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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top