Representation in second quantization

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hokhani
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbital Representation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of fermionic states in second quantization, particularly focusing on the implications of ordering creation operators and the resulting effects on calculations involving spin operators in a multi-orbital system.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the fermionic state can be represented in two ways, leading to a sign difference due to the anticommutation relations of fermionic operators.
  • One participant argues that the sign change is merely a global phase and suggests sticking to a consistent ordering of operators to avoid confusion.
  • Another participant contends that the sign change should not cause problems in calculations, as it reflects the Pauli exclusion principle.
  • A participant seeks clarification on calculating states with more than two orbitals and presents a specific calculation involving the state ##|0110\rangle##.
  • There is a discussion about the total-spin operator and its application to a system with two orbitals, with one participant expressing confusion over the expected outcome of a calculation involving ##S^2 |0110\rangle##.
  • Participants engage in detailed calculations of the action of spin operators on various states, with one participant questioning why their results do not align with their expectations regarding the total spin being zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the sign change in fermionic state representations and whether it affects calculations. There is no consensus on the resolution of the calculation involving the total-spin operator, as participants provide different interpretations and results.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex calculations that may depend on specific assumptions about the states and operators involved. Some steps in the calculations remain unresolved, and the implications of the results are contested.

hokhani
Messages
586
Reaction score
22
TL;DR
to represent the states without ambiguity in second quantized form
For setting the fermionic state ## |n_1 n_2\rangle## where ##n_i## is the number of particles in the orbital ##i## we can use the following both representations for the state ##|1 1\rangle##: $$ \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle $$ or $$ \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle $$ where ##|vac\rangle## is the vaccum state. But these two representations are different in a minus sign, because ##\hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle=-\hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle##, and this issue cause problem in calculations. Which representation is correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hokhani said:
TL;DR Summary: to represent the states without ambiguity in second quantized form

For setting the fermionic state ## |n_1 n_2\rangle## where ##n_i## is the number of particles in the orbital ##i## we can use the following both representations for the state ##|1 1\rangle##: $$ \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle $$ or $$ \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle $$ where ##|vac\rangle## is the vaccum state. But these two representations are different in a minus sign, because ##\hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle=-\hat {\mathbf c_2} ^{\dagger} \hat {\mathbf c_1} ^{\dagger} |vac\rangle##, and this issue cause problem in calculations. Which representation is correct?
It's just a global phase, one gives you ##|1_11_2\rangle## and the other is ##-|1_11_2\rangle##. Just stick to one ordering (I prefer ascending) and you'll be fine.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hokhani
hokhani said:
this issue cause problem in calculations
It shouldn't; it should lead to correct calculations, since the sign change when you flip the ordering is just one way that the Pauli exclusion principle shows up in the math. And if your math doesn't correctly reflect the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions, it will give you wrong answers.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hokhani
pines-demon said:
It's just a global phase, one gives you ##|1_11_2\rangle## and the other is ##-|1_11_2\rangle##. Just stick to one ordering (I prefer ascending) and you'll be fine.
How about calculation of states with more than two orbitals like ##|n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4 \rangle##? To be specific consider for example ##\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 |0110\rangle ##. Is the following way, correct?
$$\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 |0110\rangle \\
=\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 \mathbf c_2^\dagger \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle

=\mathbf c_1^\dagger(1-\mathbf c_2^\dagger \mathbf c_2) \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle
=\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle
=|1010\rangle
$$
I am stuck solving this formula and appreciate any help.
 
hokhani said:
How about calculation of states with more than two orbitals like ##|n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4 \rangle##? To be specific consider for example ##\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 |0110\rangle ##. Is the following way, correct?
$$\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 |0110\rangle \\
=\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_2 \mathbf c_2^\dagger \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle

=\mathbf c_1^\dagger(1-\mathbf c_2^\dagger \mathbf c_2) \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle
=\mathbf c_1^\dagger \mathbf c_3^\dagger |vac\rangle
=|1010\rangle
$$
I am stuck solving this formula and appreciate any help.
The calculation is right, what step do you not understand?
 
pines-demon said:
The calculation is right, what step do you not understand?
Thanks, I have to explain the problem exactly. In a Hilbert space including two orbitals ##f## and ##c## we have the states as ##|n_f^{\uparrow} n_f^{\downarrow} n_c^{\uparrow} n_c^{\downarrow} \rangle ## where ##n## indicates the number of electron in each orbital. The total-spin operator for this system is defined as: $$\vec S =\frac {1} {2} \sum_{\mu \nu} (f_{\mu} ^{\dagger} \vec {\sigma}_{_{\mu \nu} } f_\nu+ c_{\mu} ^{\dagger} \vec {\sigma}_{_{\mu \nu} } c_\nu),$$ where ##\vec {\sigma}## is the vector of Pauli matrices and ##\mu, \nu## the spin indices.

