Two different expressions of Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ZhangBUPT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expressions Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around two different expressions of the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, a fundamental model in quantum optics. Participants explore the equivalence of these expressions, methods of transformation between them, and the implications of operator properties within the context of the Hamiltonian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two forms of the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian and questions their equivalence and the appropriate context for their use.
  • Another participant inquires about the transformation of the Hamiltonian when substituting a new operator, \(\tilde{a}\), defined as \(-i \tilde{a} = a\).
  • A follow-up question addresses the validity of the transformation given the nature of the annihilation and creation operators, which are stated to be real.
  • Some participants challenge the assertion that the operators are real and suggest revisiting foundational concepts related to operator evolution and their physical interpretations in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the properties of the operators involved and the foundational understanding required to engage with the Hamiltonian expressions. There is no consensus on the nature of the operators or the implications of their transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for a deeper understanding of operator behavior in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to time evolution and physical systems like harmonic oscillators. The discussion highlights potential gaps in foundational knowledge that may affect interpretations of the Hamiltonian.

ZhangBUPT
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have a question about two different expressions of Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian

[itex]H=\Delta_c a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_a \sigma_{+} \sigma_{-} +<br /> g (a^{\dagger}\sigma_{-} +a\sigma_{+} )[/itex]

and

[itex]H=\Delta_c a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_a \sigma_{+} \sigma_{-} +i<br /> g (a^{\dagger}\sigma_{-} -a\sigma_{+} )[/itex].[itex](\hbar=1)[/itex]

I read them from different papers and books.

Why are they equal, and how to derive one from another?
How to choose the appropriate expression when utilizing the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose I took the first form and wrote [itex]-i \tilde{a} = a[/itex]. How does the Hamiltonian look in terms of [itex]\tilde{a}[/itex]?
 
Physics Monkey said:
Suppose I took the first form and wrote [itex]-i \tilde{a} = a[/itex]. How does the Hamiltonian look in terms of [itex]\tilde{a}[/itex]?

Thanks for your answer. I can derive the second equantion using your transformation.
But in both expressions, [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]a^{\dagger}[/itex] are annihilation and creation operators, respectively, and they are real. Is the transformation still valid?
 
Last edited:
Why do you think "they are real"? It seems to me you need to go back and get some basics down first. For example, how does the creation operator evolve in time? How is it related to x and p variables in a harmonic oscillator or equivalently to the physical electromagnetic field?
 
Physics Monkey said:
Why do you think "they are real"? It seems to me you need to go back and get some basics down first. For example, how does the creation operator evolve in time? How is it related to x and p variables in a harmonic oscillator or equivalently to the physical electromagnetic field?

Thank you very much! And I'll figure it out.
 

Similar threads

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