Suppose that $\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(x)$, $\hat{\Psi}(x)$ are the usual field operators in second quantisation for some identical particle, and that $\hat{c}^\dagger_n$, $\hat{c}_n$ are the creation and annihilation operators in some discrete single-particle basis, with spatial wavefunctions $\phi_n(x)$ for each mode.

Suppose I know the one body density matrix in that discrete basis - that is, I know $\langle \hat{c}_n^\dagger \hat{c}_m\rangle$ for all $n$ and $m$. I want to use this to calculate the spatial density $\rho(x)=\langle\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(x)\hat{\Psi}(x)\rangle$. If I were to guess this by intuition, I would have rather confidently said that it would just be the sum of the spatial densities in each mode - that is: $$ \rho(x)=\sum_n |\phi_n(x)|^2\langle\hat{c}^\dagger_n\hat{c}_n\rangle $$ However, this seems to be incorrect. If I take the definition of $\rho(x)$ and expand out the field operators as $\hat{\psi}(x)=\sum_n \phi_n(x)\hat{c}_n$, $\hat{\psi}^\dagger(x)=\sum_n \phi_n^*(x)\hat{c}^\dagger_n$, then I find: $$\rho(x)=\langle\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(x)\hat{\Psi}(x)\rangle=\sum_{nm}\phi_n^*(x)\phi_m(x)\langle \hat{c}_n^\dagger \hat{c}_m\rangle$$ where we have off-diagonal terms for which $n\neq m$ contributing! This surprises me. Is there a good physical intuition for why these inter-mode terms contribute to the spatial density (or have I made a mistake, or do they cancel out somehow)?


1 Answer 1


The $n=m$ contribution would give you the "diagonal" density distribution, whereas the $n\neq m$ gives you the "off-diagonal" one.

Intuitively, if you only have a diagonal component, then the spatial profile at $x$ does not care in the slightest of its surroundings. If you were in a cubic lattice, it would correspond to a state localised onto one lattice site, with no tunnelling into neighbouring minima.

The $n\neq m$ contribution would in fact give you a state which is delocalised over the potential landscape, thanks to non-suppressed tunnelling among its minima locations.


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.