Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I know how to derive below equations found on wikipedia and have done it myselt too:

\begin{align} \hat{H} &= \hbar \omega \left(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} + \frac{1}{2}\right)\\ \hat{H} &= \hbar \omega \left(\hat{a}\hat{a}^\dagger - \frac{1}{2}\right)\\ \end{align}

where $\hat{a}=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\hat{P} - i \hat{X}\right)$ is a annihilation operator and $\hat{a}^\dagger=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\hat{P} + i \hat{X}\right)$ a creation operator. Let me write also that:

\begin{align} \hat{P}&= \frac{1}{p_0}\hat{p} = -\frac{i\hbar}{\sqrt{\hbar m \omega}} \frac{d}{dx}\\ \hat{X}&=\frac{1}{x_0} \hat{x}=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x \end{align}

In order to continue i need a proof that operators $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^\dagger$ give a following commutator with hamiltonian $\hat{H}$:

\begin{align} \left[\hat{H},\hat{a} \right] &= -\hbar\omega \, \hat{a}\\ \left[\hat{H},\hat{a}^\dagger \right] &= +\hbar\omega \, \hat{a}^\dagger \end{align}

These statements can be found on wikipedia as well as here, but nowhere it is proven that the above relations for commutator really hold. I tried to derive $\left[\hat{H},\hat{a} \right]$ and my result was:

$$ \left[\hat{H},\hat{a} \right] \psi = -i \sqrt{\frac{\omega \hbar^3}{4m}}\psi $$

You should know that this this is 3rd commutator that i have ever calculated so it probably is wrong, but here is a photo of my attempt on paper. I would appreciate if anyone has any link to a proof of the commutator relations (one will do) or could post a proof here.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Start with your $\hat{H} = \hbar \omega \left( \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} + \frac{1}{2} \right)$. I will omit hat notation from this point. The commutator then reads as \begin{equation} \left[ H, a \right] = \hbar \omega \left[ \left( \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} + \frac{1}{2} \right) a - a \left( \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} + \frac{1}{2} \right) \right] = \hbar \omega \left( a^\dagger a a - a a^\dagger a \right) , \end{equation} which is nothing but \begin{equation} \left[ H, a \right] = \hbar \omega (a^\dagger a - a a^\dagger)a = \hbar \omega \left[ a^\dagger, a \right]a, \end{equation} but we know that \begin{equation} \left[a^\dagger, a \right] = -1 , \end{equation} therefore \begin{equation} \left[ H, a \right] = -\hbar \omega a, \end{equation} QED.

Proof of the second relation is done in the same way.

share|cite|improve this answer

On the Wikipedia page you link to there is a derivation of the commutation relation between $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$, $$ [\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}] = 1.$$ This directly leads to (use the relation $[AB,C]=[A,C]B+A[B,C]$) $$[\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a},\hat{a}] = -\hat{a} , \qquad [\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}] = +\hat{a}^{\dagger}.$$ Up to a constant this is the same as $[\hat{H},\hat{a}]$ and $[\hat{H},\hat{a}^{\dagger}]$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.