Commuting creation and annihilation operators

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on calculating the commutator of powers of creation and annihilation operators, specifically the expression [a^m, (a^{\dagger})^n]. The user successfully derived the relation [a^m, a^{\dagger}] = m a^{m-1} [a, a^{\dagger}] but struggles with applying this to the more complex commutator. Another participant clarifies that the commutator can be simplified to [a^m, (a^{\dagger})^n] = n m a^{m-1} (a^{\dagger})^{n-1} [a, a^{\dagger}], emphasizing that the commutator results in a c-number. The discussion highlights the importance of recognizing the nature of operators and c-numbers in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically creation and annihilation operators.
  • Familiarity with commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of operator algebra and manipulation.
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation used in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of commutation relations for creation and annihilation operators.
  • Learn about the implications of c-numbers in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore recursive methods for calculating commutators in operator algebra.
  • Investigate the role of operator ordering in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers working with quantum field theory or operator algebra will benefit from this discussion.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
839
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K