Let $A$ be a fermionic operator which is a product of odd number of fermion operators or a summation of them, say

$A=C_{i_1}^{\dagger}\cdot \cdot\cdot C_{i_m}^{\dagger}C_{j_1}\cdot \cdot\cdot C_{j_n}$ or $A=\sum w(i_1\cdot \cdot\cdot i_mj_1\cdot \cdot\cdot j_n) C_{i_1}^{\dagger}\cdot \cdot\cdot C_{i_m}^{\dagger}C_{j_1}\cdot \cdot\cdot C_{j_n}$

where $C_i,C_j^{\dagger}$ are fermion operators satisfying the standard anticommutaion relations, and $m+n$ is an odd number. [$w(i_1\cdot \cdot\cdot i_mj_1\cdot \cdot\cdot j_n)$ are the coefficients.]

My question is: If $\lambda(\neq0)$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, then is $-\lambda$ also an eigenvalue of $A$ ?

If the above is true, how to prove it?If it is wrong, what is the counterexample?


1 Answer 1


(i) Define an unitary operator : $\mathcal{U}(\chi)=e_{}^{-i\chi {\underset{k}\sum_{}^{}}C_{k}^{\dagger}C_{k}^{}}$ for $\chi \in \mathbb{R}$.

(ii) Notice : $\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{\dagger}C_{k}^{\dagger}\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{}=e_{}^{i\chi}C_{k}^{\dagger}$ and $\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{\dagger}C_{k}^{}\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{}=e_{}^{-i\chi}C_{k}^{}$.

(iii) So, for the operator defined in the question : $A=\underset{\{s_{p}^{}\},\{t_{q}^{}\}}{\sum_{}^{}}w[\{s_{p}^{}\},\{t_{q}^{}\}]\underset{\text{ordered products}}{\tilde\prod_{p=1}^{m}\tilde \prod_{q=1}^{n}}C_{s_{p}^{}}^{\dagger}C_{t_{q}^{}}^{}$, we have : $\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{\dagger}A\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{}=e_{}^{i\chi(m-n)}A$.

(iv) For odd number $m+n$ and $\chi=\pi$ we get : $A\mathcal{U}(\pi)_{}^{}=-\mathcal{U}(\pi)_{}^{}A$.

(v) Now, if $A|\lambda\rangle=\lambda|\lambda\rangle$ then $A\left[\mathcal{U}(\pi)_{}^{}|\lambda\rangle\right]=-\lambda\left[\mathcal{U}(\pi)_{}^{}|\lambda\rangle\right]$.

(vi) More generally we have : $A|\lambda\rangle=\lambda|\lambda\rangle$ $\Rightarrow$ $A\left[\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{}|\lambda\rangle\right]=\left[e_{}^{i\chi(m-n)}\lambda\right]\left[\mathcal{U}(\chi)_{}^{}|\lambda\rangle\right]$.

  • $\begingroup$ I see, thank u very much. I like your last conclusion (vi), from this, it seems that the eigenvalue of $A$ must be zero if $m\neq n$, right? $\endgroup$
    – Kai Li
    Aug 5, 2018 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Because if it is nonzero, there would be infinite number of eigenvalues of $A$, this seems impossible. $\endgroup$
    – Kai Li
    Aug 5, 2018 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ @KaiLi Identity given in (iii) provides information of non-zero matrix elements of $A$ in the Fock space. Regarding your second comment, I have to think more about Fermion case, for bosonic Fock space (same analysis holds), consider a single mode and $A=a$, then it is clear that $A$ has uncountable eigenvalues and eigenstates corresponding to $|\alpha| e_{}^{i\chi}$ can be generated through the unitary transformation $\mathcal{U}(\chi)=e_{}^{i\chi a_{}^{\dagger}a_{}^{}}$ from the eigenstate corresponding to $|\alpha|$. $\endgroup$
    – Sunyam
    Aug 5, 2018 at 18:35

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.