SHO ladder operators & some hamiltonian commutator relations

Hakkinen
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For the SHO, find these commutators to their simplest form:
[a_{-}, a_{-}a_{+}]
<br /> [a_{+},a_{-}a_{+}]<br />
<br /> [x,H]<br />
<br /> [p,H]<br />

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I though this would be an easy problem but I am stuck on the first two parts. Here's what I did at first:
<br /> [a_{-}, a_{-}a_{+}]\psi = a_{-}(n+1)\psi_{n} - a_{-}n\psi_{n} = a_{-}\psi_{n}<br />
<br /> = \sqrt{n}\psi_{n-1}<br />

<br /> [a_{+}, a_{-}a_{+}]\psi = a_{+}(n+1)\psi_{n} - a_{-}a_{+}\sqrt{n+1}\psi_{n+1}<br />
<br /> = (n+1)^{3/2}\psi_{n+1} - (n+1)^{3/2}\psi_{n+1} = 0<br />Now what I am confused about is the \psi_{n-1} term in the first commutator. Surely there is a general form of the commutator without the test wavefunction? And I can't just drop this term and have root of n as the result. So did I do something wrong?

I tried the first part again using the explicit form of the ladder operators, in terms of H, p, x, with all of the constants. What I have gotten so far looks quite messy and involves [p,H] and [x,H], which I've yet to compute and are the last two parts of the problem... So it seems this route is not the easiest?

Any assistance is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Duh! The first answer is just a_{-}

And I didnt realize you could just use the "product rule" for commutators to simplify the algebra a bit!

All set now
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top