Commutator relations of field operators

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving commutator relations for bosonic field operators using a specific equality. The user initially attempts to expand a commutator but finds their calculations incorrect. Another participant suggests applying the nabla operator to the three commutator equations to derive useful formulas for simplification. The original poster acknowledges their mistake and realizes the nabla operator only acts on specific variables. This exchange highlights the importance of careful operator application in quantum mechanics calculations.
QuantumRose
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Here is the question:
By using the equality (for boson)
ABC.png
---------------------------------------- (1)
Prove that
equality.png


Background:
Currently I'm learning things about second quantization in the book "Advanced Quantum Mechanics"(Franz Schwabl).
Given the creation and annihilation operators(
a+ and a.png
), define field operators as
field operators.png

The following 3 commutator relations are for Boson.
commutators of field operators.png
-----------------------------------(2)

And here is my attempt (but it doesn't work):
First step, using equality (1) to expand the commutator:
step 1.png
-------------(3)
since the nabla operator is an operator, so I think the first term of (3)'s right-hand-side can be expressed as following
step 2.png

also, I expressed the second term of (3)'s right-hand-side by using the same method
step 3.png

So, by inserting those commutators in (2), I found
step 4.png
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your line after (3) looks wrong to me.

Try doing this first: apply ##\nabla'## to each of the three commutator equations in (2). That will give you some extra utility formulas that you can use to simply (3) more correctly, and quicker.
 
strangerep said:
Your line after (3) looks wrong to me.

Try doing this first: apply ##\nabla'## to each of the three commutator equations in (2). That will give you some extra utility formulas that you can use to simply (3) more correctly, and quicker.

That helps me a lot! Thanks! Indeed, my calculations are wrong after (3). And I also forgot that ##\nabla'## only acts on x' !
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top