Computing Scalar Product in Antisymmetric Fock Space w/ Creator Operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a scalar product in the context of antisymmetric Fock space, specifically involving creator operators for fermions. Participants explore the implications of the number of operators involved and the ordering of these operators in relation to the vacuum state.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on evaluating a scalar product involving multiple creator operators and the vacuum state.
  • Another suggests starting with low values of n to identify patterns and prove them by induction.
  • It is noted that if n is odd, the scalar product evaluates to zero due to the properties of the vacuum state and the ordering of operators.
  • For even n, a participant discusses the implications of having creators to the left of annihilators, leading to a zero result based on a specific formula.
  • Another participant questions the notation used and provides an alternative interpretation, suggesting that the scalar product may not be zero under certain conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the notation and the roles of creators and annihilators, with some participants expressing confusion over the calculations leading to zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the evaluation of the scalar product, particularly regarding the conditions under which it equals zero. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the calculations or the notation used.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings in notation and the implications of operator ordering, which may affect the evaluation of the scalar product. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific calculations and their interpretations.

Boby37
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
We use the antisymmetric Fock space ( "fermions"). We denote by [tex]c(h)[/tex] a creator operator.

I need to evaluate the following quantity:

[tex]< \Omega , \big(c(h_1)+c(h_1)^{*}\big)\big(c(h_2)+c(h_2)^{*}\big) \ldots \big(c(h_n)+c(h_n)^*\big)\Omega>[/tex]

where [tex]\Omega[/tex] is the unit vector called vaccum, [tex]<\cdot\ ,\ \cdot>[/tex] the scalar product and [tex]h_1,\ldots,h_n[/tex] any vectors.

I need a reference or an explanation.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Boby37 said:
I need a reference or an explanation.

You didn't really say what part of this is giving you trouble.

As a broad approach, I'd try explicit evaluation for some
low values on n, and try to see a pattern. Then try and
prove that the pattern holds for all n via induction.
 
If n is odd, I understand that the quantity is 0: We can write
the quantity as a sum of monomials in which all
creators are to the right of all annihilators (anti-Wick ordered). A
such monomial is a product of an odd number of factors. Clearly
the vacuum state annihilates a such monomial. We deduce the result by
linearity.

If n=2k is even: if a creator is to the left of a annihilator note that we have the formula

[tex] <\xi,c(e)c(f)^*\eta>=0 [/tex]

proof:

[tex] <\xi,c(e)c(f)^*\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = <f,e>_H<\xi,\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}-<\xi,c(f)^*c(e)\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = <f,e>_H<\xi,\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}-<f\otimes \xi,e\otimes\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = 0[/tex]

where in the first equality, I use [tex]c(f)^*c(e)+c(e)c(f)^* =\ <f,e>_{H} Id_{\mathcal{F}(H)}[/tex].

Now each term of the product is a sum of monomials. By the previous calculation, if a creator is
to the left of a annihilator then the vacumm state annihilates this monomial.
Then, we only must consider the monomial which all creators are to the right of
all annihilators (anti-Wick ordered). Moreover, it is clear that if
the number of creators and the number of annihilators is
different the vacuum state annihilates the (anti-Wick ordered) monomial.
Consequently, the quantity is equal to
[tex] <\Omega ,c(h_1)^*...c(h_k)^*c(h_{k+1})..c(h_{2k})\Omega>=<h_1,h_{2k}>...<h_k,h_{k-1}>[/tex]
But this last quantity is not "symmetric" ([tex]c(h_1)^*[/tex] and [tex]c(h_2)^*[/tex] anticommute).

Then I have a BIG problem. Where is the mistake?
 
Last edited:
Boby37 said:
If n=2k is even: if a creator is to the left of a annihilator note that we have the formula

[tex] <\xi,c(e)c(f)^*\eta>=0 [/tex]

proof:

[tex] <\xi,c(e)c(f)^*\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = <f,e>_H<\xi,\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}-<\xi,c(f)^*c(e)\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = <f,e>_H<\xi,\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}-<f\otimes \xi,e\otimes\eta>_{\mathcal{F}(H)}<br /> = 0[/tex]

where in the first equality, I use [tex]c(f)^*c(e)+c(e)c(f)^* =\ <f,e>_{H} Id_{\mathcal{F}(H)}[/tex].

I'm not sure I understand your notation, I presume that

[tex] |\eta\rangle ~:=~ c^*(\eta) |\Omega\rangle ~~~~~~ ?[/tex]

Hmm... permit me to simplify (i.e., abuse) the notation...

I'll write
[tex] c^*(f) ~\to~ f^* ~~~~~~\mbox{etc,}[/tex]
and I'll use ordinary parentheses to denote the inner product in H, e.g., (f,g).
I'll also use "0" for the vacuum.

Then

[tex] \langle\xi,c(e)c(f)^*\eta\rangle ~\to~ \langle 0|\, \xi \, e \, f^* \, \eta^* \, |0\rangle<br /> ~=~ (f,e)\,(\eta,\xi) ~-~ (f,\xi) \, (\eta,e)<br /> ~\ne~ 0 ~~,[/tex]

unless I've made a mistake, or misunderstood your notation.
 
Thank you for your answer.
However, with my notations, we have
[tex] c(\eta) |\Omega\rangle ~:=~ |\eta\rangle[/tex]
[tex]c(\eta)[/tex] is a creator and not a annhilator.
 
Boby37 said:
[...] with my notations, we have
[tex] c(\eta) |\Omega\rangle ~:=~ |\eta\rangle[/tex]
[tex]c(\eta)[/tex] is a creator and not a annhilator.

OK, but I still don't see how you get zero...


[tex] \langle\xi,c(e)c^*(f)\eta\rangle ~=~ \langle 0|\, c^*(\xi) \, c(e) \, c^*(f) \, c(\eta)\, |0\rangle<br /> ~=~ \langle 0| \big( (\xi, e) - c(e)c^*(\xi) \big) \big( (f,\eta) - c(\eta) c^*(f) \big) |0\rangle<br /> ~=~ (\xi, e)\,(f,\eta) ~\ne~ 0 ~~,[/tex]
 
Thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K