3
$\begingroup$

In Negele's book "quantum many-particle systems", the completeness formula for coherent state is $$\int {\frac{{d{\phi ^*}d\phi }}{{2\pi i}}{e^{ - {\phi ^*}\phi }}} \left| \phi \right\rangle \left\langle \phi \right| = I\tag{1}$$ and it says the integration measure is $$\frac{{d{\phi ^*}d\phi }}{{2\pi i}} = \frac{{d\left( {{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \phi } \right)d\left( {{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \phi } \right)}}{\pi }.\tag{2}$$ How to understand this integration measure equality?

As I understand, If I view $\phi=x+iy$, then $${d\left( {{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \phi } \right)d\left( {{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \phi } \right)}=dxdy.\tag{3}$$ But

$$d{\phi ^*}d\phi = \left( {dx - idy} \right)\left( {dx + idy} \right) = d{x^2} + d{y^2}\tag{4}$$

I am pretty sure this understanding is wrong. What is the right way?

$\endgroup$
0

3 Answers 3

3
$\begingroup$

Concerning OP's last formula (4): Recall that there is an implicitly written antisymmetric wedge $\wedge$ in the integral measure. Therefore OP's last equality sign should read $$( \mathrm{d}x - i\mathrm{d}y )\wedge ( \mathrm{d}x + i\mathrm{d}y ) ~=~ 2i\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}y. \tag{4'}$$ See also e.g. this Phys.SE post.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

This alternative derivation (without Grassman algebra) uses the transformation rule for integrals. We have an integral over $\mathbb {R}^2$ with the measure $dx\ dy $ (I dont care about $\pi$). We consider a change of variables $(x,y)\mapsto (z, z*):=(x+iy, x-iy) $ This is a diffeomprphism onto its image. (A subset of $\mathbb {C}^2$ seen as a 4d real vectorspace) . The Jacobian is $$ J=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & i \\ 1 & -i \end {pmatrix}$$. The "absolute value" (for real and complex part individually) of the determinant is $2i$, the factor we need.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why should one take the absolute value of the Jacobian for real and imaginary part individually? Seems arbitrary. $\endgroup$
    – Nephente
    Feb 24, 2017 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ It is arbitrary. The normal change of variables formula is not really suited for dealing with complex domains. I assume to make this mathematically precise one would have to consider real and imaginary parts of the measure separatly and the domains as actually real. $\endgroup$ Feb 24, 2017 at 13:20
0
$\begingroup$

I'm here to explain where that $\pi$ in eq(2) comes from:$$\begin{aligned}\int\left(\phi^{*}\right)^{n}\phi^{m}e^{-|\phi|^{2}}d\text{Re}\phi d\text{Im}\phi & =\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi|^{n+m+1}e^{-|\phi|^{2}}d|\phi|\int_{0}^{2\pi}e^{i(m-n)\theta}d\theta\\ & =\pi n!\delta_{nm} \end{aligned} $$ $$\frac{1}{\pi}\int|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|d\text{Re}\phi d\text{Im}\phi=\sum_{n}|n\rangle\langle n|=1 $$ So actually the coherent state is over-complete and $\pi$ here is helping coherent state to disguise as a complete one. For more information one may refer to Sec2.4 of Quantum optics by Scully and Zubairy.
By the way as illustrated by Adomas Baliuka and Qmechanic♦, the relation of the coefficients in eq(1)&(2) is clear. They two arrive at the same end by different means because the appearance of the Jacobian is a natural property of the wedge product.

$\endgroup$

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.