How Does the Raising Operator Work in Quantum Mechanics?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the raising operator in quantum mechanics, specifically its effect on eigenstates and the associated eigenvalue relationships. Participants are exploring the mathematical properties and implications of the raising operator, denoted as \( a^\dagger \), in the context of the number operator \( \hat{N} \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate how the raising operator acts on an eigenstate, questioning whether their approach is sufficient. They reference the commutation relation and simplify the expression involving the number operator.
  • Another participant expands on the original poster's reasoning, providing a more detailed breakdown of the commutation relation and confirming that \( a^\dagger |n\rangle \) is an eigenstate of \( \hat{N} \) with eigenvalue \( n+1 \). They also raise a question about the normalization of the resulting state.
  • Additional commentary includes a suggestion for defining common notation to streamline the discussion, although this is not directly related to the main problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications on the properties of the raising operator. There is a productive exchange regarding the normalization of the resulting state after applying the raising operator, although no consensus has been reached on whether normalization is necessary in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem does not explicitly require determining the normalization factor, which may influence their approach to the solution. There is also mention of potential formatting issues with mathematical notation in the discussion.

Sekonda
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I have a question on showing how the raising operator in QM raises a particular eigenstate by 1 unit, the question is showed below:

Raising_Operator_Q.png


I think I know how to do this but not sure if what I'm doing is sufficient:

\hat{N}a^{\dagger}|n>=([\hat{N},a^{\dagger}]+a^{\dagger}\hat{N})|n>

So I considered the N operator acting on the raising operator, we know the commutation relation stated on the RHS, so this simplifies to:

\hat{N}a^{\dagger}|n>=(a^{\dagger}+a^{\dagger}\hat{N})|n>

Letting N act on the state N we attain:

\hat{N}a^{\dagger}|n>=(1+n)a^{\dagger}|n>

I'm not sure if it's enough to say now that by definition of the raising operator 'a-dagger', it raises the state n to n+1 and we conclude that 'a-dagger' acting on a state n is equal to some constant multiplied by (1+n) and the state 1+n.

Cheers,
SK
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd be more explicit than that:

from (given) ##[\hat{N},a^\dagger]|n\rangle = a^\dagger |n\rangle## ... expand the commutator

##\Leftrightarrow \hat{N}[a^\dagger|n\rangle ] - a^\dagger [\hat{N}|n\rangle ] = a^\dagger |n\rangle## ... since: ##\hat{N}|n\rangle = n|n\rangle## (given)

##\Leftrightarrow \hat{N}[a^\dagger|n\rangle] - n[a^\dagger|n\rangle] = a^\dagger |n\rangle##

##\Rightarrow \hat{N}[a^\dagger|n\rangle] = a^\dagger |n\rangle+na^\dagger|n\rangle = (n+1)[a^\dagger |n\rangle]##

i.e. ##a^\dagger |n\rangle## is an eigenstate of ##\hat{N}## with eigenvalue n+1 ...

##\Rightarrow a^\dagger |n\rangle=|n+1\rangle##

... is |n+1> normalized already?
 
Last edited:
BTW: It can be useful, if you are writing a LOT of fancy notation, to define the most common combinations ... eg: ##\renewcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle {#1} |}
\renewcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}
\renewcommand{\braket}[1]{ \langle #1 \rangle }##

\renewcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle {#1} |}
\renewcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}
\renewcommand{\braket}[1]{ \langle #1 \rangle }

so that \bra{n}\; \ket{n,l,m,s}\; \braket{\psi}\; \bra{\psi}H\ket{\psi} gives you: $$\bra{n}\; \ket{n,l,m,s}\; \braket{\psi}\; \bra{\psi}H\ket{\psi}$$
 
Ahh yes, that's better. I think the ket 'n+1' is not normalised already but that's only due to the normalisation factor 'c' they've put in in the question.

I think what you have written is sufficient, they do not ask you to determine 'c' - so I presume we don't have to in this case.

Also your second post coding hasn't all come up properly on my screen!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K