Density matrix elements, momentum basis, second quantization

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the matrix elements of the density matrix in a momentum basis, specifically focusing on deriving expectation values for particle density and current density operators from second quantized forms. Participants are exploring the connections between different notations and the implications of using distinct symbols for the density matrix and particle density operator.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in understanding the density matrix element \(\langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} \rangle\) and its relation to expectation values of particle density and current density.
  • Another participant suggests using the trace relation \(\langle A \rangle = \text{trace}(\varrho A) = \sum_{p,q} \langle p | \varrho | q \rangle \langle q | A | p \rangle\) to express the average of the particle density operator.
  • Concerns are raised about the notation used for the density matrix and particle density operator, with one participant arguing that different symbols are warranted due to their distinct roles in evolution equations.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the suggested approach and seeks clarification on how to proceed with the derivation, indicating a struggle with the mathematical steps involved.
  • Another participant advises maintaining the bra-ket notation for the density matrix while replacing the particle density operator with its definition to simplify the expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to clarify the notation used for the density matrix and particle density operator. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to derive the expectation values, as participants express differing levels of understanding and confusion regarding the mathematical connections.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential confusion arising from the use of different symbols for the density matrix and particle density operator, which may lead to misunderstandings in the derivation process. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation attempts.

Final ansatz
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I'm having some trouble, that I was hoping someone here could assist me with. I do hope that I have started the topic in an appropriate subforum - please redirect me otherwise.
Specifically, I'm having a hard time understanding the matrix elements of the density matrix, [itex]\varrho[/itex]. For instance, I would like to determine the density matrix element [itex]\langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} \rangle[/itex], i.e. matrix elements of [itex]\varrho[/itex] in a momentum basis.

The reason for me wanting to do this, is that I am trying to understand an old paper by N.D. Mermin [1]. In this paper, the particle density, [itex]\rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})[/itex], and current density, [itex]\boldsymbol{\mathrm{J}}(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})[/itex], expectation values are introduced as (slightly rewritten - the essence remains the same):
[tex]\langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})\rangle = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle \\<br /> \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{J}}(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} (\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} )\langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle[/tex]
I'm used to the following second quantized forms of the particle density operator and particle currents:
[tex]\rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}}^\dagger c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}} \\<br /> \boldsymbol{\mathrm{J}}(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} (\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}} )c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}}^\dagger c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}+\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}}[/tex]
My question is, how do I derive (preferably starting from the second-quantized form of the operators) the expectation values [itex]\langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})\rangle[/itex] and [itex]\langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{J}}\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle[/itex], expressed as sums over density matrix elements?
I feel that, essentially, this should be a simple problem to do in a stringent manner - but I just can't seem to make the necessary connections.

[1] Lindhard Dielectric Function in the Relaxation-Time Approximation

EDIT: Edit since I had apparently not understood the use of [ tex ] [ /itex ].
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Final ansatz said:
I'm having a hard time understanding the matrix elements of the density matrix, [...]
I feel that, essentially, this should be a simple problem to do in a stringent manner - but I just can't seem to make the necessary connections.

Use <A>=trace rho A = sum_{p,q} <p|rho|q><q|A|p> and the annihilation properties of the c's.

Note that you use rho in two different fonts with two different meanings - not a very good choice of notation.
 
A. Neumaier said:
Use <A>=trace rho A = sum_{p,q} <p|rho|q><q|A|p> and the annihilation properties of the c's.

Note that you use rho in two different fonts with two different meanings - not a very good choice of notation.

Thanks for your reply Neumaier!
Sadly, after having considered your suggestion for some time, I remain stuck with the same predicament as before. I must be confusing something basic. My intention with using [itex]\varrho[/itex] for the density matrix and [itex]\rho[/itex] for particle density operator, was that, in my mind they are different quantities and so deserve different notations (e.g. the density matrix evolve according to the Liouville-von Neumann equation while the particle density operator evolve according to the Heisenberg equation of motion)?

