Showing that a certain summation is equal to a Dirac delta?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the summation $$\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{pq}e^{i(p \cdot x - q \cdot y)}[\hat{a}_p, \hat{a}^{\dagger}_q]$$ is equivalent to the Dirac delta function $$\delta^{(3)}(x - y)$$ in the context of Quantum Field Theory. The proof involves demonstrating that the sum equals zero when ##x \neq y## due to the periodicity of the exponential function, and that it integrates to one over a volume ##V'##. The completeness of the functions ##\exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x})## is also highlighted, confirming the relationship with Fourier Series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory concepts
  • Familiarity with Dirac delta functions
  • Knowledge of Fourier Series and periodic functions
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical analysis and integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about Fourier Series and their applications in Quantum Field Theory
  • Explore the role of commutators and anticommutators in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the completeness of functions in Hilbert spaces
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in Quantum Field Theory, physicists working with bosonic and fermionic fields, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.

GCUEasilyDistracted
Messages
3
Reaction score
7
Homework Statement
Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur Exercise 3.1 (reworded a bit): Suppose we are working with a system defined in a volume of space ##V'##. For boson operators satisfying ##[\hat{a}_p, \hat{a}^{\dagger}_q] = \delta_{pq}## show that $$\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{pq}e^{i(p \cdot x - q \cdot y)}[\hat{a}_p, \hat{a}^{\dagger}_q] = \delta^{(3)}(x - y)$$, where ##V## is the magnitude of ##V'##. Show the same with fermion operators.
Relevant Equations
Seen above.
I'm studying Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur and feel like my math background for it is a bit shaky. This was my attempt at a derivation of the above. I know it's not rigorous, but is it at least conceptually right? I'll only show it for bosons since it's pretty much the same for fermions except the commutator is replaced with the anticommutator.

First note that
$$\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{pq}e^{i(p \cdot x - q \cdot y)}[\hat{a}_p, \hat{a}^{\dagger}_q]$$
$$= \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{pq}e^{i(p \cdot x - q \cdot y)}\delta_{pq}$$
$$= \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}$$

To prove that the sum above is equivalent to ##\delta^{(3)}(x - y)##, we must show 2 things:

1. ##\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p e^{ip \cdot (x - y)} = 0## whenever ##x \neq y##
2. $$\int\limits_{V'} d^3x \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p e^{ip \cdot (x - y)} = 1$$

The first follows from the periodicity of ##e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}## [EDIT: the periodicity and the fact that for each value, the negative of that value will also appear within one period]. When ##x - y## is nonzero, each ##e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}## term will be cancelled out by some other term ##e^{ip' \cdot (x - y)}##.

For the second,
$$\int\limits_{V'} d^3x \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}$$
$$= \frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p \int\limits_{V'} d^3x e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}$$

Note that due to the same periodicity mentioned above, ##\int\limits_{V'} d^3x e^{ip \cdot (x - y)} = 0## when ##p \neq 0##. So

$$\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_p \int\limits_{V'} d^3x e^{ip \cdot (x - y)}$$
$$= \frac{1}{V} \int\limits_{V'} d^3x e^{i(0) \cdot (x - y)}$$
$$= \frac{1}{V} \int\limits_{V'} d^3x$$
$$= \frac{1}{V}(V)$$
$$= 1$$

Therefore we have shown that

$$\frac{1}{V}\sum\limits_{pq}e^{i(p \cdot x - q \cdot y)}[\hat{a}_p, \hat{a}^{\dagger}_q] = \delta^{(3)}(x - y)$$

Does this make sense? Is there anything that should be corrected or made more rigorous? Thanks for your help!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sreerajt and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
This is just the completeness of the functions ##\exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x})## with ##\vec{p} \in \frac{2 \pi}{L} \mathbb{Z}^3## on the square-integrable functions on a cube with periodic boundary conditions. It's proven in many analysis textbooks dealing with Fourier Series.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K