9
$\begingroup$

Both $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}\hat{a}^\dagger$ are Hermitian, how do we know which one represents the particle number?

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

10
$\begingroup$

We require that the number operator have the following property:

$$\hat n |0\rangle = 0.$$

We know that

$$\hat a |0\rangle = 0$$

and we know that

$$\hat a |1\rangle = |0\rangle$$

and we know that

$$\hat a^{\dagger} |0\rangle = |1\rangle. $$

Thus, it follows that

$$\hat a \hat a^{\dagger} \ne \hat n$$

since

$$\hat a \hat a^{\dagger} |0\rangle = \hat a|1\rangle \ne 0.$$

Now, it remains to be shown that

$$\hat a^{\dagger}\hat a = \hat n. $$

Can you take it from here?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! You clearly solved my problem, but now I have another question: what's the difference between 0 and $|0\rangle$? (should I open a new question?) $\endgroup$
    – LePtC
    Oct 11, 2014 at 4:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LePtC, $|0\rangle$ is a state - the state with 0 energy quanta present while 0 is a number. The product of the number 0 and any state is the number 0. Since $|0\rangle$ is an eigenstate of the number operator with eigenvalue 0, it must be the case that $\hat n |0\rangle = 0 |0\rangle = 0$. $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2014 at 16:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LePtC yes, that should be a new question, except that it's already been asked. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Oct 12, 2014 at 7:30
  • $\begingroup$ @AlfredCentauri you mean we can leave the ket when we have a 0 eigenvalue? when we get a zero spin for s=1 particle or zero energy for the Hamiltonian, why don't we leave the ket as well? $\endgroup$
    – LePtC
    Oct 12, 2014 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ @LePtC, I don't understand what you're trying to ask. A ket that is an eigenstate of some operator with eigenvalue zero has non-zero length, i.e., $\langle 0 | 0 \rangle \ne 0$. Only the $\varnothing$ (null) ket has zero length $\langle \varnothing | \varnothing\rangle = 0$ and it is not a state. $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2014 at 16:35
8
$\begingroup$

Since you define e.g. in the bosonic case

$c_j^\dagger: H_N^S \rightarrow H_{N+1}^S,\quad c_j^\dagger | \ldots n_j \ldots \rangle := \sqrt{n_j+1} |\ldots n_j+1 \ldots \rangle$ $c_j: H_N^S \rightarrow H_{N-1}^S,\quad c_j | \ldots n_j \ldots \rangle := \sqrt{n_j} |\ldots n_j-1 \ldots \rangle$

it makes more sence to use $a^\dagger a$ which will give you $n_j$ (instead of $n_j+1$) as prefactor when acting on a state $| \ldots n_j \ldots \rangle $.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ But you are using the eigen state of $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}$, maybe we can redefine the eigen state $|n'_i\rangle=|n_i+1\rangle$ to avoid that problem? $\endgroup$
    – LePtC
    Oct 10, 2014 at 9:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LePtC: This would only "shift" your problem... $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2014 at 10:50
3
$\begingroup$

The vacuum should have particle number $0$. In some detail: we would like $\hat{N}\ |0\rangle=0$ and $\hat{N}=a^\dagger a$ is the only ordering that does that. It follows from the usual commutation relations that $\hat{N} |n\rangle =n\ |n\rangle$ which is in sync with interpretation of $|n\rangle $ as an $n$-particle state in second-quantisation.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You want to elaborate on this a bit? $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2014 at 8:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think he means that $a^\dagger a$ kills the vacuum while $a \, a^\dagger$ doesn't. $\endgroup$
    – Jold
    Oct 10, 2014 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ @PranavHosangadi Explanation added. I hope that suffices. $\endgroup$
    – suresh
    Oct 12, 2014 at 7:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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