QFT: Normalization of coherent states

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the normalization of coherent states in quantum field theory, specifically using the equation for the inner product of coherent states, represented as ##\braket{\eta_k | \eta_k}##. The derivation leads to the conclusion that the normalization constant ##N## is given by ##N=e^{-\dfrac{1}{2}\int \dfrac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}(2E_k)}\eta^{2}_{k}}##. Participants also explore the implications of introducing two sums for the exponential and the challenges associated with factorial terms in the calculations. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and the properties of coherent states.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and coherent states
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory and operator algebra
  • Knowledge of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula
  • Proficiency in mathematical techniques involving integrals and summations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula in detail
  • Learn about the properties of coherent states and their applications in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the derivation of the normalization constant for coherent states
  • Investigate the generalized commutation relations in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of coherent states and their mathematical foundations.

Marioweee
Messages
18
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
We can define a coherent state of scalar fields as ## \ket{\eta_k}=Ne^{A}\ket{0}## with ##A=\int \dfrac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3 \sqrt{2E_K}}\eta_k a^{\dagger}_{k} ## where the ##a_k## are the destruction operators of a real ##\phi## scalar field and ## \eta_k## functions of momentum k with sufficiently convergent behavior at infinity.
a) Compute N such that ##\braket{\eta_k | \eta_k}=1##.
Relevant Equations
##[a_p, a_{q}^{\dagger}]=(2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{q})##
##e^{X}=\sum_{i}^{\infty}\dfrac{X^i}{i!} ##
What I have done is the following:
\begin{equation}
\braket{\eta_k | \eta_k}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\bra{0}(A^{\dagger})^nA^n\ket{0}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\int \dfrac{d^{3n}kd^{3n}p}{(2\pi)^{3n}(2\pi)^{3n}\sqrt{(2E_k)^{n}}\sqrt{(2E_p)^{n}}}\eta^{n}_{k}\eta_{p}^{n}\bra{0}(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})^{n}\ket{0}
\end{equation}
We know that ##\bra{0}a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p}\ket{0}=\bra{0}[a_{k},a^{\dagger}_{p}]\ket{0}+\bra{0}a^{\dagger}_{p}a_{k}\ket{0}=(2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k})\bra{0}\ket{0}=(2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k})## since the action of the destruction operator on the void returns us a zero. But we want to calculate ## \bra{0}(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})^n\ket{0}## , however, this is nothing more than ## \bra{0}(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})...\ket{0}=(2\pi)^{3n} \delta^{(3n)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k})##

Therefore
\begin{equation}
\braket{\eta_k | \eta_k}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\int \dfrac{d^{3n}kd^{3n}p}{(2\pi)^{3n}(2\pi)^{3n}\sqrt{(2E_k)^{n}}\sqrt{(2E_p)^{n}}}\eta^{n}_{k}\eta_{p}^{n}\bra{0}(a_{k}a^{\dagger}_{p})^{n}\ket{0}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\int \dfrac{d^{3n}kd^{3n}p}{(2\pi)^{3n}(2\pi)^{3n}\sqrt{(2E_k)^{n}}\sqrt{(2E_p)^{n}}}\eta^{n}_{k}\eta_{p}^{n}(2\pi)^{3n} \delta^{(3n)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k})=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\int \dfrac{d^{3n}k}{(2\pi)^{3n}(2E_k)^{n}}\eta^{2n}_{k}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\left( \int \dfrac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}(2E_k)}\eta^{2}_{k}\right)^n=|N|^2e^{\int \dfrac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}(2E_k)}\eta^{2}_{k}}=1 \rightarrow N=e^{-\dfrac{1}{2}\int \dfrac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}(2E_k)}\eta^{2}_{k}}
\end{equation}

Would this result be correct? If so, I have a doubt, since I have tried to make it more general since in principle we would need two sums for each exponential. I mean
\begin{equation}
\braket{\eta_k | \eta_k}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\dfrac{1}{m!}\bra{0}(A^{\dagger})^nA^m\ket{0}=|N|^2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n!}\dfrac{1}{m!}\int \dfrac{d^{3n}kd^{3m}p}{(2\pi)^{3n}(2\pi)^{3m}\sqrt{(2E_k)^{n}}\sqrt{(2E_p)^{m}}}\eta^{n}_{k}\eta_{p}^{m}\bra{0}a_{k}^{n}(a^{\dagger}_{p})^{m}\ket{0}
\end{equation}
It is clear that for ##\bra{0}(a_{k}^{n}a^{\dagger}_{p})^{m}\ket{0}\neq 0 ## m and n must be equal and must appear in the equation ## \delta_{m,n}##. Now, if m is equal to n, we do the steps above. However, I find a problem with the factorial of n that appears twice, which does not allow to have the expression of the exponential. What am I doing wrong?
Thank you very much for any kind of help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This problem reduces drastically, down to merely a few lines if you know the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula $$e^{A+B} ~=~ e^A e^B e^{-[A,B]/2} ~,$$ which is true when ##[A,B]## commutes with both ##A## and ##B##.

You'll also need to use (or prove) the result that a (Glauber) coherent state is an eigenstate of the annihiliation operator, then use a generalized form of the commutation relations that says $$[a, f(a^\dagger)] ~=~ \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial a^\dagger} \, f(a^\dagger) ~.$$ To complete this exercise properly, you should probably prove the latter, (e.g., by induction and a couple of other tricks).

Some of these utility formulas are probably mentioned in your textbook(s), no?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, vanhees71, topsquark and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K