4
$\begingroup$

Consider a simple harmonic oscillator; the position operator is $\hat{x}=(a^\dagger+a)/\sqrt{2}$ and the momentum operator is $\hat{p}=-i(a-a^\dagger)/\sqrt{2}$.

One may verify that the eigenstates of $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ are $$\left|x\right>\propto e^{\sqrt{2}~xa^\dagger-(a^\dagger)^2/2}\left|0\right>$$ $$\left|p\right>\propto e^{ip\sqrt{2} ~a^\dagger+(a^\dagger)^2/2}\left|0\right>.$$ My question is: how do I verify that the position eigenstates and momentum eigenstates are orthogonal themselves, and that $$\left<x|p\right>\propto e^{ipx} ~~?$$ I'm not able to calculate this inner product using the commutator of $a$ and $a^\dagger$.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by ACuriousMind Feb 14 '17 at 12:58

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – ACuriousMind
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ @knzhou what do you mean by that? Yes I want a direct approach. $\endgroup$ – Nahc Feb 14 '17 at 4:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ is this correct? what is $z$ in your first exponential? Moreover, is $p$ in your second exponential an operator or a number? $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Feb 14 '17 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ BCH formula and friends are what you want to commute exponentials of operators. What's the conceptual question here? What have you tried? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Feb 14 '17 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Hi, of course I know I can use BCH formula to do that calculation. The problem is that when you use BCH formula, you need to calculate infinite number of commutators, and because the $a^2$ and $(a^\dagger)^2$, they don't vanish after a few order. $\endgroup$ – Nahc Feb 14 '17 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Without an i your normalization of your p is toxically antihermitean, and prevents your from simple implementation of adjoint symmetries involved. Your combinatorics would be vastly expedited by utilizing the isomorphism $a^\dagger \to y$ and $a \to \partial_y$, after you normalize your a's properly, provided you understand translation operators. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Feb 14 '17 at 16:17