A Hamiltonian in second quantization

hello_world30
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Proving Hamiltonian of a simple harmonic oscillator in second quantization
Hello ! I require some guidance on this prove :
IMG_1316.jpg
I normally derive the Hamiltonian for a SHO in Hilbert space with a term of 1/2 hbar omega included. However, I am unsure of how one derives this from Hilbert space to Fock space. I have attached my attempt at it as an image below. Any input will be of great help. Cheers.
IMG_1318.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1316.jpg
    IMG_1316.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 242
Physics news on Phys.org
You just have to express ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{p}## in terms of the operators ##\hat{a}## and ##\hat{a}^{\dagger}## and subtract, without essentially changing the physics, the vacuum-energy contribution by "normal ordering".

In this case of a single harmonic oscillator your "Fock space" is just the single-particle Hilbert space you started with, and there is no "2nd quantization done". This you achieve by quantizing the Schrödinger field, leading to a real Fock space.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and hello_world30
vanhees71 said:
You just have to express ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{p}## in terms of the operators ##\hat{a}## and ##\hat{a}^{\dagger}## and subtract, without essentially changing the physics, the vacuum-energy contribution by "normal ordering".

In this case of a single harmonic oscillator your "Fock space" is just the single-particle Hilbert space you started with, and there is no "2nd quantization done". This you achieve by quantizing the Schrödinger field, leading to a real Fock space.
IMG_1319.jpg
IMG_1320.jpg


Thank you for your prompt reply. Why is it that if I substitute x and p operators that are exressed in terms of a and a^(+) into the Hamiltonian , it does not have the 1/2 hbar omega term, but when I use the conventional way of deriving the Hamiltonian (starting from aa^+) then I get a Hamiltonian with 1/2 hbar omega ?
 
You must be more careful with operator ordering! You should get the last equation on your scanned calculations (BTW, it's much less work and better for the forum to use the built-in LaTeX feature. Click the LaTeX guide (link at the left directly under the text editor):

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

Concerning the calculation, note that
$$(\hat{a}-\hat{a}^{\dagger})^2=\hat{a}^2 - \hat{a} \hat{a}^{\dagger} - \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a}+ \hat{a}^{\dagger 2}$$
and
$$(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dagger})^2=\hat{a}^2 + \hat{a} \hat{a}^{\dagger} + \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a} + \hat{a}^{\dagger 2}.$$
From that you get
$$(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dagger})^2-(\hat{a}-\hat{a}^{\dagger})^2=2 (\hat{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger} + \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a})=2([\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}]+2 \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a}]=4 \left (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a} + \frac{1}{2} \right).$$
Plugging this into your equation for the Hamiltonian, you get your final equation (1),
$$\hat{H}=\hbar \omega \left (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a} + \frac{1}{2} \right).$$
The additive piece ##\hbar \omega/2 \hat{1}## is just a constant operator commuting with everything, and just counting the energy of the ground state as zero, you get the equivalent Lagrangian
$$\hat{H}'=\hbar \omega \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a},$$
which describes the same physics as the original Hamiltonian, except that your zero level for energy is shifted.
 
@hello_world30 please do not enter your equations as images. Use the PF LaTeX feature to enter them directly into your post. (You will see a "LaTeX Guide" link at the lower left of the post window.)
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
67
Views
11K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Back
Top