Algebra of displacement operator

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 spaghetti3451
Back
Top