Let us consider the following Hamiltonian
$$
\hat{H}=\hbar\omega\left(\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{b}+\frac{1}{2}\right).
$$
The self-adjoint operator ##\hat b## and its adjoint ##\hat b^\dagger## fulfil the (unusual) commutation relation
$$
[\hat b,\hat b^\dagger]=\hat b\hat b^\dagger-\hat b^\dagger\hat b = 4.
$$
Define an (unusual) number operator by ##\hat N=\hat b^\dagger \hat b##. The normalised eigenstates of ##\hat N## are ##|\phi_n\rangle## such that
$$
\hat N|\phi_n\rangle = n|\phi_n\rangle.
$$
(a) Evaluate the commutator ##[\hat b,\hat N]##.
(b) Use the previous result to show that ##\hat b|\phi_n\rangle## is a (not-normalised) eigenstate of the number operator for ##n\ge 4##. What is the corresponding eigenvalue?
(c) Let ##|\Phi\rangle=g\,\hat b|\phi_n\rangle## with ##g\in\mathbb R##. Calculate the value of ##g\ge 0## such that ##\|\Phi\|=1##.
(d) Use the previous results to argue what are the eigenvalues of this unusual number operator ##\hat N##.
---
My working so far:
(a) I evaluated the commutator and found
$$
[\hat b,\hat N]=4\hat b.
$$
(b) I deduced that
$$
\hat N\hat b=\hat b\hat N-4\hat b,
$$
so that ##\hat b|\phi_n\rangle## is an eigenstate with eigenvalue ##n-4##.
(c) Using the norm condition, I got ##g=1/\sqrt{n}##.
---
For (d), I am confused. I have two trains of thought:
(1) The smallest eigenvalue is ##0## because repeatedly applying ##\hat b## will keep lowering the eigenvalue until it would become negative, which contradicts the property that the eigenvalue must satisfy ##n\ge 0## (since ##\langle\psi|\hat N|\psi\rangle=\|\hat b|\psi\rangle\|^2\ge 0##). So then the only possible eigenvalues are ##0,4,8,\dots##.
(2) Since part (b) is only stated for ##n\ge 4##, I can start from e.g. ##7## and then stop when it hits ##3##, because the relation doesn't apply again. So then the solutions also include ##3,7,11,\dots##. The same logic can be applied to ##1,5,9,\dots## and ##2,6,10,\dots##, which would suggest the eigenvalues are ##0,1,2,3,\dots##.
Any thoughts on which answer is correct, and why the other one is incorrect? Both seem valid to me, or is the question ambiguous?
JimWhoKnew said:
Given that b^ is a self-adjoint operator and b^† is its adjoint, I'd expect their commutator to vanish. What am I missing?
you are correct, I asked my professor, he said it is an error, ##\hat{b}## is not self-adjoint.