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

  • Thread starter JorisL
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Product
In summary, the conversation discusses an isomorphism between two spaces in a physics topic, specifically in the Fock space. The conversation also delves into the definition of the creation operator and how it applies in different scenarios. The expert summarizer provides a detailed explanation of the mathematical steps involved in the problem and suggests a reference for further understanding.
  • #1
JorisL
492
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

  • intro_many_body2_p10-p12.pdf
    45.2 KB · Views: 191
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Remember that ##\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathcal{H} \cong \mathcal{H}##. Thus what he does in the text is identifying
[tex]\mathcal{H}\oplus \mathcal{K}\cong (\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathcal{K})\oplus (\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathbb{C})[/tex]
through the isomorphism ##\varphi\oplus \psi\rightarrow (1\otimes \psi)\oplus (\varphi\otimes 1)##.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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
[tex]\Phi = (0,(\varphi\oplus \psi),0,0,...)[/tex]
Then [tex] 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,...)[/tex]
Applying ##(a^\dagger(x)\otimes \mathbb{1} + \mathbb{1}\otimes a^\dagger(y))## gives us
[tex] (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,...)[/tex]
Notice that this corresponds to
[tex](0,0,x\otimes \varphi,0,...) + (0,0,\varphi\otimes y,0,...) + (0,0,y\otimes \psi,0,...) + (0,0,x\otimes \psi,0,...)~~~(*)[/tex]
On the other hand
[tex]a^\dagger(x\oplus y)\Phi = (0,0,(x\oplus y)\otimes (\varphi\oplus \psi),0,0,...)[/tex]
Applying ##U## to this gives
[tex](0,0,(x\otimes \varphi)\oplus ((x\otimes \psi) + (\varphi\otimes y) \oplus (y\otimes \psi),0,...)[/tex]
This corresponds to ##(*)##.
 
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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
 

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

1. What is a low-density Fock spacing issue?

A low-density Fock spacing issue refers to a problem in quantum chemistry calculations where the spacing between energy levels in the Fock space is too small, resulting in inaccurate calculations and difficulty in obtaining meaningful results.

2. How can "Product Fock Spaces" help solve this issue?

"Product Fock Spaces" is a mathematical technique that involves breaking down the Fock space into smaller, more manageable subspaces. This can help reduce the density of energy levels and make calculations more accurate and efficient.

3. Are there any limitations to using "Product Fock Spaces"?

While "Product Fock Spaces" can be effective in solving low-density Fock spacing issues, it may not work for all types of calculations and systems. It also requires a good understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts and careful implementation.

4. How do I know if I am experiencing a low-density Fock spacing issue?

If your quantum chemistry calculations are yielding unexpected or inaccurate results, or if the energy levels in the Fock space are too close together, you may be experiencing a low-density Fock spacing issue.

5. Can other methods be used to solve low-density Fock spacing issues?

Yes, there are other methods that can be used to address this issue, such as basis set extrapolation or density fitting. However, "Product Fock Spaces" is a useful tool that can provide a more efficient and accurate solution in certain cases.

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
500
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
953
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
849
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top