3
$\begingroup$

For the potential term in the Hamiltonian, I understand that we go through the same process as with the kinetic energy term. On the RHS of the TDSE, we get something like $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\sum_{j\neq i}\sum_{k}\sum_{l\neq k}\langle ij|V|kl\rangle C(\dots E_{i-1}E_kE_{i+1}\dots E_{j-1}E_lE_{j+1}\dots;t)$.

Reordering the argument list of $C(\dots)$ on the RHS incurs a phase factor of $(-1)^P$, where $P$ depends on the order of $i, j, k, l$.

Some examples: if their order of ascent is ...

$kilj$: $P = n_{k+1}+\dots+n_{i-1}+n_{l+1}+\dots+n_{j-1}$

$klij$: $P = n_{k+1}+\dots+n_{i-1}+n_{l+1}+\dots+n_{j-1}$

$likj$: $P=n_{i+1}+\dots+n_{k-1}+n_{l+1}+\dots+n_{j-1}+1$ [the extra $+1$ comes from the fact that $i$ and $j$ are positioned with opposite 'polarity' to $k$ and $l$, therefore the $E_k,E_l$ have to be swapped past each other to get into the correct positions]

As above, by my reckoning, $P(klij)=P(kilj)$, however if we calculate $(-1)^P$ by operating on $|\lbrace n_m\rbrace\rangle$ like $a_i^{\dagger} a_j^{\dagger} a_l a_k|\lbrace n_m\rbrace\rangle$, I get $(-1)^{S_k+S_{l}-1+S_{j}-2+S_{i}-2}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_j+1\dots n_i+1\rangle \\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_{l}+S_{j}+S_{i}-1}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1\dots n_j+1\dots n_i+1\dots\rangle$

if the order is $klij$ but

$(-1)^{S_k+S_{l}-1+S_{j}-2+S_{i}-1}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1\dots n_j+1\dots n_i+1\dots\rangle\\= (-1)^{S_k+S_{l}+S_{j}+S_{i}}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1\dots n_j+1\dots n_i+1\dots\rangle$

if the order is $kilj$. The order of $i$ and $l$ seems to matter when I calculate the phase factor by successive application of the $a, a^{\dagger}$ but not when I calculate it by reordering the arguments of the $C(\dots)$ coefficients. Where am I going wrong?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

Let the ordering of the occupation numbers $n_m$ in the Fock states be such that $\left( klij \Leftrightarrow k<l<i<j \right)$ and let $S_m = n_1 + n_2 + \dots + n_{m-1}$ be phase factors calculated before applying any creation/annihilation operators.

You do take into account, correctly, that applying an annihilation operator lowers the phase factor for the action of the next operator by $1$, but should also account for the fact that applying a creation operator raises the phase factor for the next operator by 1.

