Norm Ordering for a many electron system

janakiraman
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I'm confused with the definition of a norm ordering of operators. The basic definition of norm ordering as understood by me was "Place the annihilation operators to right and creation operators to the left". However I also read another definition "The motivation of norm ordering is to ensure that the expectation value of the normed operators is 0 for vacuum state"

I understand the relation between the above two definitions for a simple non relativistic harmonic oscillator as explained here http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212061" . But I do not understand the relationship in a many particle system.

Assume a 'N' particle non interacting fermion system, where the ground state is provided by the Slater determinant of the 'N' lowest eigenfunctions. In this case how does placing the annihilation operators (a_{\alpha}) to the right of creation operators (a^{\beta}
ensures that the expectation w.r.t vacuum state to be 0. [Note \alpha and \beta can be different eigen states of the Hamiltonian]. Also I read in a book (Many Body theory Exposed, Chp 8) that placing the annihilator to right is valid only if \alpha and \beta are higher that the total ground state energy of the system. If they are both lower then the creation operator is placed to right of annihilation. If one of them is lower while other is higher than ground state energy, then the ordering doesn't matter. I'm really confused with this issue. It will be great if some one can throw more light into this problem
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you try the wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_ordering" ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I had a look at wikipedia. But its confusing. For example If I have 3 operators (2 annihilation (A) and one creation (C)). How must i proceed? Can i just use CAA or ACA? I believe both will give a zero expectation for vacuum state? Which of them must be used for the norm order in this case
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top