Harmonic Oscillator, Ladder Operators, and Dirac notation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the state |α⟩ in the context of harmonic oscillators, specifically regarding its status as an eigenstate of the lowering operator 𝑎 and the appropriate use of Dirac notation. Participants explore the implications of this state and methods for proving its characteristics, touching on concepts such as coherent states and commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the state |α⟩ and questions whether it is an eigenstate of the lowering operator 𝑎, suggesting that 𝑎|α⟩ = α|α⟩ could be true.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the notation and confirms a similar result regarding the eigenstate status, mentioning a specific commutation relation involving the operators.
  • A different participant challenges the term "pathological state" in reference to coherent states, proposing a constructive approach to proving the eigenstate property by expanding the state in the harmonic oscillator basis.
  • One participant reflects on their initial unfamiliarity with coherent states but acknowledges the calculation's simplicity, retracting their earlier comment about the state being pathological.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the eigenstate nature of |α⟩, but there remains uncertainty regarding the notation and the characterization of coherent states. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the best approach to proving the properties of the state.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical techniques and notation conventions, but there are unresolved aspects regarding the completeness of the proof and the definitions used in the discussion.

MaximumTaco
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Defining the state [itex]| \alpha >[/itex] such that:
[tex]| \alpha > = Ce^{\alpha {\hat{a}}^{\dagger}} | 0 >\ ,\ C \in \mathbf{R};\ \alpha \in \mathbf{C};[/tex]

Now, [itex]| \alpha >[/itex] is an eigenstate of the lowering operator [itex]\hat{a}[/itex], isn't it?

In other words, the statement that [itex]\hat{a} | \alpha >\ =\ \alpha | \alpha >[/itex] is true, right?
(for the eigenvalue [itex]\alpha[/itex]?)

Is that the correct use of the Dirac notation?

How might one go about proving the above?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anybody? I'd really appreciate some advice here.

Cheers.
 
I got the same result. Was there step where you had

[tex] a (a^\dagger)^k = k (a^\dagger)^{k-1} + (a^\dagger)^k a[/tex]

It looks like it's an eigenstate of lowering operation then. Pathological state...

I'm not sure about what is precisly correct notation, looked fine to me, but at least the latex symbols \langle and \rangle look better than < and > :wink:

Adding with edit:

Hups, I didn't notice your last question. I thougth you had calculated that, and were wondering how such strange state could exist. Steps to prove it are these. Use series expansion of the exponential. Prove the commutation rule of [tex]a[/tex] and [tex](a^\dagger)^k[/tex] with induction (or with some other technique). Calculate.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call coherent states "pathological states".

The way you would go about proving it would probably be by construction. Start by declaring a state [tex]|\alpha \rangle[/tex] to be an eigenstate of the lowering operator, then expand that state in the basis of the harmonic oscillator and see what comes out. Then you can equate it to the exponential of the raising operator by looking at what comes out and saying "AH HA!".

That's probably the least algebraically intensive method of solving the problem, unless you really like wrestling with commutators.
 
I didn't know anything about coherent states, but the calculation wasn't too difficult so I replied. I'll take the pathological comment back.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K