Ground state of Hamiltonian describing fermions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hamiltonian for fermions, specifically H = ∑_{k} (ε_k - μ) c^{\dag} c_k. Participants are tasked with calculating the ground state, its energy E_0, and the derivative ∂E_0/∂μ, while expressing concerns about potential misunderstandings in their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the Hamiltonian and the properties of fermion operators. There are attempts to represent the Hamiltonian in matrix form and to find eigenvalues, with some questioning the correctness of their calculations and interpretations of the ground state.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on each other's calculations and clarifying concepts related to the Hamiltonian. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of eigenvalues and the conditions for the ground state energy, but there is no explicit consensus on the final outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of specific constraints regarding the number of particles, which may influence the interpretation of the results. The mention of a 'famous' result related to the derivative of the ground state energy suggests a broader context in statistical mechanics, particularly concerning the chemical potential.

Morto
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have been given the Hamiltonian

[tex]H = \sum_{k} (\epsilon_k - \mu) c^{\dag} c_k[/tex]

where [tex]c_k[/tex] and [tex]c^{\dag}_k[/tex] are fermion annihilation and creation operators respectively. I need to calculate the ground state, the energy of the ground state [tex]E_0[/tex] and the derivative [tex]\frac{\delta E_0(\mu)}{\delta \mu}[/tex]. Apparently this last quantity is 'famous' and I should recognise it. However, I think that I am making some fundamental mistake quite early on.

Homework Equations



I know that
[tex]c^{\dag} c |1> = 1|1>[/tex]
and
[tex]c^{\dag}c|0>=0|0>[/tex]
So that
[tex]c^{\dag}|0> = |1>[/tex]
and
[tex]c|1> = |0>[/tex]
and
[tex]c|0>=0[/tex]
and
[tex]c^{\dag}|1> = 0[/tex]
(All of this is proven by writing these operators as matrices and multiplying by state vectors. These relations are confirmed in 'Quantum theory of solids' by Kittel)

The Attempt at a Solution


But when it comes to calculating the ground state of this Hamiltonian, I find something unusual..
[tex]H|0> = \sum_{k}\epsilon_k c_k^{\dag} c_k |0> - \mu \sum_k c_k^{\dag}c_k|0> \\<br /> = \sum_k \epsilon_k|1> - \mu|1>[/tex]
Using the first relation.
How do I now calculate the energy of this ground state?
[tex]<0|H|0> = <0|\sum_k \epsilon_k|1> - <0|\mu|1>[/tex]

What do I do with this? Have I made some fundamental error somewhere? This doesn't look right to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For each k there are only 2 states available: |0> and |1>. For each k, write the kth term of the Hamiltonian as a 2x2 matrix, and find its eigenvalues (really easy!). The ground state corresponds to the lowest eigenvalue. The full ground state is then a tensor product of all the ground states for each k.

What you calculated is not the ground state, you just applied H to |0> and then made a mistake (why would you get a |1> in there??)
 
Okay, so the matrix representation of these operators is
[tex]c^{\dag}c = \left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

And the Hamiltonian of the kth term will be
[tex]H_k = \left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon_k - \mu & 0 \\ 0 & \epsilin_k - \mu\end{array}\right)[/tex]
which has only a single eigenvalue [tex]\lambda = \epsilon_k - \mu[/tex]

Is this the ground state of the kth term? [tex]\psi_0(x) = A e^{(\epsilon_k - \mu)x}[/tex]? What do I do with this?
 
You made a mistake in the Hamiltonian.
 
Ah, yes, of course.

[tex]H_k = \epsilon_k\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&0\end{array}\right)-\mu\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&0\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon_k - \mu&0\\0&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

So calculating the eigenvalues
[tex]det\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon_k - \mu-\lambda&0\\0&-\lambda\end{array}\right)=0[/tex]
[tex]\left(\lambda + \mu -\epsilon_k\right)\lambda = 0[/tex]
So this has eigenvalues [tex]\lambda=0, \lambda=\epsilon_k - \mu[/tex]

For the non-zero eigenvalue to be the lowest eigenvalue, then [tex]\epsilon_k - \mu < 0[/tex]. I'm not sure what this requirement means. What do I do with this?

When calculating the eigenvectors, I find that for either case then [tex]x[/tex] or [tex]y[/tex] are non-zero only when [tex]\mu=\epsilon_k[/tex], in which case the entire Hamiltonian is zero.
 
Last edited:
Yes, now we're getting somewhere! For those k for which \epsilon_k<\mu, the ground state energy is \epsilon_k-\mu and the ground state is |1>_k. For all other k's the energy is zero, and the ground state is |0>.

So, the fermions would ideally only occupy those states with \epsilon_k<\mu. Were you given a fixed number of particles or some other relation about the number of fermions?
 
Nope, I was just given that Hamiltonian and told to find the ground state, the energy of the ground state [tex]E_0[/tex] and the derivate wrt [tex]\mu[/tex], so if [tex]E_0 = \epsilon_k - \mu[/tex] then [tex]\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial \mu} = -1[/tex]. (and if [tex]E_0 = 0[/tex], then obviously the derivate is zero).

Is this a 'famous' result?
 
No, that's not a famous result because that's not quite the result you'd get! In any case:
I'm not sure how much background knowledge was assumed for this question, but here is what it is really all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi-Dirac_statistics

The \mu is the chemical potential.
 
Ahah. Thank you for your help.

What about for the Hamiltonian
[tex]H = \sum_k \left(\epsilon_k - \mu\right) c^{\dag}_k c_k + \gamma \sum_{kp} c_k^{\dag}c_p[/tex]

Can I use the same method to determine the ground state? What does this Hamiltonian represent?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K