Schrodinger Cat states in terms of Displacement Operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of even coherent states, specifically the superposition of two coherent states, in terms of the displacement operator. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of these states within the context of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the coherent state can be expressed using the displacement operator, specifically in the form e^(αb†+α∗b)|0>.
  • Others argue that the even coherent state, represented as |α> + |-α>, cannot be directly written as a displacement operator due to its nature as a superposition of two coherent states.
  • A later reply suggests that the even cat state can be described using a non-exponential displacement operator, specifically ##\hat{D}_+=\cosh(\alpha \hat{a}^\dagger -\alpha^\ast \hat{a})##, which creates the even cat state from the vacuum.
  • Some participants clarify that the superposition |Φ(α)⟩ + |Φ(-α)⟩ is not a coherent state because it is not an eigenstate of the annihilation operator, ##\hat{b}##.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the absence of a factor of 2 in their formulation and questions the ability to express the state in terms of the cosh function.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the overall factor in quantum states is not significant for the physical interpretation, as pure states are defined by rays in Hilbert space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the even coherent state can be represented using the displacement operator. Some agree on the mathematical representation involving cosh, while others maintain that the absence of a factor of 2 complicates this representation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact formulation and implications of these states.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the mathematical steps and assumptions made in the discussion, particularly concerning the normalization of states and the significance of overall factors in quantum mechanics.

deepalakshmi
Messages
95
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
How can I write even coherent state in terms of Displacement Operator?
The coherent state can be written in terms of e^(αb†+α∗b)|0>. But how the even coherent state i.e. |α>+|-α> can be written in terms of displacement operator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The unitary transformation from the vacuum to a coherent state with complex parameter ##\alpha## is
$$\hat{U}(\alpha)=\exp(\alpha \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\alpha^* \hat{b})=\exp \left (-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2} \right) \exp(\alpha \hat{b}^{\dagger}) \exp(-\alpha^* \hat{b}).$$
This gives
$$|\Phi(\alpha) \rangle=\hat{U}(\alpha)|0 \rangle=\exp \left (-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2} \right) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\alpha \hat{b}^{\dagger})^n}{n!} |0 \rangle = \exp \left (-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2} \right) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}} |n \rangle,$$
where ##|n \rangle## are the number eigenstates. Of course ##|\Phi(\alpha) \rangle + |\Phi(-\alpha) \rangle## is not a coherent state, because it's not an eigenstate of the annihilation operator, ##\hat{b}##. It's just a superposition of two coherent states.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog and deepalakshmi
Are you saying that even coherent state cannot be written as Displacement operator?
 
What do you mean by "displacement operator"?
 
deepalakshmi said:
The coherent state can be written in terms of e^(αb†+α∗b)|0>. But how the even coherent state i.e. |α>+|-α> can be written in terms of displacement operator?

You know how to write a coherent state in terms of the displacement operator and you know that the even cat state is a superposition of two coherent states with different displacements. These two points should enable you to describe the even cat state in terms of displacement operators in a very basic way.

If you then work out the math, you will find that you can define a non-exponential displacement operator ##\hat{D}_+=cosh(\alpha \hat{a}^\dagger -\alpha^\ast \hat{a})## that creates an even cat state out of the vacuum.

vanhees71 said:
Of course ##|\Phi(\alpha) \rangle + |\Phi(-\alpha) \rangle## is not a coherent state, because it's not an eigenstate of the annihilation operator, ##\hat{b}##. It's just a superposition of two coherent states.

That is of course fully correct. One might still note that such states are commonly referred to as two-photon coherent states in the sense that they are eigenstates of ##\hat{a}^2##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi and vanhees71
|α>+|-α>= e^(αb†-α∗b)|0>+e^-(αb†-α∗b)|0>.{This is what I am getting}
If there is { e^(αb†-α∗b)|0>+e^-(αb†-α∗b)|0>}/2 then I can write it in terms of cosh. But here there is no term like this. plus I am not good at mathematics.
 
Except for the factor of 2 it's a operator-cosh function as you proved yourself. BTW it would be great if you could use LaTeX, because it's very hard to read formulas in the way you typed them. You find a short description pressing the button "LaTeX Guide" directly below the dashboard:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
Thanks for latex guide.Then, you can't write it as cosh term because 2 is missing
 
Well, you can write
$$|\alpha \rangle+|-\alpha \rangle=2\cosh(\alpha \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\alpha^* \hat{b})|0 \rangle.$$
Note that the overall factor is irrelevant, because a pure state in QT is given by a ray and not a vector in Hilbert space. To evaluate probabilities you have to normalize it anyway, by defining the overall factor such that ##\langle \Psi|\Psi \rangle=1##, and even this description fixes the overall factor only up to a phase factor ##\exp(\mathrm{i} \varphi)## with ##\varphi \in \mathbb{R}##, but this doesn't matter since all observable quantities you calculate within QT don't depend on such an overall phase factor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
920
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K