Bosonic operators and fourier transformation.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the manipulation of bosonic operators and their representation through Fourier transformation. Participants are exploring the relationships and identities involving these operators, particularly in the context of their products and commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a formula for the product of bosonic operators, a_m a_{m+1}, and seeks validation of their approach.
  • Another participant challenges the initial formulation, suggesting that it should be expressed as a double sum and that the exponent requires correction.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding a specific identity involving the bosonic operators, questioning its validity based on their calculations.
  • One participant admits a lack of familiarity with the physics involved, indicating a gap in understanding the definitions used in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach consensus on the correct formulation of the product of bosonic operators or the validity of certain identities. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the bosonic operators and the implications of the commutation relations. The discussion also highlights potential discrepancies in the identities used by participants.

barnflakes
Messages
156
Reaction score
4
If [tex]a_m = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_k e^{-ikm}a_k[/tex]
where [tex]a_k[/tex] is a bosonic operator fulfilling [tex][a_k, a_{k'}^{\dagger}] = \delta_{kk'}[/tex]

then is the product [tex]a_m a_{m+1} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_k e^{-ikm}e^{-ik(m+1)}a_k a_{k+1}[/tex]

? Because that's what I'm doing but it doesn't lead me anywhere near to the correct answer in my textbook.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NO! You need to first express it as a double sum. Then this can be collapsed using the δ function.

Also (I believe) the exponent should be -ikm+ik(m+1) - assuming you are using the bracket function. am+1 should be a complex conjugate.
 
OK I fixed that, thanks.

One thing is that my notes often say [tex](a_k)^{\dagger}a_k = (a_{-k})^{\dagger}a_{-k}[/tex] but I did some calculations with the definition of a_k and didn't find this to be true. Any idea what is going on?
 
I am not familiar with the physics involved, so I don't know the definition for ak.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K