How to Prove the Unitarity of Matrix U_{pq}?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Threepwood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the unitarity of the matrix U_{pq} in the context of a Hamiltonian involving fermionic creation and annihilation operators. The original poster is tasked with demonstrating that certain anticommutation relations hold, which are linked to the unitarity of U_{pq}.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the c and b operators, questioning how to prove the necessary anticommutation relations. There is discussion about the implications of U being unitary and how it relates to the properties of the b operators.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the relationship between the operators and the conditions for unitarity. There is an ongoing exploration of how to derive an equation for U, with some uncertainty about the initial problem statement and requirements.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of information regarding the specific properties of the b operators, which is essential for proving the required relations. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the starting point for finding an equation for U.

Threepwood
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have been given the Hamiltonian
[tex]H = \sum_{k}\left(\epsilon_k - \mu\right) c_k^{\dag} c_k + \gamma \sum_{kp}c_k^{\dag} c_p[/tex]
and also that
[tex]c_p = \sum_{q} U_{pq} b_q[/tex]
I have to prove that this matrix [tex]U_{pq}[/tex] is unitary, and find an equation for [tex]U_{pq}[/tex].

Homework Equations


This is equivalent to proving that
[tex]\{b_q, b_p\} = 0[/tex]
and
[tex]\{b_q , b_p^{\dag}\} = \delta_{pq}[/tex]
where [tex]b[/tex] and [tex]c[/tex] are creation and annihiliation operators.

The Attempt at a Solution


Knowing that
[tex]c_p = \sum_{q} U_{pq} b_q[/tex]
then
[tex]c_q = \sum_{p} U_{pq} b_p[/tex]
and
[tex]\{b_q , b_p\} = b_q b_p + b_p b_q[/tex]
[tex]c_p b_p = \left(\sum_{q} U_{pq} b_q\right) b_p[/tex]
[tex]b_q c_q = b_q \left(\sum_{p} U_{pq} b_p\right)[/tex]
So that
[tex]c_p b_p + b_q c_q = \left(\sum_{q} U_{pq} b_q\right) b_p + b_q \left(\sum_{p} U_{pq} b_p\right)[/tex]

Hmm, now what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should use that the c operators satisfy the same anticommutation relations that the b's also satisfy. On the other hand, c_p and b_q do not, in general, satisfy such relations.
 
Isn't that precisely what I'm supposed to be proving?
 
No, you have to prove U is unitary.

Edit: you already seem to know that U being unitary is equivalent to the b's satisfying the same anticommutation relations as the c's. But that's all there is to it...
 
Last edited:
I need to prove those relations. How do I prove that
[tex]\{b_q , b_p\} = 0[/tex] and [tex]\{b_q , b_p^{\dag} \} = \delta_{pq}[/tex]?

And also, beyond that, how do I find an equation for U? I don't need to solve the equation for U, just find it.
 
You need more information to prove any of those relations. You must have been given some info about what the b's are supposed to be, for instance. I assumed that you had been told that the b's are fermionic annihilation operators.
 
Yes, they are. At the moment I'm more interested in finding this equation for U, but I have no idea where to even start. I've just been playing around with the relations, like taking
[tex]c_p c_q^{\dag} + c_q^{\dag} c_p = \delta_{pq}[/tex]
applying [tex]c_q[/tex] to the left
[tex]c_q c_p c_q^{\dag} + c_q c_q^{\dag} c_p = c_q \delta_{pq}[/tex]
because [tex]c_p c_q = - c_q c_p[/tex], then
[tex]-c_p c_q c_q^{\dag} + c_q c_q^{\dag} c_p = c_q \delta_{pq}[/tex]
and [tex]c_q c_q^{\dag} = 0[/tex], so
[tex]c_q \delta_{pq} = 0[/tex]
Hmm! Is this useful relation? Probably not..
 
If the b's are fermionic annihilation operators, then that *means* they satisfy the anticommutation relations that, as you figured out, are equivalent to U being unitary. Done.
 
Ok, but what about finding an equation for U?
 
  • #10
You clearly did not state the full problem so I have to keep guessing: were you supposed to diagonalize the Hamiltonian and find U such that [tex]H=\sum_k E(k) b^+_kb_k [/itex]?[/tex]
 
  • #11
That was never stated in the question, but maybe it was implied somehow. It would make sense. How would I go about doing that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K