Solving Low-Density Fock Spacings Issues with "Product Fock Spaces

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JorisL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around issues related to low-density Fock spacings and the application of product Fock spaces in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical framework of Fock spaces, the use of isomorphisms, and the implications of using different Hilbert spaces for indistinguishable particles. The conversation includes technical details and clarifications regarding operators and their definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Joris introduces an isomorphism mapping between Fock spaces and product spaces, expressing confusion over specific equations and definitions.
  • One participant notes that the identification of Hilbert spaces isomorphically allows for simplifications in low-density regimes.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the definitions of operators ##a## and ##a^\dagger##, indicating a lack of familiarity with the physics involved.
  • Joris provides a definition of the creation operator for fermions and mentions a symmetrized product for bosons, highlighting the differences in treatment between the two types of particles.
  • A later post discusses the application of operators on various levels of Fock space, providing detailed mathematical expressions and manipulations.
  • Joris expresses a need for more mathematical references on the topic, indicating a preference for rigorous mathematical treatment over physical applications.
  • Another participant suggests that their knowledge comes from abstract algebra and functional analysis, offering limited references but acknowledging the complexity of the mathematics involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on specific definitions or the best references for the mathematical treatment of Fock spaces. There is a mix of agreement on the mathematical framework but uncertainty regarding the clarity of certain definitions and the applicability of various resources.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of operators and the implications of using different Hilbert spaces. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the treatment of indistinguishable particles in low-density regimes.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of Fock spaces and operator theory. It may also benefit individuals seeking deeper mathematical insights into quantum statistical mechanics.

JorisL
Messages
489
Reaction score
189
Hi,

I'm having some issues with a piece of my notes. (relevant pages attached)
First we introduce an isomorphism ##U = \oplus_n U_n## from ##\Gamma^{(a)s}\left(\mathcal{H}_1\oplus\mathcal{H}_2\right)## to ##\Gamma^{(a)s}\left(\mathcal{H}_1\right)\otimes\Gamma^{(a)s}\left(\mathcal{H}_2\right)##
With the ##U_n## mapping the n-particle space (layer if you like) of the Fock space to the product space.

So far I'm not seeing any real problems (this is what happens on the first page of the pdf).

The next page is where things get vague for me (lets ignore the paragraph about the Gibbs paradox until I get what's being defined)

We look at ##n## indistinguishable particles, each with the same single particle Hilbert space ##\mathcal{H}##.
Now comes the first troubling part for me
"For very low densities once could restrict attention to a single particle version of the system. We would then use the Hilbert space ##\oplus_n \mathcal{H}## instead of [the product space] ##\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n}##"

Okay in a low density regime we can indeed look at such a system without too much loss of generality.

Now the big problem, equation (45) in the PDF says the following (for bosons)
##Ua^\dagger(\phi_1\oplus\phi_2)U^\dagger = a^\dagger(\phi_1)\otimes {1\!\!1} +{1\!\!1}\otimes a^\dagger(\phi_2)##

When the ##U_n## which build ##U## are defined in eq. (40-41) I see
##U_1(\phi_1\oplus\phi_2) = \phi_1\oplus\phi_2## is this shorthand for ##\phi_1 \otimes {1\!\!1}\oplus {1\!\!1}\otimes\phi_2##?
If so how do they look at ##a^\dagger(\phi_1\oplus\phi_2)U^\dagger##?

If I can get my head around this part I can finish the rest but it's just not coming to me.
Any recommended books on the topic?

Thanks,

Joris
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that ##\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathcal{H} \cong \mathcal{H}##. Thus what he does in the text is identifying
\mathcal{H}\oplus \mathcal{K}\cong (\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathcal{K})\oplus (\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathbb{C})
through the isomorphism ##\varphi\oplus \psi\rightarrow (1\otimes \psi)\oplus (\varphi\otimes 1)##.
 
If you want me to answer the second part, you will have to tell me what ##a## and ##a^\dagger## are. I don't know much physics, but this is basically math.
 
Okay, thanks for the first clarification.

The operator a isn't defined thus far actually, in the next section we assume that ##a = (a^\dagger)^\dagger##.

But let me give the definition we used.
##\Phi\in\Gamma^{(a)s}## we have from the construction that it's of the form ##\Phi = \phi^{(0)}\oplus \phi^{(1)}\oplus\phi^{(2)}\oplus \ldots##.
The creation operator ##a^\dagger(\psi)## then maps ##\Phi## to
##a^\dagger(\psi)\Phi = 0\oplus\phi^{(0)}\psi\oplus\psi\wedge\phi^{(1)}\oplus\psi\wedge\phi^{(2)}\oplus\ldots## for fermions

Here the wedge denotes an anti-symmetrized tensorproduct. (##\phi_1\wedge\phi_2 = -\phi_2\wedge\phi_1##) This is suitable for fermions.
For bosons we replace it by a symmetrized product which we denote by ##\odot## in the text (not standard by any means)

That's the definition we used.
 
It suffices to show that ##U a^\dagger (\varphi_1\oplus \varphi_2) = (a^\dagger(x)\otimes \mathbb{1} + \mathbb{1}\otimes a^\dagger(y)) U##.

It suffices to do this on the various levels. So let me do this on the first level. So if ##\Phi\in \Gamma^{(a)s}(\mathcal{H}_1\oplus \mathcal{H}_2)## has the form
\Phi = (0,(\varphi\oplus \psi),0,0,...)
Then U\Phi = (0,\varphi\otimes 1 + 1\otimes \psi,0,0,...) = (0,\varphi,0,0,...)\otimes (1,0,0,0,...) + (1,0,0,0,...)\otimes (0,\psi,0,0,...)
Applying ##(a^\dagger(x)\otimes \mathbb{1} + \mathbb{1}\otimes a^\dagger(y))## gives us
(0,0,x\otimes \varphi,0,...)\otimes (1,0,0,...) + (0,\varphi,0,0,...)\otimes (0,y,0,0,...) + (1,0,0,0,...)\otimes (0,0,y\otimes \psi,0,...) + (0,x,0,0,...)\otimes (0,\psi,0,0,...)
Notice that this corresponds to
(0,0,x\otimes \varphi,0,...) + (0,0,\varphi\otimes y,0,...) + (0,0,y\otimes \psi,0,...) + (0,0,x\otimes \psi,0,...)~~~(*)
On the other hand
a^\dagger(x\oplus y)\Phi = (0,0,(x\oplus y)\otimes (\varphi\oplus \psi),0,0,...)
Applying ##U## to this gives
(0,0,(x\otimes \varphi)\oplus ((x\otimes \psi) + (\varphi\otimes y) \oplus (y\otimes \psi),0,...)
This corresponds to ##(*)##.
 
Great stuff!
This was exactly what I needed.
You know of any good (mathematical) references for this kind of results?
The physics text I've found kind of glance over it and rush to apply it. (not good enough for my inner mathematician but it takes time I don't have at the moment)

Thanks,

Joris
 
I'm afraid I don't have anything precise for you. What I did comes mainly from my knowledge of abstract algebra and a bit of functional analysis. So I can't give you one reference for the entire thing. But if you are asking for details on only one specific step, then I probably have references for that. Nevertheless, the math behind this can be found in Roman's advanced linear algebra, but this doesn't mention Fock spaces at all, so it's only for the deeper math.
 
Thanks, I'll see if I can get any more out of it using that resource.
But I believe my understanding is deep enough for what is expected. It really was a crash course in 4 two hour lectures so he'll not be too strict about these things.

Thanks,

Joris
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K