Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof of second quantization operators

  1. Apr 29, 2013 #1
    Please, can somebody show me why a Hamiltonian like [itex]\sum_nh(x_n)[/itex] can be written as [itex]\sum_{i,j}t_{i,j}a^+_ia_j[/itex], with [itex]t_{i,j}=\int f^*_i(x)h(x)f_j(x)dx[/itex]?

    Thank you.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2013 #2
    Can you define your h, x and f?
  4. Apr 30, 2013 #3
    I think what you are looking for is that you can show that the raising and lowering operators are enough to create any operator on fock space. Basically, the proof of that, is by using raising and lowering operators as a "basis", you have enough freedom to make the operator matrix elements have any value you want. Weinberg's QFT book has a description of this in his "Cluster Decomposition Principle" chapter.
  5. Apr 30, 2013 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    OP, these proofs are often omitted because they can become very messy. I think there was one in ``Molecular electronic structure theory'' by Helgaker, Jorgensen, Olsen (``the purple book''). You might want to have a look if your university library has one of those (it's also tremendously useful for lots of other quantum many body things if you really want to know what is going on).
  6. May 1, 2013 #5
    Thank you all for your replies. I apologise for the lack of details in my first post, but that evening I was at the brink of desperation trying to prove that result. :-) Finally, I found a proof online, but as you say it's not something which books usually demonstrate (despite its importance).
  7. May 1, 2013 #6
    For the sake of claification, do you mean taking linear combinations of finite products of raising and lowering operators?
  8. May 1, 2013 #7
    This is also relevant to my interests... Where did you find the proof if you don't mind me asking?
  9. May 2, 2013 #8
    It's been a while since I saw the precise statement of the theorem, but I believe that is the case. Other interpretations don't seem to be powerful enough
  10. May 2, 2013 #9
    Sure. It's an Italian paper, http://www.dcci.unipi.it/~ivo/didattica/dispense.chimteo/secquant.pdf [Broken], pages 11-13 (and following pages for two particle Hamiltonians). The formalism is very clear.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook