1
$\begingroup$

I want to transform an operator into the interaction Picture. Therefore, I have to calculate the following

$$\exp(i H_E t) (\sum_k g_k a_k )\exp(-i H_E t),$$ where

$$H_E=\sum \omega_k a_k^\dagger a_k.$$

Plugging $H_E$ in yields (I am not 100% sure if the notation that I chose is very clever, so corrections concerning my notation are really appreciated)

$$ \underbrace{\sum_k \sum_n \exp(i \omega_k n) |n\rangle \langle n|}_{\exp(i H_E t)} \, \underbrace{(\sum_l \sum_p g_l c_p |p-1\rangle \langle p| )}_{(\sum_k g_k a_k )} \, \underbrace{\sum_m \sum_j\exp(-i \omega_m j) |j\rangle \langle j|}_{\exp(-i H_E t)}=(*)$$

I chose to represent the creation and annihilation operators such that

$$a_k=\sum_l c_l |l-1\rangle \langle l|$$

$$a_k^\dagger=\sum_l c_l |l+1\rangle \langle l|$$

Besides that, I am not really sure how to Label everything correctly because the annihilation and creation operator only act on states in the correct mode ($\omega_k$), so I don't know how to indicate this in the following expression

$$\sum_k \omega_k a_k^\dagger a_k=\sum_k \omega_k \sum_l l |l \rangle \langle l | .$$

If I continue now my calculation for the representation in the interaction picture, I obtain the following Expression

$$(*)= \sum_k \sum_n \exp(i \omega_k n) \, (\sum_l \sum_p g_l c_p ) \, \sum_m \sum_j\exp(-i \omega_m j) |n\rangle \langle n| |p-1\rangle \langle p| |j\rangle \langle j| $$ $$= \sum_k \sum_n \exp(i \omega_k n) \, (\sum_l \sum_p g_l c_p ) \, \sum_m \sum_j\exp(-i \omega_m) |n\rangle \delta_{n,p-1} \delta_{p,j} \langle j |$$ $$= \sum_k \exp(i \omega_k(p-1)) \, (\sum_l \sum_p g_l c_p ) \, \sum_m \exp(-i \omega_m p) |p-1\rangle \langle p |$$ $$= \sum_k \exp(i \omega_k(p-1)) \sum_m \exp(-i \omega_m p) \, (\sum_l \sum_p g_l c_p |p-1\rangle \langle p | ) $$ $$= \sum_k \exp(i \omega_k(p-1)) \sum_m \exp(-i \omega_m p) \, (\sum_l g_l a_l ). $$

Now, the problem is that this is not correct, since the result is

$$\sum_l g_l a_l \exp(-i \omega_l t).$$

I don't know where the additional $\delta_{k,m}$ and $\delta_{l,m}$ should dome from. Made I started with too many sums and thats the mistake but I don't see why there should be too many of them.

EDIT: Following udrv's advice:

I split up the exponential function

$$ \exp(-i H_E t)= \prod \limits_{i=1} \exp(-i H_i t)$$, where $$ H_i=\omega_i a_i^\dagger a_i$$

Then performing the calculation for a generic $a_k$ yields $$\exp(i H_1 t) \exp(i H_2 t) \dots \exp(i H_k t) \dots g_k a_k \exp(-i H_1 t) \exp(-i H_2 t) \dots \exp(-i H_k t) \dots$$ $$=\exp(i H_1 t) \exp(-i H_1 t) \exp(i H_2 t) \exp(-i H_2 t) \dots \exp(i H_k t)g_k a_k \exp(-i H_k t) \dots$$ $$=\mathbb{I} \cdot \mathbb{I}\cdot \mathbb{I} \dots \sum_l \exp(-i \omega_k l) |l \rangle \langle l | g_k \sum_j c_j |j-1\rangle \langle j| \sum_n \exp(-i\omega_k n ) |n \rangle \langle n |$$ $$=\exp(i \omega_k (j-1)) \sum_j c_j |j-1\rangle \langle j | \exp(- i \omega_k j )$$ $$=\exp(-i \omega_k ) g_k a_k$$.

Now, the Summation over the different $a_k$ should yield the desired result. Correct?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Think "second quantization", "operator algebra", and multiple distinct modes. Not first quantization for one single harmonic oscillator. Take one $a_k$ term at a time, $a_k(t) = \exp[iH_E t]\;a_k \exp[-iH_E t]$, take the time derivative, and solve. What do you see? $\endgroup$ – udrv Feb 11 '17 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean with the time derivative? Our Tutor told us that it was doable like this, so I would like to do it this way. $\endgroup$ – anonymous Feb 11 '17 at 14:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fine. The reason your sums don't work is that you use identical expressions for the ladder operators and Hamiltonian for all modes (no k dependence). The simplest way to fix it is to distribute the $\exp[\pm H_E t]$ over each term in the sum, recall that operators for different modes commute, and simplify each term to $g_k\exp[i\omega_k a_k^\dagger a_k] a_k \exp[-i\omega_k a_k^\dagger a_k]$. Now you can calculate a generic $\exp[i\omega a^\dagger a] a \exp[-i\omega a^\dagger a]$ as you did before, but without having to worry about the different k. Just re-index afterwards and sum. $\endgroup$ – udrv Feb 11 '17 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! I edited the entry post following your instructions. Is it correct now? $\endgroup$ – anonymous Feb 12 '17 at 10:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yep, it looks good now. $\endgroup$ – udrv Feb 12 '17 at 13:23
1
$\begingroup$

A way to obtain the result is to consider

$$e^{iHt}\sum_k g_k a_k e^{-iHt}=\sum_k g_k\, e^{iHt} a_k \,e^{-iHt}=\sum_k g_k\, e^{i\omega t a^\dagger_k a_k} a_k \,e^{-i\omega t a^\dagger_k a_k}$$

Let $A=i\omega_k t\, a^\dagger_k a_k$ and $B=a_k$. Then, by applying the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff relation

$$e^A B e^{-A}=B+[A,B]+\frac{1}{2!}[A,[A,B]]+...$$

with commutatior $[a^\dagger_ka_k,a_k]=-a_k$ (Bosons), one finds

$$e^{i\omega_k t a^\dagger_k a_k} a_k \,e^{-i\omega t a^\dagger_k a_k}=e^{-i\omega_kt}\,a_k,$$

and thus

$$e^{iHt}\sum_k g_k\, a_k\, e^{-iHt}=\sum_k g_ke^{-i\omega_kt}\,a_k,$$

corresponding to the result which has already been proven in the comments (completed by the the variable $t$ in the exponent).

$\endgroup$

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.