For the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator problem, when trying to derive the relation between different energy levels of a wave function when you apply a ladder operator I seem to be making a faulty assumption, but I'm unsure where.

I started with the definition of the ladder operators

$a_{\pm}= {1 \over \sqrt {2 \hbar m \omega}}(\mp ip+m\omega x)$

I applied it to the time independent wave function inside the hamiltonian, and then simplified.

$\hat H(a_+ (\psi))= \hat H( a_+(\psi))+\hbar \omega \ a_+(\psi)$

My textbook uses the identity of $\hat H \psi = E \psi$ to simplify the expression to

$\hat H (a_+ \psi)= (E+\hbar \omega)(a_+(\psi))$

Which is consistent with their definition that the ladder operators can raise or lower energy of a wave function by increments of $ \hbar \omega$ as long as you don't lower past the ground state.

However, if you use the my second equation

$\hat H(a_+ (\psi))= \hat H( a_+(\psi))+\hbar \omega \ a_+(\psi)$

and subtract the hamiltonian from both sides you get

$0= \hbar \omega \ a_+(\psi)$

which implies that either $\hbar\omega=0$ or $a_+\psi=0$

Unless you have a degenerate wave function, $\omega \neq 0$ and obviously $\hbar \neq 0$

Assuming I haven't made another mistake, the only other conclusion is that somehow


So either I've done something wrong, or this is telling me that for every possible wave function

$\hbar {d \over dx}\psi=m \omega x \psi$

Is anyone able to spot what's going on?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Obviously your second equation is wrong. It's not clear where your coming from but I suspect one of your terms (the first on the rhs) should be $a_+\hat H(\psi)$ rather than $\hat H(a_+(\psi))$: the $E a_+\psi$ factor comes from $a_+\hat H(\psi)= a_+ E\psi = E a_+\psi$. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 26 '18 at 0:59

Be careful which side of $H$ you put $a^{\dagger}$ on, they don't commute.

You wrote that:


But this is incorrect. What you probably meant was:


Note that on the right hand side of this equation $a^{\dagger}$ is to the left of $H$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ That makes sense, but my book seems to say that since $H\psi=E\psi$ and E is just a constant, then $a_+$ and $E$ should commute. Or am I misunderstanding something about H and E in that context? $\endgroup$ – WindowsNT Sep 26 '18 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ Would it be safe to say that $[a_+,H]=-m\omega a_+$? $\endgroup$ – WindowsNT Sep 26 '18 at 1:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Correct, but $H$ only becomes $E$ when it acts on the wave-function directly. If there is a creation operator in the way you must use the commutation relations to get $H$ to act on $\psi$. $\endgroup$ – Connor Dolan Sep 26 '18 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I see see my mistake. Does that also mean that $\hat H (a_+(\psi))=E_+$ where $E_+=E+\hbar\omega$ is the energy of the next ladder rung from where E was? $\endgroup$ – WindowsNT Sep 26 '18 at 1:15
  • $\begingroup$ No, because you still need a creation operator that changes the state. $\endgroup$ – Connor Dolan Sep 26 '18 at 1:17

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.