Undergrad Understanding second quantization

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the interpretation of the operator A in second quantization, highlighting that A maps a many-particle space to itself and preserves the number of particles, suggesting it should reduce to the single-particle operator 𝓐 in that limit. The relationship between the creation and annihilation operators and the potential function operator V(x) is also explored, questioning the commutation properties of these operators. It is clarified that V(x) acts as an external potential in the context of a single-particle Hilbert space, while interactions like the Coulomb potential require multi-particle operators. The conversation references specific equations from the book by Bruus and Flensberg to illustrate these concepts. Understanding these relationships is crucial for grasping the complexities of many-body quantum systems.
acegikmoqsuwy
Messages
41
Reaction score
4
Hi,

I was reading a book about second quantization and there were a few things that I didn't quite understand entirely.

This is what I understood so far:

Given an operator ##\mathcal A## and two orthonormal bases ##|\alpha_i\rangle## and ##|\beta_i\rangle## for the Hilbert space, ##\mathcal H##, of interest, we can write $$\mathcal A = \sum\limits_{ij} \mathcal A_{ij} |\alpha_i\rangle \langle\beta_j|$$ where ##\mathcal A_{ij} = \langle \alpha_i|A|\beta_j\rangle.##

Now if we let ##a_i## and ##a_i^{\dagger}## be the annihilation and creation operators for the state ##|\alpha_i\rangle## and similarly ##b_i## and ##b_i^{\dagger}## be those for ##|\beta_i\rangle## (satisfying the appropriate commutation relations) then we can define an operator, ##A##, on the Fock space corresponding to ##\mathcal H## given by $$A = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{ij} \mathcal A_{ij} a_i^{\dagger} b_j.$$

The first question I have is this: what is the actual interpretation of ##A##? I can see that, whereas ##\mathcal A## is only defined on a one-particle Hilbert space, ##A## is a map from a many-particle space to itself (in particular, preserving the number of particles). Is it supposed to be the case that ##A## reduces to ##\mathcal A## in the single particle case? Is the action of ##A## on a state of particles supposed to somehow "simultaneously" be an application of ##\mathcal A## to all the particles at once?

Second: In my book, it is written that for an operator (on single particle Hilbert space) depending on position, we can write the second quantization in a similar form, but using the creation and annihilation operators ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## for position. The equation it gives for second quantization of a potential function operator ##V(x)## is (assuming that the position spectrum is not discrete) $$\hat V = \int \text d^3 x \hat \psi^{\dagger}(x) V(x) \hat \psi(x).$$ This appears to be slightly different in the order that the terms are laid out when compared to the expression for ##A## above. Now, a few other manipulations performed in the book lead me to guess that somehow the operators ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## commute with the operator ##V(x)##. Why is this the case? I know that ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## are operators on the Fock space, but isn't ##V(x)## also an operator on Fock space in a sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What book are you using?
 
If the Hilbert space you describe is a single-particle Hilbert space (which is a proper subspace of the Fock space the annihilation and creation operators are defined on), then what you have there is a single-particle operator. The potential you describe is then an external potential (e.g., due to an electrostatic potential acting on charged particles). For an interaction potential like the Coulomb potential between two charged particles, the corresponding operator consists of two annihilation and two creation operators. It's thus a two-particle operator, which comes about because the Coulomb potential describes interactions between all possible pairs of particles in a many-body system. This "ladder" of operators goes on in principle, i.e., you can also have three-body, four-body, etc. operators.

An example is nuclear physics, where you describe the strong interaction by an effective low-energy description of QCD, e.g., using chiral perturbation theory. This leads to many-particle forces in the many-nucleon system, i.e., to strong correlations between two and more particles, necessary to describe, e.g., nuclei as many-body bound states of nulceons (protons and neutrons).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
acegikmoqsuwy said:
The first question I have is this: what is the actual interpretation of ##A##? I can see that, whereas ##\mathcal A## is only defined on a one-particle Hilbert space, ##A## is a map from a many-particle space to itself (in particular, preserving the number of particles). Is it supposed to be the case that ##A## reduces to ##\mathcal A## in the single particle case? Is the action of ##A## on a state of particles supposed to somehow "simultaneously" be an application of ##\mathcal A## to all the particles at once?

Take a look at Eq 1.26 to Eq 1.29 and Eq 1.60 in the book by Bruus and Flensberg: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/ADV_SOLID_HTML/Other_online_texts/Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics Henrik Bruus and Karsten Flensberg.pdf

acegikmoqsuwy said:
Second: In my book, it is written that for an operator (on single particle Hilbert space) depending on position, we can write the second quantization in a similar form, but using the creation and annihilation operators ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## for position. The equation it gives for second quantization of a potential function operator ##V(x)## is (assuming that the position spectrum is not discrete) $$\hat V = \int \text d^3 x \hat \psi^{\dagger}(x) V(x) \hat \psi(x).$$ This appears to be slightly different in the order that the terms are laid out when compared to the expression for ##A## above. Now, a few other manipulations performed in the book lead me to guess that somehow the operators ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## commute with the operator ##V(x)##. Why is this the case? I know that ##\hat \psi^{\dagger}(x)## and ##\hat \psi(x)## are operators on the Fock space, but isn't ##V(x)## also an operator on Fock space in a sense?

Take a look at Eq 1.73 in the book by Bruus and Flensberg: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/ADV_SOLID_HTML/Other_online_texts/Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics Henrik Bruus and Karsten Flensberg.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
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 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K