Take the $klij$, $k<l<i<j$ case, step by step: $$ a_j^{\dagger} a_i^{\dagger} a_l a_k|\dots n_k\dots n_l \dots n_i\dots n_j\dots\rangle = (-1)^{S_k}\delta_{n_k,1}a_j^{\dagger} a_i^{\dagger} a_l |\dots n_k-1\dots n_l \dots n_i\dots n_j\dots\rangle =\\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_l-1}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_l,1}a_j^{\dagger} a_i^{\dagger}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_i\dots n_j\dots\rangle = \\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_l-1+S_i-2}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_l,1}\delta_{n_i,0}a_j^{\dagger}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_i+1\dots n_j\dots\rangle = \\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_l-1+S_j-2+S_i-2+1}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_l,1}\delta_{n_i,0}\delta_{n_j,0}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_i+1\dots n_j+1\dots\rangle =\\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_l+S_j+S_i}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_l,1}\delta_{n_i,0}\delta_{n_j,0}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_i+1\dots n_j+1\dots\rangle $$ Now take the $kilj$, $k<i<l<j$ case: $$ a_j^{\dagger} a^{\dagger}_l a_i a_k|\dots n_k\dots n_i \dots n_l\dots n_j\dots\rangle = (-1)^{S_k}\delta_{n_k,1}a^{\dagger}_j a^{\dagger} _l a_i|\dots n_k-1\dots n_i \dots n_l\dots n_j\dots\rangle =\\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_i-1}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_i,1}a^{\dagger}_j a^{\dagger}_l|\dots n_k-1\dots n_i-1 \dots n_l\dots n_j\dots\rangle = \\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_i-1+S_l-2}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_i,1}\delta_{n_l,0}a^{\dagger}_j|\dots n_k-1\dots n_i-1 \dots n_l+1\dots n_j\dots\rangle = \\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_i-1+S_l-2+S_j-2+1}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_i,1}\delta_{n_l,0}\delta_{n_j,0}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_i-1 \dots n_l+1\dots n_j+1\dots\rangle =\\ = (-1)^{S_k+S_l+S_j+S_i}\delta_{n_k,1}\delta_{n_i,1}\delta_{n_l,0}\delta_{n_j,0}|\dots n_k-1\dots n_i-1 \dots n_l+1\dots n_j+1\dots\rangle $$ It checks out.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again. A couple questions, though. In the $klij$ case, when we finally apply $a_i^\dagger$, doesn't $i<j$ mean that $a_i^\dagger|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1\dots n_j+1\dots\rangle = a_i^\dagger\dots a_{k-1}^\dagger a_{k+1}^\dagger \dots a_{l-1}^\dagger a_{l+1}^\dagger\dots a_{j-1}^\dagger a_{j}^\dagger a_{j+1}^\dagger\dots|0\rangle = (-1)^{S_i-2 +0} \dots a_{k-1}^\dagger a_{k+1}^\dagger \dots a_{l-1}^\dagger a_{l+1}^\dagger\dots a_{i-1}^\dagger a_{i}^\dagger a_{i+1}^\dagger\dots a_{j-1}^\dagger a_{j}^\dagger a_{j+1}^\dagger\dots|0\rangle$, rather than with the extra 1 in the phase factor? $\endgroup$
    – user2582713
    Commented Feb 10, 2016 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ And how come we're allowed to swap the order of the operators in the $kilj$ case? $\endgroup$
    – user2582713
    Commented Feb 10, 2016 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome. About $i<j$: From the ordering of the final $n_m$-s in both your $klij$ and $kilj$ cases, which goes $|\dots n_k-1\dots n_l-1 \dots n_j+1\dots n_i+1\dots\rangle$, I inferred that the indices must be so that $k<l<j<i$, and from the decrease/increase of the occupation numbers that there must be creation ops. for $i$ and $j$, and annihilation ops. for $k$ and $l$. But if instead $i<j$, yes, then you'd have $(-1)^{S_i-2} since $a_i^\dagger$ would anticommute with 2 less ops. $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Commented Feb 10, 2016 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ As for swapping order, again given the final state, I assumed the ops are the same, but swapped in order. I guess you had something else in mind? $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Commented Feb 10, 2016 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry. I ordered the $n_k, n_l$ etc. wrongly in the states. I meant the order as specified in the $klij, kilj$ etc, so $klij \rightarrow k<l<i<j$, for example. $\endgroup$
    – user2582713
    Commented Feb 11, 2016 at 21:32
0
$\begingroup$

Worked out where I've been going wrong. Referring to the content of my question, in the $klij$ case, i.e. $k<l<i<j$, when reordering the $C(\dots)$ argument list on the RHS, $E_l$ has to be swapped past the space where the vacant $E_i$ would be, hence in this case

$\begin{split} P(klij) &= n_{k+1} + \dots + n_{i-1} + \dots + n_{l+1} + \dots + n_{j-1} - 1 \\ &= S_i - S_k - n_k + S_j - S_l - n_l - 1 \end{split}$

and so the phase factor, $(-1)^{P(klij)} = (-1)^{S_i + S_k - n_k + S_j + S_l - n_l - 1}$, which, with the $\delta_{n_k0}\delta_{n_l0}$ on the RHS, gives $(-1)^{S_i+S_k+S_j+S_l-1}$. This is the same phase factor you get when you operate on the state like $a^{\dagger}_ia^{\dagger}_j a_la_k|\lbrace n_m\rbrace\rangle$ as I mentioned in the original question.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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