With expanding this formula, we have:

\begin{align}

s_x=\frac{1}{2} ({f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\downarrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\downarrow} + f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\uparrow} }) \\

s_y=\frac{1}{2} ({(-i)(f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\downarrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\downarrow}) +i(f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\uparrow}) }) \\

s_z=\frac{1}{2} ({f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\uparrow} - f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\downarrow} - c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\downarrow} }).

\end{align}

Now, I want to calculate ##S^2 |0 1 1 0\rangle = (S_x^2+ S_y^2 + S_z^2 )|0 1 1 0\rangle ## which is expected to be zero because we have two opposite spins, one in ##f## and the other in ##c## orbitals. However, my direct calculation doesn’t result in this expectation. My calculations are briefly as: $$s_z |0110\rangle =0$$ and

\begin{align}



s_x |0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|1010\rangle +|0101\rangle) \\

s_y |0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (-i|1010\rangle +i|0101\rangle) \\



s_x |1010\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle) \\

s_y |1010\rangle=\frac{1}{2} i (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle)\\





s_x |0101\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle) \\

s_y |0101\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (-i)(|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle)\\

\end{align}



then we have:

\begin{align}



s^2_x|0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} s_x(|1010\rangle +|0101\rangle) =\frac{1}{2} (|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle) \\
\end{align}
and similarly:
\begin{align}

s^2_y|0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle) \\
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}

s^2_z|0110\rangle=0

\end{align}



Finally, we have:

$$s^2 |0110\rangle = (s^2_x+ s^2_y+ s^2_z)|0110\rangle =|0110\rangle +|0110\rangle$$ which obviously is not zero.
I would be grateful if you could please provide any help on this.
 
hokhani said:
Thanks, I have to explain the problem exactly. In a Hilbert space including two orbitals ##f## and ##c## we have the states as ##|n_f^{\uparrow} n_f^{\downarrow} n_c^{\uparrow} n_c^{\downarrow} \rangle ## where ##n## indicates the number of electron in each orbital. The total-spin operator for this system is defined as: $$\vec S =\frac {1} {2} \sum_{\mu \nu} (f_{\mu} ^{\dagger} \vec {\sigma}_{_{\mu \nu} } f_\nu+ c_{\mu} ^{\dagger} \vec {\sigma}_{_{\mu \nu} } c_\nu),$$ where ##\vec {\sigma}## is the vector of Pauli matrices and ##\mu, \nu## the spin indices.

With expanding this formula, we have:

\begin{align}

s_x=\frac{1}{2} ({f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\downarrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\downarrow} + f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\uparrow} }) \\

s_y=\frac{1}{2} ({(-i)(f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\downarrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\downarrow}) +i(f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\uparrow}) }) \\

s_z=\frac{1}{2} ({f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} f_{\uparrow} + c^{\dagger}_{\uparrow} c_{\uparrow} - f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} f_{\downarrow} - c^{\dagger}_{\downarrow} c_{\downarrow} }).

\end{align}

Now, I want to calculate ##S^2 |0 1 1 0\rangle = (S_x^2+ S_y^2 + S_z^2 )|0 1 1 0\rangle ## which is expected to be zero because we have two opposite spins, one in ##f## and the other in ##c## orbitals. However, my direct calculation doesn’t result in this expectation. My calculations are briefly as: $$s_z |0110\rangle =0$$ and

\begin{align}



s_x |0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|1010\rangle +|0101\rangle) \\

s_y |0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (-i|1010\rangle +i|0101\rangle) \\



s_x |1010\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle) \\

s_y |1010\rangle=\frac{1}{2} i (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle)\\





s_x |0101\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle) \\

s_y |0101\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (-i)(|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle)\\

\end{align}



then we have:

\begin{align}



s^2_x|0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} s_x(|1010\rangle +|0101\rangle) =\frac{1}{2} (|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle) \\
\end{align}
and similarly:
\begin{align}

s^2_y|0110\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|0110\rangle +|1001\rangle) \\
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}

s^2_z|0110\rangle=0

\end{align}



Finally, we have:

$$s^2 |0110\rangle = (s^2_x+ s^2_y+ s^2_z)|0110\rangle =|0110\rangle +|0110\rangle$$ which obviously is not zero.
I would be grateful if you could please provide any help on this.
You changed the question what was the problem with the previous question? Also you posted a calculation once again what step do you not understand?
 
pines-demon said:
You changed the question what was the problem with the previous question? Also you posted a calculation once again what step do you not understand?
My main problem was this last post (#6), but I thought that the problem might be with my way of calculations. So, first I expressed the problem as in the previous question (post #4) which you approved my calculations (post #5). In the above calculations (#6) I followed the same way, but the final result is not convincing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K