Expectation value of raising/lowering operators

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This has been driving me CRAZY:

Show that [tex]\langle a(t)\rangle = e^{-i\omega t} \langle a(0) \rangle[/tex]

and

[tex]\langle a^{\dagger}(t)\rangle = e^{i\omega t} \langle a^{\dagger}(0) \rangle[/tex]

Homework Equations



Raising/lowering eigenvalue equations:

[tex]a |n \rangle = \sqrt{n} |n-1 \rangle[/tex]
[tex]a^{\dagger} |n \rangle = \sqrt{n+1} |n+1 \rangle[/tex]

Time development of stationary states: psi(x)*exp(-i*En*t/hbar)=psi(x)*exp(-i*w_n*t)

The Attempt at a Solution



Suppose we've got the system in some state [tex]\psi(0)[/tex].

Then expanding into the [tex]| n(0)\rangle[/tex] basis (looking just at a, not a dagger here) we have

[tex]\langle a(0) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) | a | \psi(0) \rangle = \langle \sum_k c_k n_k | a | \sum_k c_k n_k \rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \langle n_k | a | n_l \rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \sqrt{n_l} \langle n_k | a | n_{l-1}\rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \sqrt{n_l} \delta_{k, l-1}[/tex]

so for non-trivial <a(0)>, [tex]\langle a(0) \rangle = \sum_k |c_k|^2 \sqrt{n_k}[/tex]

But now

[tex]\langle a(t) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) e^{-i \omega t} | a | \psi(0) e^{-i \omega t} \rangle = \langle \psi(0)| e^{i \omega t} a e^{-i \omega t} | \psi(0) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) | a | \psi(0) \rangle \neq e^{-i \omega t} \langle a(0) \rangle[/tex]

because as far as I know, a does not act on exp(i*w*t) and the two exponential terms cancel out! I get the same sort of problem with a dagger. So... what's the deal?? This is really bugging me, I'd love to know how to do this problem...
 
on Phys.org
First of all, thankyouthankyouthankyou for making a decent attempt at the problem o:)

quasar_4 said:
But now

[tex]\langle a(t) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) e^{-i \omega t} | a | \psi(0) e^{-i \omega t} \rangle = \langle \psi(0)| e^{i \omega t} a e^{-i \omega t} | \psi(0) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) | a | \psi(0) \rangle \neq e^{-i \omega t} \langle a(0) \rangle[/tex]

because as far as I know, a does not act on exp(i*w*t) and the two exponential terms cancel out! I get the same sort of problem with a dagger. So... what's the deal?? This is really bugging me, I'd love to know how to do this problem...
Here's the catch: when you did that calculation, you implicitly assumed that [itex]|\psi(0)\rangle[/itex] was an energy eigenstate with a particular eigenvalue [itex]E = \hbar \omega[/itex]. It's not, in general, an eigenstate, and so it doesn't necessarily evolve according to a single exponential factor [itex]e^{-i\omega t}[/itex]. You can't write
[tex]|\psi(t)\rangle = |\psi(0) e^{-i\omega t}\rangle[/tex]
unless you know that the state is an energy eigenstate.

Before you try to generalize that calculation, take another look at this:
quasar_4 said:
Suppose we've got the system in some state [tex]\psi(0)[/tex].

Then expanding into the [tex]| n(0)\rangle[/tex] basis (looking just at a, not a dagger here) we have

[tex]\langle a(0) \rangle = \langle \psi(0) | a | \psi(0) \rangle = \langle \sum_k c_k n_k | a | \sum_k c_k n_k \rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \langle n_k | a | n_l \rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \sqrt{n_l} \langle n_k | a | n_{l-1}\rangle = \sum_k \sum_l c_k^* c_l \sqrt{n_l} \delta_{k, l-1}[/tex]
Note that you can calculate [itex]\langle a(t)\rangle[/itex] the same way, just make the coefficients [itex]c_k[/itex] functions of time. Specifically,
[tex]|\psi(t)\rangle = \sum_k c_k(t) |n_k\rangle = \sum_k c_k e^{-i\omega_k t} |n_k\rangle[/tex]
Since this is a harmonic oscillator, you know what [itex]\omega_k[/itex] is in terms of [itex]k[/itex].
quasar_4 said:
so for non-trivial <a(0)>, [tex]\langle a(0) \rangle = \sum_k |c_k|^2 \sqrt{n_k}[/tex]
Be careful there: you started out with a delta function that requires [itex]k = l-1[/itex]. So you shouldn't be winding up with [itex]|c_k|^2[/itex], since that results from the term where [itex]k = l[/itex].
 

Similar threads

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