Anticommutation Example: Solving for Operator p in Relation to Variable q"

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an operator p that satisfies an anticommutation relation with another operator q, specifically \{q,p\}=i\hbar. Participants explore various representations and examples of operators in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on fermionic and bosonic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if q is treated as an operator, then a possible definition for p that satisfies the commutation relation [q,p]=i\hbar is p=-i\hbar∂_q.
  • Another participant suggests that p=i\hbar/(2q) could satisfy the anticommutation relation, although they express dissatisfaction with the form of this operator.
  • A participant discusses the representations of position and momentum operators in quantum mechanics, noting that the physics should depend on the commutation relations rather than the explicit forms of the operators.
  • One participant introduces the idea of connecting bosonic and fermionic fields through transformations of the Klein-Gordon equation into the Dirac equation, mentioning the role of Pauli and gamma matrices in anticommutation.
  • Another participant raises a related question about quantizing the Klein-Gordon field and replacing Fourier modes with derivative operators, expressing uncertainty about the correctness of a specific constant in their formulation.
  • Discussion includes the explicit representation of fermionic creation and annihilation operators as two by two matrices, contrasting them with the infinite-dimensional matrices of bosonic operators.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of finding explicit representations for fermionic operators in higher dimensions, especially regarding their anticommutation relations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the representations of operators and their relationships, with no consensus reached on a specific form of operator p that satisfies the anticommutation relation. Multiple competing ideas and examples are presented, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of their proposed operators and representations, noting that explicit forms may not be necessary for theoretical understanding. The discussion also highlights the complexity introduced by higher-dimensional systems in fermionic operator representations.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
If I have a variable [tex]q[/tex], and think of it as an operator, and want to postulate another operator [tex]p[/tex] so that it satisfies a commutation relation [tex][q,p]=i\hbar[/tex], a definition [tex]p=-i\hbar\partial_q[/tex] will do this. If I instead wanted an anticommutation relation [tex]\{q,p\}=i\hbar[/tex], what would be an example of such [tex]p[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I just realized that [tex]p=i\hbar/(2q)[/tex] would do the job, but it looks horrible. Nobody wants operator like that... :confused:
 
In elementary quantum mechancs, I believe [itex]\hat{q}=q\times[/itex] and [itex]\hat{p}=-i\hbar\frac{d}{dq}[/itex] is merely a representation (the position representation) of the coordinate and momentum operators that satisfies the commutation relations. There's also the momentum representation which defines the coordinate and momentum differently, but still satisfies the commutation relations. The physics should only depend on the commutation relations; explicit representations provide a way to make calculations and give us an intuitive picture of what's going on.

That didn't answer your question, but helps you formalize your request: you are looking for an explicit representation for [itex]\hat{q}[/itex] and [itex]\hat{p}[/itex] that satisfies anticommutation relations.
 
An illustrative exercise to elaborate on your own is a connection between a bosonic field and a fermionic field, by transforming the klein-gordon equation into a fermionic equation (dirac equation), by trading away higher order dynamics. Try to interpret the dirac equation in terms of klein gordon.

Then you can identify the pauli and gamma matrices that are anticommuting.

/Fredrik
 
Another related question: Have you ever seen Klein-Gordon field being quantized so that the Fourier modes of the conjugate field [tex]\Pi(\boldsymbol{p})[/tex] get replaced with derivative operators [tex]-i\hbar(2\pi\hbar)^3\delta^3(0)\partial_{\phi(\boldsymbol{p})}[/tex]? (The strange constant isn't necessarely correct, but that's what I got.) That derivative operator is supposed to operate on the wave functional of the field. I have seen this... so far only in my own notes.

Then you can identify the pauli and gamma matrices that are anticommuting.

Anticommutations of the gamma matrices are not what I was after. I'm struggling with the anticommutations of the dirac field operators [tex]\psi[/tex] and [tex]\psi^\dagger[/tex] themselves.

I understand that it is possible to have a theory of operators without explicit representations available for them, but these representations would be nice to have.
 
Last edited:
jostpuur said:
but these representations would be nice to have.
for a single fermionic oscillator the creation and annihilation operators can be written down explicitly as two by two matrices... this is much neater than the matrices of the analogous bosonic oscillator operators which are infinite dimensional...tho also pretty easily written down...

For the fermionic operators we have:
[tex] a_{11}=a_{21}=a_{22}=0\quad a_{12}=1[/tex]
and
[tex] a^{\dagger}_{11}=a^{\dagger}_{12}=a^{\dagger}_{22}=0\quad a^{\dagger}_{21}=1\;.[/tex]
these operators satisfy
[tex] \left\{a,a^{\dagger}\right\}=1[/tex]
 
olgranpappy said:
for a single fermionic oscillator the creation and annihilation operators can be written down explicitly as two by two matrices... this is much neater than the matrices of the analogous bosonic oscillator operators which are infinite dimensional...tho also pretty easily written down...

For the fermionic operators we have:
[tex] a_{11}=a_{21}=a_{22}=0\quad a_{12}=1[/tex]
and
[tex] a^{\dagger}_{11}=a^{\dagger}_{12}=a^{\dagger}_{22}=0\quad a^{\dagger}_{21}=1\;.[/tex]
these operators satisfy
[tex] \left\{a,a^{\dagger}\right\}=1[/tex]

This seems to fine for a one dimensional system, but if we want this kind of operators [tex]a_p[/tex] and [tex]a_p^\dagger[/tex] for each fixed [tex]p\in\mathbb{R}^3[/tex], as is the case for fields, and also want to have [tex]a_p a_{p'}= -a_{p'} a_p[/tex] (and the same for conjugates) for [tex]p\neq p'[/tex], then explicit representation seems to be more difficult again?

In bosonic system large number of dimensions doesn't bring any difficulty because partial derivative operators commute still.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
979
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K