Commuting creation and annihilation operators

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the commutator of powers of creation and annihilation operators, specifically \[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \]. One participant successfully derived the relation \[ \left[ a^m , a^{\dagger} \right] = m a^{m-1} \left[ a , a^{\dagger} \right] \] but finds the recursive application messy for higher powers. Another contributor suggests that repeated application leads to the result \[ \left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right] = nma^{m-1}(a^\dagger)^{n-1}\left[a,a^\dagger\right] \], emphasizing that the commutator is a c-number. The original poster expresses skepticism about the simplification, questioning whether the expansion maintains the correct order of operators. The conversation highlights the complexities of operator algebra in quantum mechanics.
Rettaw
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have the missfortune of having to calculate a commutator with some powers of the creation and the annihilation operators, something like:

\left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right]

I have managed to derive
\left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right]= m a^{m-1} \left[ a , a^{\dagger} \right]
(altought I should really have remebered that) but I don't know how to use that to calculate
the big thing other than by recursive application of it, and that's very messy.

Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rettaw said:
Hello, I have the missfortune of having to calculate a commutator with some powers of the creation and the annihilation operators, something like:

\left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right]

I have managed to derive
\left[ a^m , a^{\dagger} \right]= m a^{m-1} \left[ a , a^{\dagger} \right] \quad\cdots (*)
(altought I should really have remebered that) but I don't know how to use that to calculate
the big thing other than by recursive application of it, and that's very messy.

Any suggestions?
(I guess you got a typo in your second equation. I corrected it in the way I thought.)
Actually, by directly repeating use of the eq(*), you will get
\left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right] = nma^{m-1}(a^\dagger)^{n-1}\left[a,a^\dagger\right].
What you only have to notice is, the commutator is a c-number.
Application of eq(*) to \left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right] is just of as many lines calculation as the derivation of eq(*).
Actually, the answer can be read off directly, but I think you should go into the calculation, and should not feel cumbersome please.

Cheers
 
Yeah, you're right it's supposed to be only a^{\dagger} and no powers of n.
Still, I'm not entirely convinced, the \left[ a , a^{\dagger} \right] is indeed a c-number, but the \left[ a^m , a^{\dagger} \right] is an operator, and when I expand the full \left[ a^m , (a^{\dagger})^n \right] I get things that contain higher powes of the operators and thus I'm quite sure do not commute trivially.

So are you claiming that if I fully expand the commutator until I only have \left[ a , a^{\dagger} \right] I get all the operators that I've pulled outside in the correct order to be able to write your final result?
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
628
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K