Question about number operator and density operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the number operator and density operator in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the quantum harmonic oscillator. Participants explore the implications of applying the number operator to quantum states, the differences in results from various sources, and the interpretation of density operators in statistical mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the number operator as \(\hat{N} = \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\) and discusses its application to the state \(|n\rangle\), yielding \(\langle n| \hat{N}|n\rangle = n\), while questioning why another source states \(\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle = \bar{n}\).
  • Another participant challenges the notation used in the first post, asserting that \(\hat{N}\) should not appear in a bra and clarifies the correct expressions for the number operator's application.
  • A participant explains that the density operator can represent either an ensemble of identical systems or a single system in an unknown state, emphasizing the role of probabilities in these interpretations.
  • One participant suggests that the average value of an observable can be expressed as \(\langle \psi |\hat{N}|\psi\rangle = \bar{n}_\psi\) and relates this to the probability of measurement outcomes.
  • Another participant elaborates on the conditions under which the eigenvalue of an operator equals the expectation value, specifically in the case of eigenvectors.
  • Lastly, a participant notes that in quantum statistical mechanics, the average of any quantity is defined using the trace of the product of the density operator and the observable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of results from the number operator and density operator, with some clarifying notation and definitions while others question the consistency of the results. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions underlying the definitions of the density operator and the conditions under which averages are calculated. The discussion also highlights potential ambiguities in notation and interpretation of quantum states.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
In quantum harmonic oscillator, we define the so called number operator as

[tex]\hat{N} = \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}[/tex]

Apply [tex]\hat{N}[/tex] to the state with n number of particles, it gives
[tex]\hat{N}|n\rangle = n |n\rangle[/tex]

so

[tex]\langle n| \hat{N}|n\rangle = \langle n| n |n\rangle = n[/tex]

But in other textbook about statistical mechanics, it gives

[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle = \bar{n}[/tex]

Why these two results are not the same? For later one, it seems to consider something related to the statistics, but how?

I still have another question by the trace, in harmonic oscillator, the density operator is given by

[tex] \hat{\rho} = \sum_n |n\rangle\langle n|[/tex]

But sometimes, for a specific state, says [tex]|\varphi\rangle[/tex], the density operator just

[tex] \hat{\rho} = |\varphi\rangle\langle \varphi|[/tex]

why there is no summation? When do we need to consider the summation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you type this first one in correctly? This doesn't look right.

[tex]\langle \hat{N}|n\rangle = \langle n |n\rangle = n[/tex]

The [tex]\hat{N}[/tex] is an operator, not a vector. So it shouldn't be in a bra. Also [tex]\langle n |n\rangle[/tex] is equal to 1, not n.

What I think it should say is either

[tex]\hat{N}|n\rangle =n |n\rangle[/tex]

or

[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle =\langle n |n|n\rangle= n\langle n |n\rangle =n[/tex]

The second result being exactly consistent with what the statistical mechanics book says (except for the bar over the n).
 
Woozie said:
Did you type this first one in correctly? This doesn't look right.

[tex]\langle \hat{N}|n\rangle = \langle n |n\rangle = n[/tex]

The [tex]\hat{N}[/tex] is an operator, not a vector. So it shouldn't be in a bra. Also [tex]\langle n |n\rangle[/tex] is equal to 1, not n.

What I think it should say is either

[tex]\hat{N}|n\rangle =n |n\rangle[/tex]

or

[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle =\langle n |n|n\rangle= n\langle n |n\rangle =n[/tex]

The second result being exactly what the statistical mechanics book says (except for the bar over the n).


Yes. I just correct that.

But in [tex]|n\rangle[/tex], how come will it be average?
 
A density operator

[tex]\sum_i w_i|\alpha_i\rangle\langle\alpha_i|[/tex]

can be interpreted in two different ways:

1. It represents an ensemble of identical physical systems, prepared so that a fraction wi of the systems are in state [itex]|\alpha_i\rangle[/itex].

2. It represents one physical system that is known to be in one of the [itex]|\alpha_i\rangle[/itex] states, but it's unknown which one. (Note that this means that it's not in a superposition of two or more of them). wi is the probability that it's in state [itex]|\alpha_i\rangle[/itex].

The first of your "density operators" is just the identity operator.
 
KFC said:
[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle = \bar{n}[/tex]
This should probably be

[tex]\langle \psi |\hat{N}|\psi\rangle = \bar{n}_\psi[/tex]

When [tex]|\psi\rangle=|n\rangle[/tex], the right-hand side is just n.

Note that

[tex]\langle \psi |\hat{N}|\psi\rangle = \sum_n\langle \psi |\hat{N}|n\rangle\langle n|\psi\rangle= \sum_n n\langle \psi|n\rangle\langle n|\psi\rangle= \sum_n n|\langle n|\psi\rangle|^2[/tex]

and that [itex]|\langle n|\psi\rangle|^2[/itex] is the probability that a measurement will yield result n. So the expression above represents the average value of a large number of measurements on identical systems that are all prepared in state [itex]|\psi\rangle[/itex].
 
Last edited:
Thanks Fredrik, it helps.
 
KFC said:
Yes. I just correct that.

But in [tex]|n\rangle[/tex], how come will it be average?

Let's say we want to find the average value of any dynamic variable, which we'll call [tex]\omega[/tex]. Let's suppose we're working in some basis, which we'll call k. Then a general formula for the expectation value (average) is:

[tex]\langle k| \hat{\Omega}|k\rangle=\bar{\omega}[/tex]

So with your formula

[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle = \bar{n}[/tex]

This is the same formula I quoted above, but for the operator [tex]\hat{N}[/tex] in the n basis. Since it's the same formula, it gives the average, [tex]\bar{n}[/tex]

Now, in this particular case, the basis vectors happen to be eigenvectors of the operator. As a result, the eigenvalue, n, happens to be equal to the expectation value, [tex]\bar{n}[/tex]

In this derivation:


[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle =\langle n |n|n\rangle= n\langle n |n\rangle =n[/tex]

note the importance of this particular step:

[tex]\langle n |\hat{N}|n\rangle =\langle n |n|n\rangle[/tex]

The reason we can take this step is because of the fact that:

[tex]\hat{N}|n\rangle =n |n\rangle[/tex]

or in other words, we can take this step because the vector happens to be an eigenvector of the operator. Because of this, the same formula that gives the average value also gives the eigenvalue. In the general case I noted above:

[tex]\langle k| \hat{\Omega}|k\rangle=\bar{\omega}[/tex]

I would not be able to take that same step. So in this case, [tex]\omega[/tex] and [tex]\bar{\omega}[/tex] wouldn't follow from the same formula, so I wouldn't necessarily get [tex]\omega=\bar{\omega}[/tex]
 
In quantum stat. mech. the average of any quantity is defined as [tex]\overline{A} = Tr(\rhoA)[/tex] Where "rho" is the density operator.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K