Question to a calculation rule -> Dirac formalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lindsayyyy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Dirac
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of calculation rules in quantum mechanics, specifically within the context of Dirac formalism involving operators and quantum states. The original poster questions the validity of manipulating expressions involving these operators and states to simplify an expectation value calculation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conditions under which certain manipulations of operators and states are valid. The original poster seeks clarification on whether specific expressions can be simplified and questions the implications of coherent states on these calculations. Others provide counterarguments regarding the assumptions required for the manipulations to hold true.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various perspectives on the validity of the original poster's approach to simplifying the expression. Some participants offer insights into the requirements for the manipulations, while others express uncertainty about the rules governing operators and states. There is no explicit consensus, but the conversation is ongoing with attempts to clarify the underlying principles.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about calculation rules involving operators and states, indicating a need for further exploration of these concepts. The task involves calculating an expectation value, which adds complexity to the discussion.

Lindsayyyy
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

Homework Statement



I have a question: Am I allowed to do the following, where the a's are operators and the alphas are quantum states.

\langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a^\dagger a a \mid \alpha \rangle = \langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a^\dagger \mid \alpha \rangle \langle \alpha \mid a a \mid \alpha \rangle


Well, I think I am allowed to, but I'm not sure how to verify this.

Thanks for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you can't. For that to be true, you'd have to have ##\lvert \alpha \rangle \langle \alpha \rvert = 1##, which is almost certainly not the case.
 
vela said:
No, you can't. For that to be true, you'd have to have ##\lvert \alpha \rangle \langle \alpha \rvert = 1##, which is almost certainly not the case.


and when the alpha is a coherent state?
 
Not even then, it would require the annihilation operator to be a self-adjoint operator (moreover a projector), which is not the case.
 
Ok thank you.

my problem is the following: I want to simplyfy the following expression

\langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a^\dagger a a + a^\dagger a \mid \alpha \rangle

I'm very uncertain about calculation rules when it comes to operators and states

is the expression above the same as?:
\langle \alpha \mid (a^\dagger a^\dagger a a \mid \alpha \rangle + a^\dagger a \mid \alpha \rangle)

or doesn't that help at all?

I think the aim here is to get an expressin which only has the alpha (as an eigen value) in it. The task is about calculating the expectation value
 
Last edited:
\langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a^\dagger a a + a^\dagger a \mid \alpha \rangle = \langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a^\dagger a a \mid \alpha \rangle + \langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a \mid \alpha \rangle <br /> = \alpha \alpha^* \langle \alpha \mid a^\dagger a \mid \alpha \rangle +|\alpha|^2 <br /> = |\alpha|^4 +|\alpha|^2

sorry for making a new reply, I tried to edit, but didn't come out in latex format.
To get to this solution I used that

a\mid \alpha \rangle = \alpha \mid \alpha \rangle

and the equivalent for the bra vector
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K