Problem with Hermicity of Density matrix

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the issue of Hermicity in the density matrix while solving a modified Jayne's Cummings model using the Von Neumann equation and Wigner function. The user presents their Hamiltonian, consisting of a system Hamiltonian H₀ and an interaction Hamiltonian Hᵢ, and expresses confusion regarding the emergence of a non-Hermitian density matrix. Despite confirming the Hermicity of the Hamiltonian, the user struggles to reconcile this with the non-Hermitian results obtained from the Wigner function calculations. The discussion highlights the necessity of ensuring proper mathematical treatment and possibly the application of unitary operators in the analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Von Neumann equation in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the Wigner function and its properties
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonians in quantum systems, specifically the Jayne's Cummings model
  • Proficiency in matrix operations and Hermitian properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Investigate the application of unitary operators in quantum mechanics, specifically U(t,t₀) = e^{i \hbar H₀(t₀)}
  • Explore the mathematical properties of the Wigner function and its implications for Hermicity
  • Review the derivation and properties of the modified Jayne's Cummings model
  • Examine common pitfalls in density matrix calculations and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics, and students studying advanced quantum systems, particularly those working with density matrices and the Wigner function.

climbon
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to solve a modified Jayne's cummings model using the Von Neumann equation and Wigner function but am having a problem with Density matrix hermicity;

I am trying to solve in Schrödinger picture.

I have my system Hamiltonian as;

<br /> H_{0} = \frac{1}{2}\hbar \Omega \sigma_{z} + \hbar \omega aa^{\dagger}<br />


I am having a problem with the second term of this system Hamiltonian...when I follow it through into the Von neumann equation and Wigner function I get a non-Hermitian matrix??

I can't find a problem with the maths...the only thing I can think is to drop the second term and leave it out of the Von Neumann equation...if this is possible, why?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the Schroedinger picture of time evolution the full time dependence is on the states, and thus the (picture-independent) von Neumann equation, translates into

\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \hat{R}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i} \hbar} [\hat{R},\hat{H}]+ \left (\frac{\partial \hat{R}}{\partial t} \right )_{\text{expl}}.

Since \hat{R} is Hermitian at the initial time and \hat{H} is Hermitian, \hat{R} is Hermitian at any time.

So there must be some mistake in your calculation, because your Hamiltonian is obviously Hermitian. To find, what's wrong, you should post your concrete problem and your ansatzes for the solution.
 
Thanks, this is my problem;

<br /> <br /> H=H_{0} + H_{I}<br /> <br />

Where

<br /> H_{0}= \frac{1}{2} \hbar \Omega \sigma_{z} + \hbar \omega a^{\dagger}a<br />

and

<br /> H_{I}=g_{1} \sigma_{x} (a+a^{\dagger}) + g_{2} \sigma_{z} (a+a^{\dagger}) +g_{3} \sigma_{z} (a^{2} + aa^{\dagger} + a^{\dagger}a +a^{\dagger 2})<br />

I put this into the von neumann equation;

<br /> i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho = \left[ H_{0} + H_{I} , \rho \right]<br />

Using the density matrix as a 2x2 matrix with elements \rho_{11} , \rho_{12}, \rho_{21}, \rho_{22}.

I then put all the equations into the von Neumann equation and multiply out all of the matrices and split the density matrix into its component parts. I then convert this from being a function of a and a^{\dagger} into the Wigner function of x and y (using standard conversion and correspondences). The Wigner function should still be Hermitian. Below are the four matrix elements of the Wigner function;

<br /> i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} W_{11} = \hbar \omega \left(-1 + ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - iy \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \right) W_{11}<br /> +g_{1} \left( 2x + \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{21} <br /> -g_{1} \left( 2x - \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{12} <br /> +g_{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} W_{11}<br /> +g_{3} \left( 4ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{11}<br />

<br /> i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t } W_{12} = \hbar \Omega W_{12} + \hbar \omega \left( -1 + ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - iy \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \right) W_{12}<br /> +g_{1} \left( 2x + \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{22} <br /> -g_{1} \left( 2x - \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{11} <br /> +4g_{2}xW_{12}<br /> +g_{3} \left( 8x^{2} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}} \right) W_{12}<br />

<br /> i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t } W_{21} = - \hbar \Omega W_{21} + \hbar \omega \left( -1 + ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - iy \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \right) W_{21}<br /> +g_{1} \left( 2x + \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{11} <br /> -g_{1} \left( 2x - \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{22} <br /> -4g_{2}xW_{21}<br /> -g_{3} \left( 8x^{2} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}} \right) W_{21}<br />


<br /> i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} W_{22} = \hbar \omega \left(-1 + ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - iy \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \right) W_{22}<br /> +g_{1} \left( 2x + \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{12} <br /> -g_{1} \left( 2x - \frac{1}{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{21} <br /> -g_{2} i \frac{\partial}{\partial y} W_{22}<br /> -g_{3} \left( 4ix \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right) W_{22}<br />

Which are non-Hermitian. I have checked the calculation several times and cannot find a mathematical error. I can only think I've omitted something. For example, do I need to apply some unitary operator somewhere, eg;

<br /> U(t,t_{0})= e^{i \hbar H_{0}(t_0)}<br />

Am I missing something?

Thanks for any help, is much appreciated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K