3
$\begingroup$

Symmetry of this system has been discussed here but I'm still confused.

Consider a $N$-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator, with hamiltonian

$$H = \hbar \omega \left(a^\dagger_i a_i + \frac{N}{2} \right).$$

$a^\dagger_i$ and $a_i$ being the creation and annihilation operators for dimension $i$, and using summation convention on repeated indices.

Some textbooks I've read say that the system possesses an $U(N)$ symmetry. The given justification is that if $M$ is an $N \times N$ unitary matrix then the transformation

$$ a_i \to a'_i = M_{ij} a_j \quad i=1,\dots,N \tag{1}$$

leaves the hamiltonian invariant, since $$ (M_{ij} a_j)^\dagger M_{ik} a_k = a^\dagger_j {M}^*_{ij} M_{ik} a_k = a^\dagger_j \delta_{jk} a_k = a^\dagger_j a_j .$$ However I've been taught that symmetries are realized in Quantum Mechanics through (anti-)unitary operators on a Hilbert space, $U : \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}$. What I don't understand is how the previous symmetry trasformation is realized in practice.

I suspect it's something like an operator $U$ which acts on the annihilation operator as

\begin{equation}U a_i U^\dagger = M_{ij} a_j \tag{2} \\ \implies U a^\dagger_i U^\dagger = (U a_i U^\dagger)^\dagger = M^*_{ij} a^\dagger_j \end{equation}

where $M$ is a $N\times N$ unitary matrix, $M \in U(N)$. Which leaves me to a first question: does there exist, for every matrix $M \in U(N)$, a unitary operator $U:\mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}$ which transforms $a_i$ like (2)?

In some special cases, e.g. parity which changes sign of $x_i$ and $p_i$ and thus of $a_i$ and $a^\dagger_i$ the answer is obviously yes, but I'm not sure it works in the general case.

If it's true, I can understand the original claim, being: to each matrix $M \in U(N)$ we can define an "associated" operator $U$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $$ U H U^\dagger = H$$ because $$ U H U^\dagger = \hbar \omega \left( U a_i^\dagger a_i U^\dagger + \frac{N}{2} \right) = \hbar \omega \left( U a_i^\dagger U^\dagger U a_i U^\dagger + \frac{N}{2} \right) = \hbar \omega \left(a^\dagger_j a_j + \frac{N}{2} \right) = H$$ so there exists a group of unitary transformations homomorphic to $U(N)$ which leave $H$ invariant, i.e. which represent a symmetry of the system.

Perhaps, instead, the correct $U$ is not the one in eqn (2) but another one. Is the existence of a unitary transformation in $\mathcal{H}$ that "mimics" the "change of basis" in eqn (1) implied by Wigner's theorem somehow instead?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The given answer outlines the essential idea behind the Stone-von Neumann theorem (which is not restricted to linear transformations). If you are interested in constructing $U$ from the operators $a_i,a_i^\dagger$, you can check out my answer to a more general question (in your case $B=0$). $\endgroup$
    – LPZ
    Apr 18, 2023 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @LPZ thank you! I'm trying to understand the connection with the theorem. Are you referring to the fact that equation (1) in my question implies $x_i \to x'_i$ and $p_i \to p'_i$ which satisfy $[x'_i, p'_j] = i \hbar \delta_{ij}$? Is it sufficient to conclude that the transformation of the operators is unitary? $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2023 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you can reason directly with the $a_i$. Since $M$ is unitary, $$[a_i,a_j^\dagger]=[a_i',a_j'^\dagger] = \delta_{ij}$$ (in fact it is not only sufficient, it is also necessary) the SvN theorem guarantees the existence of a unitary operator liking the two: $$a_i' = Ua_iU^\dagger$$ and the proof essentially uses the idea of E. Anikin's answer. Note that the linear relation between $a_i'$ and $a_i$ is not needed, only the conservation of the CCR's is. $\endgroup$
    – LPZ
    Apr 18, 2023 at 21:40

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

I've made a sketch of a proof that for every unitary matrix $M_{ij}$, there exists an operator in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ which transforms the annihilation operators as \begin{equation} a_i \to M_{ij} a_j. \end{equation} Such an operator $U$ can be constructed in the following way. The Hilbert space of $N$ oscillators is spanned by the Fock states $|k_1, \dots k_N\rangle$ with the operators $a_i, a^\dagger_i$ acting on them. Now, let us define a new set of creation/annihilation operators $a_i, a'^\dagger_i$ as \begin{equation} a'_i = M_{ij}a_j. \end{equation} As $M_{ij}$ is unitary, the operators $a'_i, a'^\dagger_i$ obey the commutation relations \begin{equation} [a'_i, a'^\dagger_j] = \delta_{ij}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} [a'_i, a'_j] = 0, \end{equation} \begin{equation} [a'^\dagger_i, a'^\dagger_j] = 0. \end{equation} (This can be checked by a simple calculation.) Therefore, they can be used to construct a new Fock basis for the system of coupled oscillators: \begin{equation} |k_1\dots k_N\rangle' = \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1!\dots k_N!}} (a'^\dagger_1)^{k_1}\dots (a'^\dagger_N)^{k_N}|0\dots 0\rangle. \end{equation} The unitary $U$ which transforms a basis set $\{|k_1\dots k_N\rangle\}$ to $\{|k_1\dots k_N\rangle'\}$ is the unitary that you asked for. Indeed, let us consider the action of $Ua_iU^\dagger$ on an arbitrary Fock state: \begin{equation} U a_i U^\dagger |k_1\dots k_N\rangle' = U a_i |k_1\dots k_N\rangle = U\sqrt{k_i} |k_1, \dots, k_i - 1, \dots , k_N\rangle = \sqrt{k_i}|k_1\dots, k_i - 1,\dots k_N\rangle' \end{equation} On the other hand, \begin{equation} a_i'|k_1\dots k_N\rangle' = \sqrt{k_i}|k_1\dots, k_i - 1,\dots k_N\rangle' \end{equation} by construction. So, the operator $U a_i U^\dagger$ acts on all Fock states the same way as $a_i'$, which proves the equality \begin{equation} U a_i U^\dagger = a_i' = M_{ij} a_j \end{equation} Obviously, the operator $U$ preserves the Hamiltonian of $N$ oscillators from the question.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! There is a small typo in the formula for the new Fock basis (the one under the commutators), right? $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2023 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I see, thank you! $\endgroup$
    – E. Anikin
    Apr 19, 2023 at 20:46
2
$\begingroup$

Maybe it's simpler to provide an explicit construction. Consider the following unitary operator: $$ U = e^{-i \sum_{ij} a^{\dagger}_i H_{ij} a_j} $$ for a Hermitian matrix $H_{ij}$. Using the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula, it shouldn't be too hard to convince yourself that $$ U a_i U^{\dagger} = \sum_j[e^{iH}]_{ij} a_j $$ where $[e^{iH}]_{ij}$ are the matrix elements of the matrix-exponential $e^{iH}$. If your desired matrix $M$ is an element of $SU(N)$, then it can always be realized as the exponential of a Hermitian matrix. I believe getting the rest of $U(N)$ from there should not be too difficult.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! I'll try to work out the details as soon as I can $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2023 at 20:35

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.