Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

126 submissions , 106 unreviewed
3,683 questions , 1,271 unanswered
4,657 answers , 19,739 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
440 active unimported users
More ...

Linearizing Quantum Operators

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
20 views

I was reading an article on harmonic generation and came across the following way of decomposing the photon field operator. $$ \hat{A}={\langle}\hat{A}{\rangle}I+ \Delta\hat{a}$$

The right hand side is a sum of the "mean" value and the fluctuations about the mean. While I understand that the physical picture is reasonable, is this mathematically correct? If so what are the constraints this imposes? In literature this is designated as a "linearization" process.

My understanding of a linear operator is that it is simply a homomorphism. I have never seen anything done like this and I'm having a hard time finding references which justify this process.

I would be grateful if somebody can point me in the right direction!

Cheers,

-Ant

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Oct 23, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Antillar Maximus (45 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
Why not look at it as at a definition of $\Delta \hat a$? The it can always be done (providing that the mean value is finite). It does not implies even any linearization. If the fluctuation magnitude is small with respect to the mean value, it can be considered "linearization", like $f(x)\approx f(x_0)+ f'(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0)$, but as a definition it is valid for any $\Delta \hat a$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Greetings Vladimir, as you have suggested, it makes sense from a pure calculus point of view (continuous and differentiable functions), but would it necessarily apply in the case of quantum operators? I am looking for a Group theoretic reason to justify this operation. The problem I am having is that the author in (http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v49/i3/p2157_1) decomposes $$\frac{d\hat{A}_1}{dz}=-\alpha \hat{A}_1^{\dagger }\hat{A}_2 e^{-{i\Delta kz}}$$ into separable differential equations, one involving only the average values and the other involving only fluctuations.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I don't see how this can be justified based on calculus reasoning alone? The first thing that comes to my mind is Cosets, but I am not sure how to take that anywhere.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Imagine the operator $\hat A$ has eigenfunctions. Then in space of its eigenfunctions it is like a regular function, not operator. And even if $\hat A$ is always an operator. The definitions work as long as they are reasonable, reversible, etc. So it may be not so necessary to search for a group theoretic reason. You just introduce new variables and you work with them, that's it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Could you link to the paper?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
Sorry guys. I am new here and I was not sure which site would be appropriate. I saw tons of F=ma questions on the Physics site, so I was not sure if my question would be answered there. Both versions have given me different answers, so thank you.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Antillar: that's just because the Physics site has been around longer and deals with a broader range of material. If you look for F=ma questions there you will of course find plenty of them ;-)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

The operation you mentioned $$\Delta \hat{a} = \hat{A}-\langle \hat{A}\rangle \hat{I}$$ is just shifting of the annihilation operator. Typically people even drop the identity and write $$\hat{a}_{new}=\hat{a}_{old}-\alpha_0,$$ where $\alpha_0$ is a complex number. In your question the shift is such that $\langle \hat{a}_{new} \rangle = 0$, which may be convenient for calculations. In particular when the pump beam has many photons, the quantum part (i.e. related to $\hat{a}_{new}$) may be neglected.

Additionally, $\hat{a}_{new}$ is an annihilation operator with the same anti-commutation relations as $\hat{a}_{old}$.

From mathematical point of view it is a perfectly legit operation. Moreover, both operators have the same domain, and spectrum only shifted by $\alpha_0$. To see that domain is the same take any $|\psi\rangle \in \text{dom}(\hat{a}_{old})$. Then denoting $|\phi\rangle := \hat{a}_{old} |\psi\rangle$, we check that $\hat{a}_{new} |\psi\rangle = |\phi\rangle-\alpha_0|\psi\rangle$ is a well-defined vector.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 24, 2011 by Piotr Migdal (1,255 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...