I am wondering how you would compute the Wigner Function of a Thermal State with average phonon number $\bar{n}_{\mathrm{th}}$. I know the result should be a Gaussian with variance in position $\langle x^2\rangle = (2 \bar{n}_\mathrm{th}+1) x_\mathrm{zp}^2$ and in momentum $ \langle p^2\rangle = (2 \bar{n}_\mathrm{th}+1) \hbar/(4x_\mathrm{zp}^2)$.

But how do I show that?

I write the thermal density matrix in the Fock basis: \begin{equation} \rho_\mathrm{th} = \sum_n \frac{\bar{n}_\mathrm{th}^n}{(1+\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})^{n+1}}|n\rangle \langle n | \end{equation} and use the Wigner Tranform: \begin{equation} W_\mathrm{th}(x,p) = \int du \langle x- u/2 | \rho_\mathrm{th} | x + u/2 \rangle e^{\mathrm{i} p u/\hbar} \end{equation}

After inserting the density matrix into the Wigner transform I get: \begin{equation} W_\mathrm{th}(x,p) = \sum_n \frac{\bar{n}_\mathrm{th}^n}{(1+\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})^{n+1}} \int du \langle x- u/2 |n\rangle \langle n | x + u/2 \rangle e^{\mathrm{i} p u/\hbar} = \sum_n \frac{\bar{n}_\mathrm{th}^n}{(1+\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})^{n+1}} W_n(x,p), \end{equation} where $W_n(x,p)$ is the Wigner functions of the n-Fock state given by:

\begin{equation} W_n(x,p) = \frac{2}{\hbar \pi}(-1)^n e^{-2 \frac{H}{\hbar \omega} } L_n(4 \frac{H}{\hbar \omega} ), \end{equation} with $H= \frac{1}{2} m \omega^2 x^2 + \frac{p^2}{2 m}$, and $L_n$ the nth Laguerre poloynomial.

Everything correct until here?

Now I am too stupid to do the last sum. Was looking for identities and what not half of this day.

Any ideas? I would also appreciate a simpler solution. Thanks for any Help!

  • $\begingroup$ You do know that the suitably scaled Laguerre polynomials, like their cousins Hermite, are a complete set, no? You are comfortable with their generating function? I believe you should write it in your question itself. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Sep 14 '19 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, unfortunately, their property of being a complete set doesn't help me, since I have these n dependent prefactors. I will write down what I did in more detail. Honestly, I hoped that there would be an easier solution :) $\endgroup$ – Luke Sep 14 '19 at 21:04

I believe the correct Wigner function for the eigenstates is half yours, so take it to be \begin{equation} W_n(x,p) = \frac{(-1)^n}{\hbar \pi} e^{- z/2} L_n(z ), \end{equation} where $z=4 H/\hbar\omega $.

You know that, since the resolution of the identity must be $$ \sum_n W_n= \frac{1}{2\pi \hbar}=1/h, $$ which, indeed, holds (trivially checkable) by dint of the standard generating function of the Laguerre polynomials, $$ \sum_n t^n L_n(z)= \frac{e^{-tz/(1-t)}} {1-t} ~~. $$

Your sum then readily collapses to $$ \sum_n \frac{\bar{n}_\mathrm{th}^n}{(1+\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})^n} W_n(x,p)= \frac{e^{-z/2}}{\pi \hbar} \sum_n \left (\frac{- \bar{n}_\mathrm{th}}{1+ \bar{n}_\mathrm{th}} \right )^n L_n (z) = \frac{ (1+\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})}{\pi \hbar (1+2\bar{n}_\mathrm{th})} ~ e^{-z / 2 (1+2 \bar{n}_\mathrm{th}) } , $$ a gaussian in x and p with the requisite widths.

These are the basic maneuvers in phase-space quantization, Thomas L. Curtright, David B. Fairlie, & Cosmas K. Zachos, A Concise Treatise on Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space, World Scientific, 2014.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is such a very sweet solution. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 15 '19 at 2:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – Luke Sep 15 '19 at 4:16
  • $\begingroup$ in the last step of the last expression, could it be that the $1+n_{\text{th}}$ factor at the nominator is not supposed to be there? If I understand the notation and $z=2(x^2+p^2)$, the normalisation doesn't seem to match. Integrating in polar coordinates, we have $\int_0^\infty dr 2\pi r e^{-r^2/(1+2n)}= \pi(1+2n)$ (I'm defining $\zeta=x+ip$, so that $z=2|\zeta|^2$, and writing $r=|\zeta|$) $\endgroup$ – glS Sep 28 '20 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I won't chase the normalizations... and I saw you altered the question's... Suffice it to say that the answer is the product of two Gaussians, in x and p respectively, so with exponent $-(x^2+p^2)/(1+2\bar n_{th})$. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Sep 28 '20 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos ah, yes, I see that's the reason. The probabilities for the thermal state were given incorrectly, so there is simply an additional $1+n_{\text{th}}$ factor in the denominator of the last equation. $\endgroup$ – glS Sep 28 '20 at 21:52

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.