Sign up ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

In Holstein-Primakoff and Dyson-Maleev representation, spin operators are represented by bosonic operators. Roughly speaking, a state with $S^z=S-m$ corresponds to a state containing $m$ bosons. In the Dyson-Maleev representation, $(S^+)^\dagger\neq S^-$, so we have a non-unitary transformation.

Are eigenvalues and matrix elements invariant under such a transformation?

In matrix form, what exactly are the two transformations that will give rise to the two representations, say for spin $S=3/2$?

share|cite|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I) We are given an angular momentum operator $\vec{S}$ in an (unitary, finite-dimensional, irreducible) spin $s$-representation

$$\tag{1} \vec{S}^2~=~s(s+1){\bf 1}, \qquad s\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}_0, $$

$$\tag{2} [S_i,S_j]~=~i\sum_{k=1}^3\epsilon_{ijk} S_k, \qquad i,j,k\in\{x,y,z\}, \qquad S_i^{\dagger}~=~ S_i,$$

or in terms of raising and lowering ladders operators

$$\tag{3} S_{\pm}~:=~S_x\pm i S_y, \qquad S_{\pm}^{\dagger}~=~ S_{\mp}, $$ $$\tag{4} [S_z, S_{\pm}]~=~\pm S_{\pm}, \qquad [S_+,S_-]~=~2S_z. $$

Here we have put the reduced Planck constant $\hbar=1$.

II) The Heisenberg algebra in terms of annihilation operator $a_-\equiv a$ and creation operator $a_+\equiv a^{\dagger}$ reads

$$\tag{5}[a_-, a_+]~\equiv~[a,a^{\dagger}]~=~{\bf 1}, $$

$$\tag{6} a_{\pm}^{\dagger}~=~ a_{\mp}.$$

The number operator is

$$n~:=~a_+a_-~\equiv~ a^{\dagger}a.$$

One has

$$\tag{8} [n,a_{\pm}]~=~\pm a_{\pm}, \qquad f(n)a_{\pm}~=~a_{\pm}f(n\pm 1), $$

where $f$ is an arbitrary function.

III) The Holstein-Primakoff unitary realization of the spin $s$-irrep is given as

$$\tag{9} S_+~=~ a_+h(n)~=~ h(n-1)a_+, $$ $$\tag{10} S_-~=~ h(n)a_-~=~ a_-h(n-1),$$ $$\tag{11} S_z~=~n-s, $$


$$\tag{12} h(n)~:=~\sqrt{2s-n}~=~\sqrt{2s} \sqrt{1-\frac{n}{2s}}.$$

It is straightforward to check that eqs. (9-11) yield the Lie algebra (4).

IV) The Dyson-Maleev non-unitary realization of the spin $s$-irrep is of the form

$$\tag{13} J_+~=~ S_+g(n)~=~g(n-1)S_+, $$ $$\tag{14} J_-~=~ g(n)^{-1}S_-~=~S_-g(n-1)^{-1}, $$ $$\tag{15} J_z~=~S_z, $$


$$\tag{16} g(n)~:=~ \sqrt{1-\frac{n}{2s}}.$$

It is straightforward to check that eqs. (13-15) yield the Lie algebra (4) even without using the explicit form (16).

V) Let us define new creation and annihilation operators

$$\tag{17} A_+~:=~ a_+g(n)~=~g(n-1)a_+, $$ $$\tag{18} A_-~=~ g(n)^{-1}a_-~=~a_-g(n-1)^{-1}, $$

with the same number operator

$$\tag{19} N~:=~A_+A_-~=~a_+a_-~=~n,$$

and the same Heisenberg algebra (5).

VI) Note that the new creation and annihilation operators $A_{\pm}$ are not each others $\dagger$-conjugate a la eq. (6). But one can introduce another Hermitian involution $\ddagger$ as

$$\tag{20} a_-^{\ddagger}~:=~ a_+ g(n)^2~=~g(n-1)^2 a_+ $$ $$\tag{21} a_+^{\ddagger}~:=~ g(n)^{-2}a_-~=~a_- g(n-1)^{-2}, $$ $$\tag{22} n^{\ddagger}~=~ n, \qquad (FG)^{\ddagger}~=~G^{\ddagger}F^{\ddagger}, \qquad F^{\ddagger\ddagger}~=~F, $$

where $F$ and $G$ are two arbitrary operators in the universal enveloping algebra. With the new Hermitian involution $\ddagger$, the creation and annihilation operators $A_{\pm}$ are each others $\ddagger$-conjugate

$$\tag{23} A_{\pm}^{\ddagger}~=~ A_{\mp}.$$

VII) Conclusion. The Dyson-Maleev realization (13-15) built with the annihilation and creation operators $a_{\pm}$ can be viewed as a Holstein-Primakoff realization built with the annihilation and creation operators $A_{\pm}$. Moreover, the Dyson-Maleev realization (13-15) is unitary wrt. the $\ddagger$-conjugation but not wrt. the original $\dagger$-conjugation, cf. eq. (23). We believe that these observations essentially answer OP's original questions(v1).

share|cite|improve this answer
The point about a new Hermitian involution is insightful. Do you have any references about this subject? – leongz Nov 4 '12 at 23:20
@leongz: No, the answer was developed from scratch, but if I find a reference, I'll post it here. – Qmechanic Nov 4 '12 at 23:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.