How to Find the Ground State of a System of Identical Bosons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter noospace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantization
noospace
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have a system of N identical bosons interacting via pairwise potential V(\vec{x} - \vec{x}').

I want to show that the expectation of the Hamiltonian in the non-interacting ground state is

\frac{N(N-1)}{2\mathcal{V}}\widetilde{V}(0)
where
\widetilde{V}(q) = \int d^3 \vec{x} e^{i \vec{q} \cdot \vec{x}}(\vec{x})
and \mathcal{V} is the volume of the `box'.

My attempt:

First I need to find the ground state in the absence of potential.

The second-quantized Hamiltonian is

\hat{H} = \int d^{3}\vec{x} \hat{\psi}^\dag (\vec{x})\left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla_{\vec{x}}^2 \right) \hat{\psi}(\vec{x}) \quad +\quad \int\int d^3\vec{x}d^3\vec{x}'\hat{\psi}^\dag(\vec{x}')\hat{\psi}^\dag(\vec{x})V(\vec{x},\vec{x}')\hat{\psi}(\vec{x})\hat{\psi}(\vec{x}')

Set V = 0 and then

\hat{H} = \int d^{3}\vec{x} \hat{\psi}^\dag (\vec{x})\left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla_{\vec{x}}^2 \right) \hat{\psi}(\vec{x})

Now use the definition \hat{\psi}(x) \equiv \sum_{\lambda} \langle \vec{x} | a^{(\lambda)} \rangle \hat{a}_{\lambda} , \quad \hat{\psi}(x) \equiv \sum_{\lambda} \langle a^{(\lambda)} | \vec{x}} \rangle \hat{a}^\dag_{\lambda}

where a_\lambda,a^\dag_\lambda are the annihilation and creation operators that subtract or add a particle to the single-particle state |a^{(\lambda)}\rangle.

Now I'm going to let the single-particle states be momentum eigenstates so

\hat{\psi}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{V}}}\sum_{\vec{k}} e^{i\vec{k} \cdot\vec{x}} \hat{a}_{\vec{k}}

Plugging this in and using the fact that \int d^3\vec{x} e^{i(\vec{k}' - \vec{k})\cdot\vec{x}} = \delta_{\vec{k},\vec{k}'} gives

\hat{H} = \sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{\hbar^2 \vec{k}^2}{2m}\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k}}\hat{a}_\vec{k}

so the eigenstates of the non-interacting Hamiltonian are the occupation number states | n_{\vec{k}_1},n_{\vec{k}_2},\ldots\rangle
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have I done this much right? I think I might have made a mistake because I was expecting the contribution to the expectation coming from the kinetic energy to vanish.
 
Last edited:
Yes, correct so far.

But for the ground state, what is the value of the momentum \vec k?
 
Avodyne said:
Yes, correct so far.

But for the ground state, what is the value of the momentum \vec k?

I'm not sure, I basically left it as \vec{k}_1 and moved on. I managed to figure out the second part. It comes down to using the fact that everything is in the ground state and using a change of variables in the integration.

I suppose that if the system is in a box then the momenta are quantized according to
\vec{k} = \frac{2\pi}{\mathcal{V}^{1/3}}\vec{n} so \frac{2\pi}{\mathcal{V}^{1/3}} is the lowest wavenumber?
 
For a system of non-interacting bosons, the ground state consists of only zero momentum particles. (See Bogulubov's(sp?) work on superfluidity, which is strongly based on this idea.) Your V(0) is odd: the potential does not appear in the defining integral -- if it does then you are on the right track. If there were non-zero momentum particles, then your N(N-1) factor would be incorrect.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top