Operators: how to get rid of the two extra terms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Terms
latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to work out equation 2.45 in these notes:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/two.pdf

Anyway \phi(\vec{x}) and \pi(\vec{x}) are given in equations 2.18 and 2.19

When I multiply out \pi(\vec{x}) \vec{\div} \phi(\vec{x}) I get four terms.
After normal ordering I can combine two of them to get the a_{\vec{p}}^\dagger a_{\vec{p}} term I am meant to but I also have a a_{\vec{-p}} a_{\vec{p}} and a a_{\vec{-p}}^\dagger a_{\vec{p}}^\dagger term that I cannot get rid of.

Does anyone know how to get rid of the two extra terms?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org


When we use an operator like this, we do so by taking its expectation value against some state.

\langle \psi | P | \psi \rangle

But in this formalism, states are constructed out of momentum eigenstates.

|\psi\rangle = a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

That means that terms like a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} in the momentum operator will lead to things like

\langle 0 | a_p a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

Terms like this will always vanish, because there aren't enough a_p's to annihilate all of the a^\dagger_p's (and there aren't any at all to annihilate the a^\dagger_{-p}'s), so some of them will hit the vacuum on the left and vanish. A similar argument holds for terms like a_p a_p.

I'm not sure whether that's a good answer, because you could say the same thing about the Hamiltonian too, and there those terms explicitly cancel without needing this argument, but I know that when you use it as an expectation value like this, those terms won't contribute.
 
Last edited:


Chopin said:
When we use an operator like this, we do so by taking its expectation value against some state.

\langle \psi | P | \psi \rangle

But in this formalism, states are constructed out of momentum eigenstates.

|\psi\rangle = a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

That means that terms like a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} in the momentum operator will lead to things like

\langle 0 | a_p a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

Terms like this will always vanish, because there aren't enough a_p's to annihilate all of the a^\dagger_p's (and there aren't any at all to annihilate the a^\dagger_{-p}'s), so some of them will hit the vacuum on the left and vanish. A similar argument holds for terms like a_p a_p.

I'm not sure whether that's a good answer, because you could say the same thing about the Hamiltonian too, and there those terms explicitly cancel without needing this argument, but I know that when you use it as an expectation value like this, those terms won't contribute.

so basically they've just looked ahead and said that those terms won't be relevant?

i agree that they won't be if you take an expectation value it just bugs me because what he's written as an equality doesn't appear to actually be an equality!
 
I think Chopin's argument fails because the general state in Fock space is a superposition of 0-particle states, 1-particle states, 2-particle states, etc etc. It might very well survive after we hit it with 2 annihilation operators. :frown:

However if you do the x-integration carefully, I think you might find that the resulting integrand is odd in p, and so the whole thing does vanish anyway. If memory serves me correctly.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top