0
$\begingroup$

The Problem
I was trying to show that the momentum operator is given by $\sum_r c^{\dagger}_r (-i\hbar)\nabla c_r$.This is how I tried showing it

$$\hat{P}=\sum_{r,r'}c_r^{\dagger} \langle r|\hat{P}|r'\rangle c_{r'}=\sum_{r,r'}c_r^{\dagger}(i\hbar\frac{d\delta(r-r')}{dr})c_{r'}=\sum_{r,r'}-i\hbar \frac{dc_r^{\dagger}}{dr}c_{r'}\delta(r-r') = \sum_r \nabla(c_r^{\dagger})(-i\hbar)c_r$$

As you can see, something has gone wrong. The formula derived doesn't even look hermitian! ($(\nabla(c_r^{\dagger})c_r)^{\dagger}=c_r^{\dagger}c_r\nabla)$. What went wrong here?

My Thoughts
I believe the issue here is with the behaviour of the matrix elements $\langle r|\hat{P}|r'\rangle =i\hbar\frac{d\delta(r-r')}{dr}$. Is there some shenanigans happening in there due to the derivative of the delta function? If the matrix element had instead $\frac{d}{dr'}\delta(r-r')$, then I believe things would have been fine. However, did I make a mistake in evaluating this?

$\endgroup$
0
1
$\begingroup$

Your mistake is more trivial than you think: you used $\hat{P} = i \hbar \nabla$, but the correct definition that ensures canonical commutation relations is $\hat{P} = - i \hbar \nabla$. If you had used the correct definition, your last formula would obviously read $$\hat{P}= \sum_r \nabla(c_r^{\dagger})(i\hbar)c_r \tag{A}$$ And this is just one step from the formula that you want to prove: just use once again that "intregration-by-parts trick" to switch the derivation, that is $\nabla$, from $c_r^\dagger$ to $c_r$ and involving a change of sign (I mean the same trick that you used in switching the derivative $\frac{d}{dr}$ from the delta to the creation operator).

Even if it is correct, equation $(\mathrm{A})$ may look wrong to you because, as you wrote, $(\nabla(c_r^\dagger)c_r)^\dagger = c_r^\dagger c_r \nabla$, and hence it looks like our $\hat{P}$ is not hermitian. But this last equality is wrong. The thing is, you treat $\nabla$ as an operator on the Fock space just like $c_r$ and $c_r^\dagger$, but it isn't. If you think about your procedure, you'll realize that $\nabla$ acts on $c_r^\dagger$, turning it in a different operator by deriving it with respect to $r$ (and not by plain composition of operators). It is the operator $c_r^\dagger$ itself that depends on $r$ and is derived with respect to it, not the vector resulting from applying $c_r^\dagger$ to some vector.

So, the expression $\nabla(c_r^\dagger)c_r$ is not the composition of three operators, but rather of only two of them, namely $\nabla(c_r^\dagger)$ and $c_r$. Therefore, its hermitian conjugate is $(\nabla(c_r^\dagger)c_r)^\dagger = c_r^\dagger \nabla(c_r)$. Use this last formula along with another "integration-by-parts trick", and you will see that our $\hat{P}$ is indeed hermitian.

$\endgroup$

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.