Commuting creation and annihilation operators

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?
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top