Does the Creation Operator Have Eigenvalues?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the creation operator \( a_+ \) in the context of quantum harmonic oscillators, specifically addressing whether it has eigenvalues when acting on eigenkets \( |n\rangle \).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the operator's action on eigenkets and question the linear dependence of coefficients in the context of eigenvalues. There is an examination of specific cases, such as when \( a = 1 \), and how this affects the resulting states.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the implications of their findings and exploring various interpretations of the operator's behavior. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationships between coefficients and the nature of eigenstates.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the infinite set of eigenvalues for the oscillator Hamiltonian and the potential implications for the ground state. Participants also note the need for careful consideration of bounds in their mathematical expressions.

carllacan
Messages
272
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Prove that the creation operator [itex]a_+[/itex] has no eigenvalues, for instance in the [itex]\vert n \rangle[/itex].

Homework Equations


Action of [itex]a_+[/itex] in a harmonic oscillator eigenket [itex]\vert n \rangle[/itex]:
[itex]a_+\vert n \rangle =\vert n +1\rangle[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


Calling a the eigenvalues of [itex]a_+[/itex]
[itex]a_+ \vert \Psi \rangle = a \vert \Psi \rangle = a \sum c_n \vert n \rangle = \sum a c_n \vert n \rangle[/itex]
[itex]a_+ \vert \Psi \rangle = a_+ \sum c_n \vert n \rangle = \sum c_n a_+ \vert n \rangle = \sum c_n\vert n+1\rangle = \sum c_{n-1}\vert n\rangle[/itex]

Equating both
[itex]a_+ \vert \Psi \rangle = \sum a c_n \vert n \rangle= \sum c_{n-1}\vert n\rangle[/itex]

We have
[itex]a c_n = c_{n-1}[/itex].

I think I can take the a factor out and then claim that eigenkets have to be linearly dependent, so their coefficients cannot be proportional to each other.

However, I am not sure that this does prove that the creation operatro has no eigenvalues.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
##a=1=c_n=c_{n-1}=...## is a solution of the equations for the coefficients. What happens when ##a_+## is applied on ##|\Psi>=|n>+|n-1>+...+|n-m>##?
 
bloby said:
Hi,
##a=1=c_n=c_{n-1}=...## is a solution of the equations for the coefficients. What happens when ##a_+## is applied on ##|\Psi>=|n>+|n-1>+...+|n-m>##?

We get ##a_+|\Psi\rangle=|n+1>+|n\rangle+...+|n-m+1\rangle##. If the set of eigenvalues for the oscilator Hamiltonian is infinite (and it is, right?) the sum remains the same except for ##\vert 0 \rangle##, which becomes ##\vert 1 \rangle ##. Since this is the new ground state we have transformed the oscillator eigenkets into eigenkets for an oscillator with ##\hbar \omega ## more energy. Is that so?

What now? I don't know what do you mean.
 
carllacan said:
(and it is, right?)

Yes but you are more interested in eigenvector to express ##|\Psi>##.

carllacan said:
##a_+|\Psi\rangle=|n+1>+|n\rangle+...+|n-m+1\rangle##

Yes and what is ##a|\Psi>## with a=1 in the basis ##\{|i>\}##?

carllacan said:
If the set of eigenvalues for the oscilator Hamiltonian is infinite (and it is, right?) the sum remains the same except for ##\vert 0 \rangle##, which becomes ##\vert 1 \rangle ##. Since this is the new ground state we have transformed the oscillator eigenkets into eigenkets for an oscillator with ##\hbar \omega ## more energy. Is that so?

No, it's just some algebra to show that there is no vector ##|\Psi>## such that ##a_+|\Psi>=a|\Psi>##. The example with a=1 is just a simple example to see what happens.

If you add the bounds to the sums in your attempt at a solution you will see that there is a problem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
bloby said:
If you add the bounds to the sums in your attempt at a solution you will see that there is a problem.

What do you mean with the bounds?
 
Sorry for the delay. I will try another way: you expended ##|\Psi>## on the basis ##\{|n>:n=0,1,...\}##. On one hand you multiplied it by a and you obtained ##a|\Psi>## on that basis. On the other hand you applied ##a_+## on it and you obtained ##a_+|\Psi>## on the same basis ##\{|n>:n=0,1,...\}##. For the two vectors obtained to be equal the coefficients must be equal for all basis vectors. Your result ##a c_n=c_{n-1}## cannot hold for all n, do you see why?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Try writing out the first few terms of each summation.
 
bloby said:
Sorry for the delay.
Wow, why do you apologyze? You're helping me! I really appreciate it, no matter how long does it take.
bloby said:
Your result ##a c_n=c_{n-1}## cannot hold for all n, do you see why?

I've just realized that ##\hat{a}^{\dagger}\vert n \rangle = \sqrt{n} \vert n \rangle ##, so my recursion formula should've been ## c_n a = c_{n-1} \sqrt{n} ##.

Anyway, I don't see what's the deal with it. Is it with the ground state? It is 0 in one expansion and ##c_0 a ## in the other one.
 
Exactly. And they have to be the same, so...?
 
  • #10
bloby said:
Exactly. And they have to be the same, so...?

So ##c_0## is zero and so are all others. Thank you!
 
  • #11
Some clean up is needed(what if a=0? what if ##c_0##,...,##c_i##=0?) but you get it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K