Algebraic (ladder) solutions in QM

  • Thread starter Thread starter fantispug
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
fantispug
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
When solving the quantum harmonic oscillator often ladder operators (that send energy eigenstates to higher or lower energy eigenstates) are introduced that allow one to algebraically solve the system. Similarly (but with much more difficulty) such operators can be introduced to solve the non-relativistic Hydrogen atom.

I was wondering for what systems can these ladder-type operators be found, and for such systems is there a canonical method of finding them? (So for example do such operators exist for the infinite square well or the Dirac Hydrogen atom?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Starting with the SHO Hamiltonian,

<br /> \mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2m}p^2+\frac{1}{2}gx^2<br />

If you have position and momentum operators with,

[x,p]=ih

then it is possible to define operators

<br /> a=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\hbar\omega}}\left( \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}p-i\sqrt{g}x \right)<br />

<br /> a^*=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\hbar\omega}}\left( \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}p+i\sqrt{g}x \right)<br />

so that

[a,a^*]=1

and the Hamiltonian takes a simple form
<br /> \mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega(aa^*+a^*a)<br />

I'm not sure how general this prescription is.
 
Last edited:
I believe the use of ladder operators is possible in a surprisingly large
number of cases...

Start with the dynamical algebra -- the Heisenberg/oscillator
algebra for the SHO case here, SO(4,2) for the non-rel H atom, etc.

The prescription relies on having some kind of ground state which
is invariant under the Hamiltonian. Then find which generators
commute with the Hamiltonian, these are sometimes called the
"symmetry" generators. Then look at the remaining generators
which don't commute with the Hamiltonian.

In the SHO case, the only generator that commutes with the
Hamiltonian is the central element 1. The other generators
a, a^* satisfy relations like [a,H] \propto -a and [a^*,H] \propto a^*.
I.e., the action of the Hamiltonian doesn't mix up the two generators a, a^*.
That's the crucial bit for getting the ladder behaviour wrt the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. (Exercise.)

A similar thing happens when calculating the unitary irreducible
representations of SO(3), i.e., the angular momentum spectrum.
One takes J^2, J_z as a maximal set of mutually commuting generators,
and then notes that the combinations J_+ := J_x + iJ_y and J_- := J_x - iJ_y
satisfy commutation relations like
<br /> [J_z, J_+] ~=~ J_+ ~~~;~~~~~~<br /> [J_z, J_-] ~=~ -J_- ~~~;~~~~~~<br /> [J_+, J_-] ~=~ 2J_z<br />

These are what makes J_+, J_- useful as operators for
raising and lowering the usual "m" eigenvalue of J_z.

Similar magic in many other dynamical groups makes possible a theory
of generalized coherent states. The cases mentioned above underpin
ordinary (Glauber) coherent states and spin-coherent states respectively.
But coherent states are known for heaps of other groups.

HTH.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top