Introduction
(The idea to this question came from my answer to Uniqueness of quantum ladder for the harmonic oscillator)
The Hamiltonian H for quantum harmonic oscillator can be written in terms of the ladder operators a+ and a− as H=ℏω(a+a−+1/2)=ℏω(N+1/2),
Any operator M such that [N,M]=λM, where λ is a number, produces the same effect, getting new eigenvalues and eigenstates: NM|ψ⟩=(c+λ)M|ψ⟩.
The question
Can operators with non-integer grade be defined?
For example, if the operator √a+ can be defined, then [a+a−,√a+]=a+[a−,√a+]=12√a+,
An operator such as the above one would produce a different spectrum and it is very well established that this is impossible in the following questions:
Proof that energy states of a harmonic oscillator given by ladder operator include all states
So the answer to the above question is negative, but all the answers cited above resort to the actual spectrum to get a proof and my real question is:
Is it possible to prove that non-integer powers of the operators a+ and a− do not exist without resort to the spectrum?
I mean a proof like that ladder operators do not have inverse for finite-dimensional vector spaces: if the ladder operator M has inverse then N−MNM−1=λ1, but the trace of the left-hand side is zero, while the trace of right-hand side is not, a contradiction.
Position representation
In position representation, the question is if differential operators such as √x−ddx exist. I search a lot for fractional differential operators, but I didn't find anything that could provide any help. I thought in expressing the operator as √x√1−d/dxx and developing the second square root as a power series, but there is some ambiguity as x and d/dx do not commute.
Answer
Let us for simplicity just consider the square root as an example of a non-integer power. Square roots of operators are usually only defined for semipositive operators, but a±=a†∓ are not even normal operators, cf. the CCR [a−,a+] = ℏ1.
Nevertheless, if we ignore this fact, then we must demand for consistency [√a−,a+] = ℏ2√a−,[a−,√a+] = ℏ2√a+,
as OP essentially already deduced. Eq. (2) clashes with the fact that a± are usually taken to be not invertible.Nevertheless, if we are willing to ignore this as well, then we should next find a consistent formula for [√a−,√a+] = ?
This turns out to be harder than it looks.We conjecture that the appropriate formula (3) is an infinite series [√a−,√a+] = ∞∑k=1((2k−1)!!)2ℏk22kk!a1/2−k+a1/2−k−,
and more generally [ar−,as+] = ∞∑k=1r!s!ℏk(r−k)!(s−k)!k!as−k+ar−k−,r,s ∈ C,where r!:=Γ(r+1). The conjecture (4) is mainly based on the fact that eq. (4) is correct for non-negative integers r,s∈N0, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.A non-trivial consistency check of eq. (4) (which we haven't performed) is whether operator composition remains associative with the rule (4).
No comments:
Post a Comment