Is There a Way to Prove Normalization of the BCS Equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaeltorrent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Superconductor
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the normalization of the BCS (Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer) equation in the context of superconductivity. The original poster seeks assistance in understanding how to demonstrate that the inner product of the BCS wavefunction equals one, given the condition that the coefficients satisfy \( u_k^2 + v_k^2 = 1 \).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the normalization condition of the BCS wavefunction and discuss the orthogonality of the states involved. Questions arise about algebraic manipulations needed to simplify terms involving creation and annihilation operators.

Discussion Status

Some participants offer insights into the properties of the states and suggest ways to approach the normalization proof. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationships between the terms in the wavefunction and the implications of fermionic statistics. Multiple interpretations of the normalization condition are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of dealing with the creation and annihilation operators and their effects on the vacuum state. There are also mentions of potential technical issues with the forum interface that some users are experiencing.

michaeltorrent
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
hi

i have superconductor question, need someone familiar with this field.

does anyone know how to prove normalization of bcs equation?

<psi|psi>=1

given uk^2 + vk^2 =1

i went through the Heisenberg algebra but still can't solve it.

any guide?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The BCS wavefunction can be written as a product of factors like [tex]u_k | 0 ,k\rangle + v_k | 1,k \rangle[/tex] where the states refer to an unoccupied or occupied Cooper pair (k spin up, -k spin down). The normalization condition boils down the normalization of these factor states. Using the fact the [tex]| 0,k \rangle[/tex] and [tex]|1,k \rangle[/tex] are orthogonal, can you prove that you must have [tex]u_k^2 + v_k^2 = 1[/tex] for normalization of the BCS state?

Hope this helps, and if you still have trouble let me know.
 
Last edited:
thanks. i am new here, please excuse my latex typing if there is error, i am not used to this:

we have:

[tex]|\psi>=\prod_k [u_k + v_k b*]|0>[/tex]

i want to prove
[tex]<\psi |\psi>=1[/tex]

i do the product but still cannot get rid of b and b* terms. is there an algerbraic trick there? thanks.

btw does anyone know why whenever i open a thread the screen keeps on scrolling down to the bottom page until the download finishes? is something wrong with my browser? or is it normal for this website?
 
Each of those factors adds (or removes, in the case of the adjoint) an even number of electrons: zero for the [tex]u_k[/tex] part and two for the [tex]v_k[/tex] part. Because all the states are different, any two of those factors can be exchanged since each such exchange involves an even number of fermion exchanges i.e. [tex](-1)^2 = 1[/tex]. The exception to this rule is when a factor meets its adjoint. If you call [tex]f_k = u_k + v_k b^+_k[/tex], then the normalization condition boils down to a bunch of terms like [tex]f^+_k f_k ,[/tex] and by exchanging such terms (see above) you should be able to evaluate them easily using the special properties of the vacuum state.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, (well, actually it's much the same thing), you could show that the state [itex]|1 \rangle \equiv b^{\dagger} |0 \rangle[/itex] is orthonormal to the vacuum state, given that the sum of the squares adds to 1.
 
is [b,b*]=1-ndown-nup ?
then we have bb* - b*b = 1 -ndown - nup
so
bb* = b*b + 1 - ndown - nup
and b|0> = 0 so b*b terms dissapear?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K