72 reputation
5
bio website
location Germany/France
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Feb 11 '13 at 8:35

3rd year =_= master student. Interests: CFT, QHE, Chern-Simons.


Jan
9
asked Does quantum manybody theory with 2nd quantization completely equivalent to 1st quantization formulation?
Dec
18
comment Has the concept of non-integer $(n+m)$-dimensional spacetime ever been investigated by theoretical physicists?
how do you define another "time direction" in your illustration?
Dec
3
asked Are there any good reading materials for variational approach in many-body theory?
Dec
2
revised The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
added 372 characters in body
Nov
29
revised Asking for references on the variational treatment of spin wave
added 316 characters in body
Nov
29
asked Asking for references on the variational treatment of spin wave
Nov
28
revised Isn't it incorrect for the minimal gauge coupling and related calculations in Prof. Ezawa's book on quantum Hall effect?
added 150 characters in body
Nov
26
awarded  Commentator
Nov
26
comment The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
Yes, you are right. The canonical transformation should preserve the commutator, not transforming $i\hbar$ to $1$. I have to construct a proof to show the algebraic isomorphism between std oscillator ladder operator algebra and differential operators on polynomial space $\mathbb{C}[x]$
Nov
25
revised The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
added 1348 characters in body
Nov
25
accepted The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
Nov
25
comment The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
@Prathyush If so, the correspondence should be $\hat{a}\sim x+\frac{d}{dx}\,,\,\hat{a}^{\dagger}\sim x-\frac{d}{dx}$, right?
Nov
25
comment The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
I tried to map this commutator to the problem $\left[\frac{d}{dx},x\right]\circ f\left(x\right)=1\circ f\left(x\right),\,\hat{a}\sim\frac{d}{dx}\,,\,\hat{a}^{\dagger}\sim x$ but I don't know how to make this correspondence mathematically rigorous, i.e. to proof the existence of such a correspondence.
Nov
25
asked The cleverest way to calculate $\left[\hat{a}^{M},\hat{a}^{\dagger N}\right]$ with $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$
Nov
24
comment Isn't it incorrect for the minimal gauge coupling and related calculations in Prof. Ezawa's book on quantum Hall effect?
To further save my N-page calculation based on Ezawa, I came up with another idea - not to flip the B field, but to do a spatial reflection, or change the handness of the xyz-coord frame. Hope you know it :D
Nov
23
awarded  Supporter
Nov
23
accepted Isn't it incorrect for the minimal gauge coupling and related calculations in Prof. Ezawa's book on quantum Hall effect?
Nov
23
awarded  Editor
Nov
23
revised Isn't it incorrect for the minimal gauge coupling and related calculations in Prof. Ezawa's book on quantum Hall effect?
added 2 characters in body
Nov
23
comment Isn't it incorrect for the minimal gauge coupling and related calculations in Prof. Ezawa's book on quantum Hall effect?
I have found another check for the expression (2.14) in Prof.Ezawa's article. If we solve the cyclotron motion problem for a classical particle with negative charge, we will find $\left(R_{x},R_{y}\right)=\left(P_{y},-P_{x}\right)/m\omega_{c}$, which indicates that the sign used in these expressions are inappropriate.