- #1

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,810

- 604

What's the point?

And...another thing...is there sth called Classical Coherent State?

Thanks

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter ShayanJ
- Start date

- #1

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,810

- 604

What's the point?

And...another thing...is there sth called Classical Coherent State?

Thanks

- #2

DrDu

Science Advisor

- 6,256

- 906

But for a connection with classical physics this isn't important:For photons, position and momentum operators are non-diagonal in particle number while for fermions, position and momentum are diagonal in particle number.

Hence the coherent states relevant for fermions for discussing the classical limit are wave packets with sharp particle numbers.

- #3

- 12,935

- 5,244

Coherent states contain many particles in the same state, which is impossible for fermions.

- #4

DrDu

Science Advisor

- 6,256

- 906

Coherent states contain many particles in the same state, which is impossible for fermions.

That depends. You can also construct coherent states for e.g. a harmonic oscillator.

- #5

- 21,187

- 12,086

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

- #6

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,810

- 604

But for a connection with classical physics this isn't important:For photons, position and momentum operators are non-diagonal in particle number while for fermions, position and momentum are diagonal in particle number.

Hence the coherent states relevant for fermions for discussing the classical limit are wave packets with sharp particle numbers.

In (http://dirac.fciencias.unam.mx/papers/limitations.pdf) Univalence superselection rule,is said to be because of the different behavior of bosons and fermions under a [itex] 2 \pi [/itex] rotation.Considering that line of thought,I can only accept that it is not possible to superimpose a state with even number of fermions with a state with odd number of fermions!But its OK to superimpose states which their number of fermions are of the same parity!

Also,in a one particle problem,the issues you mentioned can't arise!

As I said,What about one particle(fermion) problems?Coherent states contain many particles in the same state, which is impossible for fermions.

Well,I was looking for the reason that why it seems impossible at first and then a change of view makes it OK!There indeed exists a definition for coherent states for fermions which is quite important for the path-integral formulation of (non-relativistic as well as relativistic) quantum field theory. The complication noted by Demystifier needs to be overcome by introducing Grassmann valued c-number fields. See, e.g., my QFT manuscript

- #7

DrDu

Science Advisor

- 6,256

- 906

The Grassmannian coherent states mentioned by van Hees are indeed an important formal concept in QFT, but they can't be prepared as actual states. So you can't think of classical states of fermions as limits of Grassmannian coherent states.

- #8

strangerep

Science Advisor

- 3,375

- 1,549

Taking the definition of "coherent state" as one of "minimal uncertainty" is too restrictive. Generalized coherent states can be constructed group-theoretically, and the construction is applicable to a surprisingly large number of cases.I was looking for the reason that why it seems impossible at first and then a change of view makes it OK!

Try this book:

J-P. Gazeau, "Coherent States in Quantum Physics",

Wiley 2009, ISBN 978-3-527-40709-5

https://www.amazon.com/dp/352740709X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Chapter 11 discusses fermionic coherent states.

- #9

- 12,935

- 5,244

Coherent states contain many particles in the same state, which is impossible for fermions.

That depends. You can also construct coherent states for e.g. a harmonic oscillator.

The original question in the first post, referring to fermions, suggested that one had the many-particle field-theoretic notion of coherent state in mind.Also,in a one particle problem,the issues you mentioned can't arise!

As I said,What about one particle(fermion) problems?

By the way, except those two meanings of the term "coherent state", there is also a third meaning: any pure state, i.e., state in the Hilbert space with a well defined phase.

- #10

- 12,935

- 5,244

True. Or from a mathematical point of view, Grassmannian coherent states are not states in the (physical) complex Hilbert space.The Grassmannian coherent states mentioned by van Hees are indeed an important formal concept in QFT, but they can't be prepared as actual states. So you can't think of classical states of fermions as limits of Grassmannian coherent states.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 354

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 326

- Last Post

- Replies
- 27

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 619

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 675

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 227

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 298

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 300

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 411