Showing there are no eigenvectors of the annhilation operator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the annihilation operator \( a \) and the creation operator \( a^{\dagger} \) in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the existence of eigenvectors for the creation operator under the assumption that the ground state \(|0\rangle\) is the lowest energy state of the system.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of assuming an eigenvector exists for \( a^{\dagger} \) and discuss the expansion of states in terms of the basis \(|n\rangle\). Questions arise about the correctness of conjugate transposition and the interpretation of the annihilation operator's action on the ground state.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the mathematical properties of the operators involved. Some participants provide clarifications on the correct application of conjugate transposition, while others suggest re-evaluating the approach to demonstrate the absence of eigenvectors for the creation operator. Multiple interpretations and approaches are being considered without a clear consensus yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the distinction between the annihilation and creation operators, emphasizing the need to clarify terminology to avoid confusion in the discussion. The assumption that \(|0\rangle\) is the ground state is central to the problem being analyzed.

Hakkinen
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show there are no eigenvectors of a^{\dagger} assuming the ground state |0> is the lowest energy state of the system.


Homework Equations


Coherent states of the SHO satisfy:
a|z> = z|z>


The Attempt at a Solution


Based on the hint that was given (assume there is such an eigenvector like the coherent state above and expand the state in the basis |n>) I tried this, but it seems too simple.

a^{\dagger}|0> = k|0> (is this expansion in the |n> basis? or |0> basis?)

then conjugate transpose both sides

a<0|=\bar{k}<0|

the lhs vanishes as a is acting on the ground state ket

Is this correct? Any help is greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Hakkinen!

You are not taking the conjugate transpose correctly - the left hand side should read \langle 0 \lvert a. That is, it should look like a row vector multiplying a matrix. The operator a "acts to the left" as a creation operator, not as an annihilation operator.
 
Oxvillian said:
Hello Hakkinen!

You are not taking the conjugate transpose correctly - the left hand side should read \langle 0 \lvert a. That is, it should look like a row vector multiplying a matrix. The operator a "acts to the left" as a creation operator, not as an annihilation operator.

Thanks for the reply! sorry for the simple mistakes

So is this not the correct approach to show this? If it is, should I start with a|0> = k|0> and then conjugate, leaving the annihilation operator acting on the ground state bra?

so 0 = <0|\bar{k}

but this doesn't necessarily show there are no eigenvectors of the ann. operator does it?
 
Well a\lvert 0 \rangle = 0, since \lvert 0 \rangle is the ground state. We need a new name for the hypothetical eigenstate of a^{\dagger}, let's just call it \lvert \psi \rangle. Then

a^{\dagger}\lvert \psi \rangle = \lambda \lvert \psi \rangle,

where \lambda is some number (the eigenvalue). Try expanding \lvert \psi \rangle in terms of the \lvert n \rangle and see what you get.
 
Note that people usually call a the annihilation operator, and a^\dagger the creation operator. The reason it is worth to avoid confusion here, is that the annihilation operator a (which satisfies a|0\rangle=0, where |0 is the ground state) actually has an eigenstate, while the creation operator does not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K