# Diagonalizing a linearized optomechanical Hamiltonian

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
692 views

Hi all,

in the paper Nonlinear Interaction Effects in a Strongly Driven Optomechanical Cavity, the authors diagonalize the Hamiltonian (equation (2) in the paper)

$H_1=-\Delta d^\dagger d+\omega_Mb^\dagger b+G(d+d^\dagger)(b+b^\dagger)$

in the appendix (equations S1-S3). First they define the vector $\vec X=[b\,d\,b^\dagger\,d^\dagger]^T$, and then say it can be done "by standard means". I assumed they would mean writing the Hamiltonian as

$H=\vec X^T M \vec X,\quad M=\left(\begin{matrix}\omega_M&0&0&0\\G&-\Delta&G&0\\0&0&0&0\\G&0&G&0\end{matrix}\right)$

but $M$ is not diagonalisable according to WolframAlpha.

What am I missing here?

You ignored the tensor product structure of the Hilbert space (assuming that $b$ and $d$ act on different components of a tensor product).

If done correctly, your $M$ should be Hermitian since $H_1$ is.

Watch out: Your problem arises because this second-quantized Hamiltonian contains terms that do not conserve the particle number (e.g. $d b$ in the "G" term). As a result, when "diagonalizing" such a Hamiltonian, you actually need a Bogoliubov transformation (instead of a simple unitary transformation) to obtain new normal modes. The requirement for this transformation, which mixes creation and annihilation operators, is that the new operators $d'$ and $b'$ fulfill the same bosonic commutation relations as the old ones (e.g. $[d',d'^{\dagger}]=1$).
While it is formally possible to write everything in terms of a matrix $M$ (as you have done), finding the Bogoliubov transformation is not equivalent to diagonalizing this matrix in the usual way. You need to fulfill the condition $[X_j,X_k^{\dagger}]=\delta_{jk} \sigma_k$, where $\sigma_k=+1$ for the $k=1,2$ and $\sigma_k=-1$ for $k=3,4$ in your example (the minus sign comes about because $X_3^{\dagger}=X_1$ and so on). Setting your Bogoliubov transformation to be $X_j=S_{jn} Y_n$ (summation over repeated indices), this implies $S \Sigma S^{\dagger} = \Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ would be the diagonal matrix with entries given by $\sigma_k$ ($1,1,-1,-1$). This is different from the usual unitary transformation, and indeed is known as a symplectic transformation.
 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): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: 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$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflowThen 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.