Struggling with Baker-Campbell-Haussdorf-like formulas

  • Thread starter Thread starter luisgml_2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formulas
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a formula involving the exponential of operators in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically related to the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and its implications for the annihilation and creation operators of the quantum harmonic oscillator.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the Hadamard Lemma and Taylor expansions in the context of the given operator transformation. Questions arise about the implications of specific function forms and the nature of the unitary transformation.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with participants exploring the transformation's effects on the operators involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the transformation as a displacement in the second argument of the function, leading to a clearer understanding for some participants.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions and definitions related to the operators and functions involved, particularly regarding their behavior under the specified transformations.

luisgml_2000
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have been asked to prove [tex]e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^\dagger)e^{-\alpha a}=f(a,a^\dagger+\alpha)[/tex], where [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]a^\dagger[/tex] represent the annihilation and creation operators of the quantum harmonic oscillator, respectively.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



The only thing I have done is to use the Hadamard Lemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff_formula). Any ideas will be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gabbagabbahey said:
That seems like a good place to start...what do you get when you do that?

I get

[tex]e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^\dagger)e^{-\alpha a}=f(a,a^\dagger)+\frac{\alpha}{1!}[a,f(a,a^\dagger)]+\frac{\alpha^2}{2!}[a,[a,f(a,a^\dagger)]]+\ldots[/tex]

but I don't know what to do next.
 
It seems that I have to apply some kind of Taylor expansion but I'm not sure on how to do this.
 
Hint: Consider [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})=a^{\dagger}[/itex] and [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})=a[/itex]...what do these considerations tell you about the unitary transformation [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^{\dagger})e^{-\alpha a}[/itex]?
 
Last edited:
[tex] e^{\alpha a}a^\dagger e^{-\alpha a}=a^\dagger+\frac{\alpha}{1!}[a,a^\dagger]+\frac{\alpha^2}{2!}[a,[a,a^\dagger]]+\ldots=a^\dagger+\frac{\alpha}{1!}=\alpha+a^\dagger[/tex]

[tex] e^{\alpha a}a e^{-\alpha a}=a+\frac{\alpha}{1!}[a,a]+\frac{\alpha^2}{2!}[a,[a,a]]+\ldots=a[/tex]

In this sense the formula seems to be working fine.

Does it mean that the unitary transformation [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^{\dagger})e^{-\alpha a}[/itex] represents a displacement of [itex]\alpha[/itex] in the second argument of [itex]f[/itex]?
 
Yes, exactly. Under the transformation [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^{\dagger})e^{-\alpha a}[/itex], you have [itex]a\to a[/itex] and [itex]a^{\dagger}\to a^{\dagger}+\alpha[/itex] and hence [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to f(a,a^{\dagger}+\alpha)[/itex]...nice and simple, no Taylor series needed:smile:
 
gabbagabbahey said:
Yes, exactly. Under the transformation [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to e^{\alpha a}f(a,a^{\dagger})e^{-\alpha a}[/itex], you have [itex]a\to a[/itex] and [itex]a^{\dagger}\to a^{\dagger}+\alpha[/itex] and hence [itex]f(a,a^{\dagger})\to f(a,a^{\dagger}+\alpha)[/itex]...nice and simple, no Taylor series needed:smile:

Thanks a lot, I think I finally understand it!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K