Fermionic Operator Equation Derivation Troubleshooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the equation of motion for fermionic annihilation operators, with participants addressing issues related to notation and the correctness of equations. One participant questions whether certain terms in the notation indicate cancellations and points out a potential error when v equals v1, suggesting that an anticommutation yields a minus sign that isn't canceled. Another participant emphasizes the importance of explicitly writing out equations in LaTeX for clarity and understanding. Ultimately, the issue is resolved when it is acknowledged that fermionic operators anticommute even when their subscripts are the same, highlighting the necessity of careful notation and understanding of operator properties in quantum mechanics. The conversation illustrates the collaborative troubleshooting process in complex mathematical derivations.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Attached is a derivation of the equation of motion for the fundamental fermionic anihillation opeator but I am having a bit of trouble with the notation.
Does the notation Vv2-v and the other V_ simply mean that all terms in the sum of q have canceled except for when q=v2-v or v-v1?
And second of all: Isn't the middle equation wrong for v=v1? Because then to move the av1 you only have to anticomutte it once which yields a minus sign which is not canceled out by further anticommuting it.
 

Attachments

  • fermions.png
    fermions.png
    13.6 KB · Views: 472
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
Does the notation Vv2-v and the other V_ simply mean that all terms in the sum of q have canceled except for when q=v2-v or v-v1?
No, it just means that you've got a triple sum. Write it out explicitly for the case when there's only a small number of fermion modes (i.e., when all summations are over 1,2 only).

And second of all: Isn't the middle equation wrong for v=v1? Because then to move the av1 you only have to anticomutte it once which yields a minus sign which is not canceled out by further anticommuting it.
Exactly which part of the middle equation do you think is wrong? Show your work here.
 
What do you mean triple sum? there is no q in the sum anymore, so haven't all terms disappeared except for the two terms I indicated?
For v1=v the term in the sum yields the attached which cannot be written as the commutator suggested.
 

Attachments

  • operators.png
    operators.png
    10.5 KB · Views: 498
what do you get by calculating the commutator? of course you will get a delta Kroenecker...
 
aaaa202 said:
What do you mean triple sum? there is no q in the sum anymore, so haven't all terms disappeared except for the two terms I indicated?
I have no idea what you mean by this. I see a triple sum everywhere except the last line. Please write it out properly, in latex, so I can see exactly which expressions you refer to. I'm not interested in guessing what you mean, and I also have a bit of trouble with your handwriting. (If you won't make an effort to learn and use basic latex on this forum, and express your questions more explicitly, then why should others make an effort to help you? Instructions for getting started with latex can be found by on the main PF page by following SiteInfo->FAQ... )

For v1=v the term in the sum yields the attached which cannot be written as the commutator suggested.
By focusing just on ##\nu_1 = \nu## you're not seeing the full picture. If you want more help, then do the following:

1) Write out the basic anticommutators that ##a##'s and ##a^\dagger##'s satisfy.

2) Write your Hamiltonian as ##H = T + V## (where ##T## is the free part, and ##V## is the current-current interaction part).
Then work out ##[T,a_\lambda]## separately, showing all steps.

3) Then work out ##[V, a_\lambda]## separately, showing all steps.
 
Well it's just that I can't see how focusing on the big picture would mend the problem. I have tried to look at v=v2 to see if that should somehow cancel out the bad minus but no. And since all other v's commute they can't fix it either. I have been staring for half an hour at that equation. I won't ask you to do it for me - but can you say with words what fixes the minus that I pointed out would make make the equality wrong.
 
aaaa202 said:
Well it's just that I can't see how focusing on the big picture would mend the problem.
Sometimes, you've just got to trust the person who is trying to help you, even if you can't "see" how it would help.

You would have been far better off if you'd spent that half-hour doing what I suggested, instead of resisting me.
(This is a really easy problem, btw. I should have insisted this thread be moved to the homework forums.)
 
Okay I finally found out. The fermionic operators anticommute even when the subscripts are the same. Why didn't you just tell me this? Going down your way, which I actually did, I wouldn't have figured out that aa=-aa...
 
aaaa202 said:
Okay I finally found out. The fermionic operators anticommute even when the subscripts are the same. Why didn't you just tell me this?
Because I'm not a mind reader.

Going down your way, which I actually did, I wouldn't have figured out that aa=-aa...
Yes, it would have. I knew you had a stubborn mental block somewhere, but I didn't know exactly where. My suggestions were designed to diagnose your problem, if you were willing to devote some effort.

You must understand that I won't put much effort into helping you while you refuse to put effort into learning and using latex on this forum, and showing more of your work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K