1
$\begingroup$

I could not find anything on that on google, or here on physics stack exchange, which surprises me. My problem is, that I do not see, why exactly

$$\left<a\right> = \left<a^\dagger\right> = 0,$$

where <...> is defined via the path integral, with $A$, $B$ being operators, $a$,$b$ their coherent states and S the action of the physical system:

$$\left<AB\right> = \frac{\int\mathcal{D}(a,b) ~a, b ~\mathrm{exp}(-S)}{\int\mathcal{D}(a,b)~ \mathrm{exp}(-S)},$$

e.g. used to calculate the correlation function / Green's function, e.g. in imaginary time:

$$G(\tau)=\left<a(\tau) a^\dagger(0)\right>.$$

Now I know, that $\left<a\right>$ and $\left<a^\dagger\right>$ have to vanish, as long as the Hamiltonian in S conserves the particle number. But I can't see, why it is zero on mathematical grounds.

Note: Usually I compute the correlation function as follows. $\mathcal{Z}$ is the partition function, $\bar \phi, \phi$ are coherent states, defined via $a \left|\phi\right> = \phi \left|\phi\right>$ and $H$ is the Hamiltonian.

$$S=\int\mathrm{d}\tau ~ \bar\phi ~ (\partial_\tau-H) ~\phi.$$

Lets assume a quadratic Hamiltonian and $\phi$, $\bar \phi$, $u$ and $\bar u$ all are functions of $\tau$.

$$\left<a(\tau) a^\dagger(0)\right> = \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z_0}} \int\mathcal{D}(\bar \phi, \phi) ~\phi \bar \phi ~\mathrm{exp}(-S) $$

$$= \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z_0}} \frac{\delta^2}{\delta u \delta \bar u}\Big|_{u=\bar u=0} \int\mathcal{D}(\bar \phi, \phi) ~\mathrm{exp}\Big[-\int\mathrm{d}\tau ~ \big\{\bar\phi ~ (\partial_\tau-H) ~\phi + \bar\phi u + \bar u \phi\big\}\Big] $$

$$= \frac{\delta^2}{\delta u \delta \bar u}\Big|_{u=\bar u=0} ~ ~\mathrm{exp}\Big[\int\mathrm{d}\tau ~ \bar u (\partial_\tau - H)^{-1} u\Big]= \mathrm{det}\big(\partial_\tau-H\big)^{-1} .$$

Now I cannot see, where this goes wrong, if I take $\left<a\right>$ or $\left<a^\dagger\right>$. Especially (!) because for a superconductor, $\left<a^\dagger a^\dagger\right>$ can be non zero, so it depends on the Hamiltonian, which correlators vanish and which do not, right?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

OP asks about the path integral formalism.

  • More generally, one may prove that

    1. if the action $S[\phi]$ and the path integral measure ${\cal D}\phi$ have a global $U(1)$ symmetry $$\phi~\longrightarrow~ \phi^{\prime}~=~e^{iq\theta}\phi;\tag{A}$$

    2. and if the quantity $$F[\phi]~\longrightarrow~ F[\phi^{\prime}]~=~e^{iQ\theta}F[\phi]\tag{B}$$ has non-zero $U(1)$-charge $Q\neq 0$;

    then by changing the integration variables in the path integral one may show that the corresponding correlator transforms as

    $$\begin{align} \langle F \rangle_J ~:=~~& \frac{1}{Z[J]}\int \! {\cal D}\phi~\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S[\phi] +J_k\phi^k \right)\right)F[\phi] \cr ~=~~&\frac{1}{Z[J]}\int \! {\cal D}\phi^{\prime}~\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S[\phi^{\prime}] +J_k\phi^{\prime k} \right)\right)F[\phi^{\prime}] \cr ~\stackrel{(A)+(B)}{=}& \frac{1}{Z[e^{iq\theta}J]}\int \! {\cal D}\phi~\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S[\phi] +J_ke^{iq_k\theta}\phi^k \right)\right)e^{iQ\theta}F[\phi] \cr ~=~~&e^{iQ\theta}\langle F \rangle_{e^{iq\theta}J}. \end{align} \tag{C}$$

  • In particular

    $$ \langle F \rangle_{J=0} ~\stackrel{(C)}{=}~0.\tag{D} $$

  • The $U(1)$ symmetry could e.g. be global gauge symmetry, flavor symmetry, particle number symmetry, ghost number symmetry, etc. OP's scenario can be viewed as a special case of eq. (D).

