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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Anderson model's energy cost term, Un_{\Uparrow}n_{\Downarrow}, in first quantization. The term is expressed using second quantized number operators and is analyzed for its implications in quantum dot systems. The participants explore the form of the interaction potential V_{\eta_{1}\eta_{2}\eta_{3}\eta_{4}}, debating its non-zero conditions for various spin configurations. The consensus suggests that the potential should account for combinations of indices beyond the initially proposed conditions, leading to a refined expression for V.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Anderson model in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with second quantization and number operators
  • Knowledge of fermionic operators and their commutation relations
  • Basic concepts of quantum dot physics and electron interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Anderson model in quantum dot systems
  • Study the derivation and applications of second quantization in many-body physics
  • Explore the role of fermionic operators in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the mathematical formulation of interaction potentials in quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers focusing on condensed matter physics, particularly those interested in quantum dot systems and many-body interactions.

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}.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K