Algebra of displacement operator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the algebra of the displacement operator, specifically the operator defined as ##D(\alpha)=\exp\ (\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)##, and its application to a function ##g(a,a^{\dagger})## involving creation and annihilation operators. The goal is to explore the transformation properties of these operators under the action of the displacement operator.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of expanding operators and the implications of assuming ##\alpha## is infinitesimal. There are suggestions to establish how the operators transform under the displacement operator and to consider the structure of the function ##g(a,a^{\dagger})##. Questions arise regarding the use of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and the correct handling of commutation relations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various approaches to the problem. Some have provided guidance on using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff lemma, while others are questioning the assumptions made in the expansions and the nature of the function involved. There is no explicit consensus yet, as participants continue to clarify their reasoning and check assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the function ##g(a,a^{\dagger})## and its potential lack of straightforward pairings of operators, which may affect the application of the displacement operator. There is also mention of a missing factor in one participant's result, indicating ongoing refinement of their approaches.

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31

Homework Statement



Given an operator ##D(\alpha)=\exp\ (\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)## and a function ##g(a,a^{\dagger})##, where ##a## and ##a^{\dagger}## are operators and ##\alpha## and ##\alpha^{*}## are complex numbers, show that

##D^{-1}(\alpha)g(a,a^{\dagger})D(\alpha)=g(a+\alpha, a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*})##

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



##D^{-1}(\alpha)g(a,a^{\dagger})D(\alpha)##

##=\exp\ (-\alpha a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*}a)\ g(a,a^{\dagger})\ \exp\ (\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)##

##=(1-\alpha a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*}a)\ g(a,a^{\dagger})\ (1+\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)##

##=g(a,a^{\dagger})+\alpha^{*}[a,g(a,a^{\dagger})]-\alpha[a^{\dagger},g(a,a^{\dagger})]##.

On the other hand,

##g(a+\alpha, a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*})##

##=g(a, a^{\dagger}) + \alpha \frac{\partial g(a,a^{\dagger})}{\partial \alpha} + \alpha^{*} \frac{\partial g(a,a^{\dagger})}{\partial \alpha^{*}}##.

This seems to suggest that

##\frac{\partial g(a,a^{\dagger})}{\partial \alpha^{*}}=[a,g(a,a^{\dagger})]##

and

##\frac{\partial g(a,a^{\dagger})}{\partial \alpha}=-[a^{\dagger},g(a,a^{\dagger})]##.

Am I missing something here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't expand the operators like that - this assumes that ##\alpha## is infinitesimal, which is not true.
First, establish how ##a## and ##a^{\dagger}## transform under the action of the displacement operator i.e. what are ##D(\alpha)^{-1} a D(\alpha)## and ##D(\alpha)^{-1} a^{\dagger} D(\alpha)##. Then insert factors of ##D(\alpha) D^{-1} (\alpha)## between each pair of creation/annihilation operators in ##g(a,a^{\dagger})##.
 
Fightfish said:
Then insert factors of ##D(\alpha) D^{-1} (\alpha)## between each pair of creation/annihilation operators in ##g(a,a^{\dagger})##.

But ##g(\alpha,\alpha^{\dagger})## is a generic function, and might not have pairings of ##a## and ##a^{\dagger}##.
 
failexam said:
But ##g(\alpha,\alpha^{\dagger})## is a generic function, and might not have pairings of ##a## and ##a^{\dagger}##.
I think its fair to assume that any reasonably well behaved function of the operators can be expressed as a sum of operator products. After all, most elementary functions of operators (eg. exponential) are defined in terms of their power series expansions.
 