  • We can say more. Such symmetry implies $U(1)$-invariance of

    1. the path integral/partition function $$Z[J]~=~Z[e^{iq\theta}J],\tag{E}$$ i.e. the generator of all Feynman diagrams;

    2. the generator $$W_c[J]~=~W_c[e^{iq\theta}J]\tag{F}$$ of connected Feynman diagrams;

    3. and the effective/proper action $$\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}]~=~\Gamma[e^{iq\theta}\phi_{\rm cl}],\tag{G}$$ i.e. the generator of 1PI Feynman diagrams.$^1$

  • In particular

    • the connected $n$-point correlation functions $$\langle \phi^{k_1}\ldots \phi^{k_n}\rangle^c_{J=0}~=~\left(\frac{\hbar}{i}\right)^{n-1}W_{c,n}^{k_1\ldots k_n}\tag{H}$$ must preserve the $U(1)$-symmetry.

    • Similarly, the $n$-point 1PI-coefficient functions $$\Gamma_{n,k_1\ldots k_n}~=~\left.\frac{\delta^n \Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}]}{\delta\phi^{k_1}_{\rm cl}\ldots \delta\phi^{k_n}_{\rm cl}} \right|_{\phi_{\rm cl}=0}\tag{I}$$ in $\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}]$ must preserve the $U(1)$-symmetry, cf. e.g. my Phys.SE answer here.

    • In other words, Feynman diagrams must respect the $U(1)$ symmetry. This can e.g. explain why a fermion line cannot break.

--

$^1$ Eq. (G) can be seen from the fact that if the sources transform as $$J~\longrightarrow~ J^{\prime}~=~e^{-iq\theta}J,\tag{J}$$ then the classical fields $\phi_{\rm cl}=\frac{\delta W_c[J]}{\delta J}$ transform as $$\phi_{\rm cl}~\longrightarrow~ \phi^{\prime}_{\rm cl}~=~e^{iq\theta}\phi_{\rm cl}.\tag{K}$$

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, it depends on the Hamiltonian. Specifically, if we add a linear term $H\to H+\lambda (a+a^{\dagger})$ this will not vanish. A simple mathematical way the expectation value $\langle a \rangle$ must vanish for a standard Hamiltonian quadratic in $a$ is that while the Hamiltonian is even under $a\to -a$ this expectation value is odd, therefore it must vanish (unless we take into account a spontaneous symmetry breaking. Then it can get a non-zero VEV)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Ah that's how you can show it, thank you!! What about $<aa>$ though? It is also even under $a \rightarrow -a$, right? $\endgroup$ – yanscha Mar 13 '20 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Oh wait, I think, I misunderstood you. With "quadratic in a" you mean quadratic in the annihilation operator, not like $a a^\dagger$, right? Then I see your argument! Thank you. But then still, I have no idea how to see, that $<a>$ is zero for example for a tight binding Hamiltonian $H=-t \sum_{<ij>}a_i^\dagger a_j$. $\endgroup$ – yanscha Mar 13 '20 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ No, I mean a standard Hamiltonian like the tight-binding one you wrote. Note that $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ are not independent. If you take $a\to -a$ you must do the same for its hermitian conjugate, in order for it to remain the hermitian conjugate. In fact, for tight-binding Hamiltonians the symmetry is more general $a\to \exp(i\theta)a$ and this $U(1)$ symmetry reflects the conservation of number of particles. For a SC Hamiltonian this $U(1)$ symmetry breaks and only the $Z_2$ remains (multiplication by $-1$) as the number of particles if not conserved, but the parity of it is. $\endgroup$ – user245141 Mar 14 '20 at 8:11
0
$\begingroup$

The average is taken over the ground state or it is a thermodynamic average (not average over the coherent states), i.e. \begin{equation} \langle A \rangle = \sum_n e^{-\beta E_n} \langle n | A| n\rangle . \end{equation} The quantum numbers implied by $n$ include the number of particles. If operator $A$ changes this number, the matrix elements are zero, because the wave functions corresponding to different quantum numbers are orthogonal.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! Your right, maybe I should have made it more clear, that it's a thermodynamic average! But still, this average (at least in QM) depends on the Hamiltonian, as can be seen for conventional superconductors, where $<a^\dagger a^\dagger>$ does not vanish, because the ground state is a superposition of the vacuum and $a_k^\dagger a_{-k}^\dagger |0>$. So there must be another way to argue, that it vanishes, depending on the Hamiltonian, right? $\endgroup$ – yanscha Mar 13 '20 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think that it vanishes in the case of a superconductor... but this could be checked by direct calculation. $\endgroup$ – Roger Vadim Mar 13 '20 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, for superconductor the particle number should change by 2 - a Cooper pair. $\endgroup$ – Roger Vadim Mar 13 '20 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yeah you are right. I was thinking way too hard in the path integral direction! Thank you! $\endgroup$ – yanscha Mar 13 '20 at 21:19

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.