Attempting to follow your suggestion to express the average of the particle density operator in momentum space, [itex]\langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle[/itex], I make it as far as (again, I'm using two different notation for the density matrix and the particle density - I would be very interested in any explanation as to why this is inappropriate):
[tex] \langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle <br /> = \mathrm{tr}[\varrho \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})]<br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} | \varrho \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle <br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k}}} \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} \rangle \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} | \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle <br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k}}} \langle 0 | c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \varrho c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle<br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k\, k}}'} \langle 0 | c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \varrho c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'}^\dagger c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'} c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle[/tex]... which does not appear a viable path. Could I possibly persuade you to give my yet a hint? What am I doing wrong here? Thanks again!
 
Final ansatz said:
My intention with using [itex]\varrho[/itex] for the density matrix and [itex]\rho[/itex] for particle density operator, was that, in my mind they are different quantities and so deserve different notations (e.g. the density matrix evolve according to the Liouville-von Neumann equation while the particle density operator evolve according to the Heisenberg equation of motion)?

Attempting to follow your suggestion to express the average of the particle density operator in momentum space, [itex]\langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle[/itex],
[...]
Could I possibly persuade you to give my yet a hint? What am I doing wrong here? Thanks again!
You must aim at getting the result, hence not convert everything to c/a notation.
Thus keep the bras and kets in the density matrix part, and replace the particle density by its definition. Then you get a triple sum in which most terms vanish.
 
Final ansatz said:
Thanks for your reply Neumaier!
Sadly, after having considered your suggestion for some time, I remain stuck with the same predicament as before. I must be confusing something basic. My intention with using [itex]\varrho[/itex] for the density matrix and [itex]\rho[/itex] for particle density operator, was that, in my mind they are different quantities and so deserve different notations (e.g. the density matrix evolve according to the Liouville-von Neumann equation while the particle density operator evolve according to the Heisenberg equation of motion)?

Attempting to follow your suggestion to express the average of the particle density operator in momentum space, [itex]\langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle[/itex], I make it as far as (again, I'm using two different notation for the density matrix and the particle density - I would be very interested in any explanation as to why this is inappropriate):
[tex] \langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \rangle <br /> = \mathrm{tr}[\varrho \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})]<br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} | \varrho \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle <br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k}}} \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} | \varrho | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} \rangle \langle \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} | \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) | \boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle <br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k}}} \langle 0 | c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \varrho c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle<br /> = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p\, k\, k}}'} \langle 0 | c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \varrho c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'}^\dagger c_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'} c_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}^\dagger | 0 \rangle[/tex]... which does not appear a viable path. Could I possibly persuade you to give my yet a hint? What am I doing wrong here? Thanks again!

You was close to the result:

[itex] \langle \rho(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}})\rangle= <br /> \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}} \langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}| \rho (\boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}) \varrho|\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}\rangle=<br /> \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}},\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}} \langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}| c^\dagger_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}c_{\boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} } + \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}} \varrho|\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}\rangle=<br /> \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}},\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}, \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k'}}'} \langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}| c^\dagger_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}c_{\boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} } + \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}} |\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'\rangle\langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'|\varrho|\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}} \rangle=<br /> \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}} \langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} + \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}|\varrho| \boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}} \rangle ,[/itex]

where in the last step I used

[itex] \langle\boldsymbol{\mathrm{p}}| c^\dagger_\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}c_{\boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} } + \boldsymbol{\mathrm{q}}} |\boldsymbol{\mathrm{k}}'\rangle = \delta_{\boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} }, \boldsymbol{ \mathrm{p} }}\delta_{\boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} } + \boldsymbol{ \mathrm{q} }, \boldsymbol{ \mathrm{k} }'}.[/itex]

With analogous calculation you can easly obtain the second equation you needed.

I hope this helps.

Ilm
 
Thank you both a ton - your help is very much appreciated. Just couldn't get that bit right! Thanks a lot, this has saved my week :).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K