Understanding 2nd Order Correlation in Fock States and Density Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter babylonia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Correlation
babylonia
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I read on some paper that for a system of Fock state |...nk...>, and with the field operator expanded as
\Psi(r)=\sumak \phik(r), the second order density correlation function can be expressed as
G(2)=<\Psi+(r)\Psi+(r')\Psi(r')\Psi(r)>=<n(r)><n(r')>+|<\Psi(r)+\Psi(r')>|2-\sum^{N}_{k} nk ( nk +1) |\phi*(r)|2|\phi(r')|2.
I have no idea how the last term, ie. the term after the minus sign, come out? If I use the Wick's theorem for
<a+ka+laman>=<a+kam><a+lan>\deltak,m\deltal,n+<a+kan><a+lam>\deltak,n\deltal,m,
so why in the 2nd correlation there are additional terms after '-'?

This seems really strange, can anybody help me? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't check your formula for the correlation function, but your Wick theorem looks wrong to me. You have a two-body density matrix on the left and on the right you have only one-body density matrices. Did you apply a relation like
\langle a^+_k a_m a^+_l a_n\rangle = \langle a^+_k a_m\rangle\langle a^+_l a_n\rangle?
Because such a relation does generally *not* hold.
 
cgk said:
I didn't check your formula for the correlation function, but your Wick theorem looks wrong to me. You have a two-body density matrix on the left and on the right you have only one-body density matrices. Did you apply a relation like
\langle a^+_k a_m a^+_l a_n\rangle = \langle a^+_k a_m\rangle\langle a^+_l a_n\rangle?
Because such a relation does generally *not* hold.

Hi,

Thanks a lot for your reply. I think for Fock state the Wick theorem leads to \langle a^+_k a^+_l a_m a_n\rangle = \langle a^+_k a_m\rangle\langle a^+_l a_n\rangle \delta_{k,m}\delta_{l,n}+\langle a^+_k a_n\rangle\langle a^+_l a_m\rangle\delta_{k,n}\delta_{l,m}, because particle number conservation requires the other terms in the full expression given by wick theorem to vanish. And sorry I forgot to mention that my problem is for bosons. If this is wrong, why, and what is the correct form?

Thanks
 
babylonia said:
I think for Fock state the Wick theorem leads to \langle a^+_k a^+_l a_m a_n\rangle = \langle a^+_k a_m\rangle\langle a^+_l a_n\rangle \delta_{k,m}\delta_{l,n}+\langle a^+_k a_n\rangle\langle a^+_l a_m\rangle\delta_{k,n}\delta_{l,m}, because particle number conservation requires the other terms in the full expression given by wick theorem to vanish. And sorry I forgot to mention that my problem is for bosons. If this is wrong, why, and what is the correct form?
Sorry, I might have misunderstood your post: By "In Fock Space", do you mean for a single permanent[1] (or for some mean field approximation?)? Because for a general superposition of permanents no such relation holds, and the two-body reduced density matrix \langle a^+_k a^+_l a_m a_n\rangle in general cannot be reduced to anything which is itself less than a two-body (mixed) density matrix. So by applying (only) the Wick theorem, you could have, for example, something like [2]
\langle a^+_k a^+_l a_m a_n\rangle = \langle a^+_k a_m a^+_l a_n\rangle + \delta_{ml} \langle a^+_k a_n\rangle
but that still has a two-body density matrix in it and is still far from your expression for G. You might need to apply some other relations, too.

[1] that's the positive-symmetry version of a determinant
[2] how exactly the Wick theorem looks depends on whether there is a normal order imposed on the operators, and if it is, which reference it applies to.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top