Anderson Hamiltonian (product of number operators) in 1st quantization?

AA1983
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
In the Anderson model, it cost an energy Un_{\Uparrow}n_{\Downarrow} for a quantum dot level to be occupied by two electrons. Here n_{\Uparrow} is the second quantized number operator, counting the number of particles with spin \Uparrow. I need the term Un_{\Uparrow}n_{\Downarrow} in first quantization. Here is what I know:

Un_{\Uparrow}n_{\Downarrow} =<br /> Ud_{\Uparrow}^{\dagger}d_{\Uparrow}d_{\Downarrow}^{\dagger}d_{\Downarrow}<br /> =<br /> -Ud_{\Uparrow}^{\dagger}d_{\Downarrow}^{\dagger}d_{\Uparrow}d_{\Downarrow}<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}}V_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}}d_{\eta_{1}}^{\dagger}d_{\eta_{2}}^{\dagger}d_{\eta_{3}}d_{\eta_{4}}<br />
where

<br /> V_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}}=\Big\{<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> -2U \qquad \text{for} \qquad \eta_{1}=\eta_{2}=\Uparrow,\: \eta_{2}=\eta_{4}=\Downarrow\\<br /> 0 \qquad \text{elsewhere}<br /> \end{array}.

V is also given by

<br /> V_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}}=\int dx_{j} dx_{k} \psi_{\eta_{1}}^{\ast}(x_{j})\psi_{\eta_{2}}^{\ast}(x_{k})V(x_{j}-x_{k})<br /> \psi_{\eta_{3}}(x_{j})\psi_{\eta_{4}}(x_{k})

Now, what is V(x_{j}-x_{k}) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is it V=-2U\delta(x_{j}-x_{k})\delta_{\eta_{1}\Uparrow}\delta_{\eta_{2}\Downarrow}\delta_{\eta_{3}\Uparrow}\delta_{\eta_{4}\Downarrow} ?
 
I agree in principle, but shouldn't V_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}} be non-zero for other combinations of indices? For example \eta_{1}=\eta_{4}=\uparrow, \eta_{2}=\eta_{3}=\downarrow should probably be allowed, since you're not creating or annihilating two of the same type of spin. Also, since flipping spins means swapping two pairs of fermionic operators in -Ud_{\Uparrow}^{\dagger}d_{\Downarrow}^{\dagger}d_{ \Uparrow}d_{\Downarrow}, you won't pick up a minus sign, so it should probably be

<br /> V=-2U\delta(x_{j}-x_{k})\left(\delta_{\eta_{1}\eta_{3}}\delta_{\eta_{2}\eta_{4}} - \delta_{\eta_{1}\eta4}\delta_{\eta_{2}\eta_{3}}\right)<br />

so \eta_{1} is either the same as \eta_{3} or \eta_{4}, and it picks up a minus sign in the latter. Similarly for \eta_{2}.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top