result?





Things I even know is that: u_k^2 + v_k^2 =1 and:
\sum\limits_k <br /> <br /> \underbrace{(<br /> -2\epsilon_k u_k v_k +\Delta v_k^2 -\Delta u_k ^2<br /> )}_{\stackrel{!}{=}0}<br /> <br /> (d_{k \uparrow}^{\dagger}d_{k \downarrow}^{\dagger} + d_{k \downarrow}d_{k \uparrow}).

Thank you guys!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Abigale said:
Things I even know is that: u_k^2 + v_k^2 =1 and:
(<br /> -2\epsilon_k u_k v_k +\Delta v_k^2 -\Delta u_k ^2<br /> )=0<br />.

This are two equations for the two unknowns u and v. Solve for them and put into the defining equation for E_k!
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I keep reading throughout this forum from many members that the general motivation for finding a deeper explanation within QM, specifically with regards to quantum entanglement, is due to an inability to grasp reality based off of classical intuitions. On the other hand, if QM was truly incomplete, and there was a deeper explanation that we haven't grasped yet that would explain why particles tend to be correlated to each other seemingly instantly despite vast separated distances, then that...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
Back
Top