But, the exponential ##\exp(a)## of an operator ##a## is

##\exp(a)=1+a+\frac{1}{2!}a^{2}+\frac{1}{3!}a^{3}+\dots##

So, this is not a sum of operator products.
 
failexam said:
But, the exponential ##\exp(a)## of an operator ##a## is

##\exp(a)=1+a+\frac{1}{2!}a^{2}+\frac{1}{3!}a^{3}+\dots##

So, this is not a sum of operator products.
What I meant by operator products is any term of the form ##a^{n}##, ##\left(a^{\dagger}\right)^{m}##, ##\left(a^{\dagger}\right)^{m}a^{n}##, ##\left(a^{\dagger}\right)^{m}a^{n} \left(a^{\dagger}\right)^{k} ##, and so on so forth.
 
Okay, so I have

##D(\alpha)^{-1}aD(\alpha) = \exp(-\alpha a^{*}+\alpha^{*}a)a\exp(\alpha a^{*}-\alpha^{*}a)##

Do I expand the exponential ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*}+\alpha^{*}a)## and use ##[a,a^{\dagger}]=1##?
 
failexam said:
Do I expand the exponential ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*}+\alpha^{*}a)## and use ##[a,a^{\dagger}]=1##?
Yup, or you can just use the Baker-Hausdorff- Campbell formula (if you don't want to prove it)
 
So, I get ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*}+\alpha^{*}a)=\exp(-\alpha a^{*})\ \exp(\alpha^{*}a)## using BCH, but I still have to expand ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*})## to find out how it commutes with ##a##, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
failexam said:
So, I get ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*}+\alpha^{*}a)=\exp(-\alpha a^{*})\ \exp(\alpha^{*}a)## using BCH, but I still have to expand ##\exp(-\alpha a^{*})## to find out how it commutes with ##a##, right?
I was referring to this particular form of the BCH lemma:
e^{iG\lambda}A e^{-iG\lambda} = A + i\lambda [G,A] + \frac{\left(i\lambda\right)^2}{2!}[G,[G,A]]+\ldots+\frac{(i\lambda)^n}{n!}\underbrace{[G,[G,[G,\ldots[G}_{n\ times},A]]]\ldots]+\ldots
Also, your result isn't right; you're missing a factor of ##e^{-|\alpha|^2/2}##.
 
  • #11
Fightfish said:
I was referring to this particular form of the BCH lemma:
e^{iG\lambda}A e^{-iG\lambda} = A + i\lambda [G,A] + \frac{\left(i\lambda\right)^2}{2!}[G,[G,A]]+\ldots+\frac{(i\lambda)^n}{n!}\underbrace{[G,[G,[G,\ldots[G}_{n\ times},A]]]\ldots]+\ldots
Also, your result isn't right; you're missing a factor of ##e^{-|\alpha|^2/2}##.

Ok, so, using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff lemma

$$e^{iG\lambda}A e^{-iG\lambda} = A + i\lambda [G,A] + \frac{\left(i\lambda\right)^2}{2!}[G,[G,A]]+\ldots+\frac{(i\lambda)^n}{n!}\underbrace{[G,[G,[G,\ldots[G}_{n\ \text{times}},A]]]\ldots]+\ldots,$$

we have

##D(\alpha)^{-1}aD(\alpha)##

##= \exp(-\alpha a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*}a)a\exp(\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)##

##= a + [-\alpha a^{\dagger}+\alpha^{*}a,a]##

##= a- [\alpha a^{\dagger},a] + [\alpha^{*}a,a]##

##= a- \alpha[a^{\dagger},a] + \alpha^{*}[a,a]##

##= a- \alpha[a^{\dagger},a]##

##= a+ i\alpha##.

Am I correct?
 
  • #12
Almost; there shouldn't be a factor of ##i##. The commutator is just ##-1##. Now just repeat the same for ##a^{\dagger}##.
 
  • #13
I did, and I got the desired answer.

I was wondering if the formula you quoted is a different version of the BCH formula.
 
  • #14
It has the same origin really - its just convenient because this particular form (i.e. transformations) appears very frequently in quantum mechanics. I believe it's discussed in most standard texts such as Sakurai if you want more specific details.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: spaghetti3451

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K