Spin-wave approximation - bosonic operator question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter barnflakes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation Operator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the spin-wave approximation and the manipulation of bosonic operators in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the transformation of terms involving creation and annihilation operators. Participants explore the implications of these transformations within the context of summation over the Brillouin zone (BZ) and the properties of bosonic operators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the expression 2δk, k'ak'ak simplifies to akak + a-ka-k, suggesting it should be 2akak.
  • Another participant explains that the summation over the BZ allows for the substitution of terms involving -k, indicating that the sum can include both k and -k without issue.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the equality e-ika-kak + eika-kak equating to cos(k) a-kak + cos(k) a-kak, questioning the implication that a-kak = a-kak.
  • Another participant clarifies that the equality holds after summing over k and -k, using the definition of cosine to explain the relationship between the terms.
  • A participant expresses satisfaction upon understanding the previous points and inquires about the BCS Hamiltonian, specifically regarding the summation over -k and -sigma in the context of the term cc.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the implications of summing over k and -k, but there remains uncertainty regarding the specific transformations and equalities of the bosonic operators. The discussion does not reach a consensus on all points raised.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on the properties of bosonic operators and the definitions of trigonometric functions in their arguments. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in the transformations, leaving some assumptions and dependencies unaddressed.

barnflakes
Messages
156
Reaction score
4
Can someone explain the attached image for me please?

I do not understand how [tex]2\delta_{k, k'}a_{k'}^{\dagger}a_{k}[/tex] becomes [tex] a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{k} + a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{-k}[/tex] to me it should just be [tex]2a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{k}[/tex]

and also I do not understand how [tex]e^{-ik}a_{-k}a_{k} + e^{ik}a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{k}^{\dagger} = \cos(k) a_{-k}a_{k} + \cos(k) a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{k}^{\dagger}[/tex]
 

Attachments

  • asd.GIF
    asd.GIF
    15.4 KB · Views: 517
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to remember that this occurs under the summation over the BZ - as the sum includes -k for every k, you can take, for example, [itex]\sum_{k \in BZ} a^\dagger_k a_k \to \sum_{k \in BZ} a^\dagger_{-k} a_{-k}[/itex] with impunity.
 
That is excellent, thanks theZ. However, it's still not clear to me why [tex] e^{-ik}a_{-k}a_{k} + e^{ik}a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{k}^{\dagger} = \cos(k) a_{-k}a_{k} + \cos(k) a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{k}^{\dagger}[/tex]

Can you explain that? To me it implies that [tex]a_{-k}a_{k} = a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{k}^{\dagger}[/tex] and I don't see why that should be true. Thanks again.
 
As I said, you must understand the equality after summing together k, -k. Look at the creation and annihilation terms separately. For, say, the creation part, call the term to be summed, as initially written, f(k). Call the term to be summed, as the text has rewritten it, g(k). f(k) + f(-k) = g(k) + g(-k) by the definition of cosine. If the operators were fermionic, you would get i sin(k).
 
Excellent, I finally got it! Thank you theZ. It makes perfect sense now.

Do you also happen to know about the BSC hamiltonian?

For instance, when the BCS Hamiltonian contains the summation [tex]\sum_{\vec{k} \sigma} c_{\vec{k}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{\vec{k}\sigma}[/tex] does this also imply summation over -k and -sigma?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K