How to Calculate the Sum of Fermionic Operator Products?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LagrangeEuler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Sum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the sum of products of fermionic operators, specifically involving the vacuum state and the action of creation and annihilation operators. The context is rooted in quantum mechanics and the properties of fermions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the vacuum state and the role of fermionic operators. Questions arise regarding the normalization of states and the implications of the anti-commutation relations of the operators.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the properties of the vacuum state and the effects of applying creation and annihilation operators. Some participants suggest that the normalization of states is typically expected, while others question the necessity of certain assumptions regarding the inner products of states.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the implications of anti-commutation relations and the requirement to normal order operators in the context of fermionic systems. There is also a focus on the interpretation of the vacuum state and its representation in the problem.

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


How to calculate?
## \sum _{i,j} \langle 0|\prod_n \hat{C}_n \hat{C}^+_i\hat{C}_j \prod_n \hat{C}^+_n|0 \rangle ##

Homework Equations


##\hat{C}^+, \hat{C}## are fermionic operators.
##\{\hat{C}_i,\hat{C}^+_j\}=\delta_{i,j}##

The Attempt at a Solution


I have a question. What is ##|0 \rangle##? Is that maybe ##|0 0\rangle##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are the \hat{C}'s ladder operators?
 
Last edited:
Presumably you have some number of Fermions, ##N##. Then, ##\left| 0 \right\rangle## represents the vacuum state which contains no Fermions - you can take it as a shorthand for

$$\underbrace{\left| 0 0 \dots 0 \right\rangle}_{N~\rm{terms}}.$$

So, the Fermion creation operator for the kth fermion when acting on this state will create a Fermion in the kth slot of the vacuum state (changing the 0 to a 1).

That is,

$$\hat{c}_k^\dagger \left| 0 0 \dots 0_k \dots 0 \right\rangle = \left| 0 0 \dots 1_k \dots 0 \right\rangle,$$
where I used a subscript ##k## to denote that that is the kth entry in the state.
 
Tnx.

##c^+_k|00…0k…0\rangle=|00…1k…0\rangle##
and is maybe
##c^+_k|00…1k…0\rangle=0?##
Then
##\prod_n c^+_n |000...0\rangle=|111...1\rangle##
 
So result is
## \sum_{i,j}\langle 1111...|\hat{C}^+_i\hat{C}_j|111...\rangle=\sum_{i,j}\delta_{i,j}?##
 
LagrangeEuler said:
So result is
## \sum_{i,j}\langle 1111...|\hat{C}^+_i\hat{C}_j|111...\rangle=\sum_{i,j}\delta_{i,j}?##

That's what it looks like to me. Note that since you're summing over i and j you should get a number out at the end.
 
And is it necessarily to ##\langle 1...1|1...1 \rangle## be ##1##?
 
this is a problem in anti commutation. Anti commute the annihilation operators past all the other operators so that they may annihilate the vacuum, in other words you have to normal order the operators
 
LagrangeEuler said:
And is it necessarily to ##\langle 1...1|1...1 \rangle## be ##1##?

While not strictly necessary, typically the wavefunctions are defined to be normalized, no?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K