Understanding Mean Field Theory for Hamiltonians for Beginners

  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Mean
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding mean field theory in the context of Hamiltonians involving different particle types represented by a- and b-operators. It emphasizes the importance of separating these operators for effective application of mean field theory, despite their interactions. The operators a and b can be assumed to commute since they describe different particles, each residing in its own Hilbert space. The interaction between these particles, while coupling their spaces, does not alter the fundamental commutation relations. The analogy with orbital angular momentum and spin illustrates how distinct physical concepts can interact without violating their individual operator properties.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
My book has a chapter on the general mean field approach. I have attached a page of it I don't understand very well. I do understand the general idea of meanfield theory:
Expand operators around their average and assume small fluctuations and neglect the second order term.
But in the attached page they use a form of the Hamiltonian I am only just getting used to. And for mean field theory to work I need to be able to separate the product of the a-operators and b-operators (in the given hamiltonian they appear as abba with daggers on some of them of course). Can I assume that a and b operators commute? They describe different particles but on the other hand it is interaction between a and b particles that is relevant. So what do I do?
 

Attachments

  • Meanfield.png
    Meanfield.png
    58.2 KB · Views: 458
Physics news on Phys.org
If the operators represent different particles, then yes, they will commute. For creation and annihilation operators, this is apparent through the commutation relation
\left[ a_i, a_j^\dagger \right] = \delta_{ij}
The reason this works is that each particle has its own "Hilbert space" (a Fock space in this case), and the operators a act in one of them, and the operators b in the other. The interaction term means that the spaces aren't independent (they're coupled in some way), but does not change what the operators actually do.

There is an analogous example for just one particle. We know that its orbital angular momentum \hat{L} and spin \hat{S} commute, since these live in separate spaces (see this thread for more on this) and represent distinct physical concepts. Yet, we know that atoms will have spin-orbit coupling. This interaction is of the form \hat{L} \cdot \hat{S}, and couples the spin and the orbital angular momenta. If you write down the total angular momentum \hat{J}=\hat{L}+\hat{S} in matrix form, the interaction is represented by the off-diagonal elements. It'll look the same way for the a:s and a^\dagger:s.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
658
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K