Easy Question About the Number Operator

  • Thread starter Thread starter metapuff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
metapuff
Messages
53
Reaction score
6
Suppose I have a system of fermions in the ground state ##\Psi_0##. If I operate on this state with the number operator, I get
\langle \Psi_0 | c_k^{\dagger} c_k | \Psi_0 \rangle = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon_k - \mu)\beta} + 1}
which is, of course, the fermi distribution. What if I operate with ##c^{\dagger}_k c_l##, where ##k \neq l##? I.e, what is
\langle \Psi_0 | c_k^{\dagger} c_l | \Psi_0 \rangle?
My hunch says that this is zero, but I'm not sure. This might be obvious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can show that this is zero by writing out the ground state ##|\Psi_0\rangle## as a product of creation operators acting on the vacuum ##|0>##. Since ##\{c^\dagger_k,c_l\}=0## for ##k\neq l##, we can anticommute the ##c^\dagger_k## through to the ##c^\dagger_k## appearing in the product. Then we find a factor of ##(c^\dagger_k)^2=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes metapuff
Nice! That's really clever. This seems like a trick that I'll be using a lot. :)
 
Okay, another question. Let ##\Psi_{0,\downarrow}## be the ground state for spin down electrons (for example we could have a partially polarized electron gas, with ##\Psi_{0,\downarrow}## representing the filled fermi sphere for down-spin electrons). If I try to act on this with the number operator for spin up particles, like
\langle \Psi_{0,\downarrow} | c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\uparrow} | \Psi_{0,\downarrow} \rangle
do I get 0 (since there are no spin-up particles in the down-spin ground state), or can I just pull the spin-up operators out, and write
\langle \Psi_{0,\downarrow} | c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\uparrow} | \Psi_{0,\downarrow} \rangle = c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\uparrow}?
Again, this might be obvious, but I don't have a lot of confidence with second quantization yet and am trying to build intuition. Thanks!
 
You will get zero because you can anticommute to get the expression

$$ c^\dagger_{k\uparrow} \prod_r^\mathcal{N} c^\dagger_{r\downarrow} c_{k\uparrow} | 0 \rangle.$$

Also, you generally can't pull operators out of an expectation value. If the expectation value you're writing down is physically sensible then the operator acts on the state that you're using to compute the expectation value.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top