Physics Help Forum Ladder Operators - I need help.

 Quantum Physics Quantum Physics Help Forum

 May 30th 2018, 12:45 PM #1 Physics Team   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore Posts: 1,574 Ladder Operators - I need help. In his text Quantum Mechanics - 2nd Ed. by David Griffiths, the author does something which I fail to understand how he got it. The section his is book on this is here http://www.newenglandphysics.org/oth...ths_ladder.pdf How did Griffiths get Eq. [2.65] on page 48? Thanks, Pete
 May 30th 2018, 02:16 PM #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Somerset, England Posts: 995 Doesn't this arise because the commutator of {a+a-} = 1 ?
May 30th 2018, 03:00 PM   #3
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,574
 Originally Posted by studiot Doesn't this arise because the commutator of {a+a-} = 1 ?
Not that I could see.

FYI: [A, B] is the commutator of A and B while {A, B} is he anticommutator.

 May 30th 2018, 04:19 PM #4 Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Somerset, England Posts: 995 I downloaded your scans, but haven't had time to wade through them yet to get the hang of Griffith's notation. (I don't have his QM book) Hopefully I'll be able to do that tomorrow. As to brackets, let's say it's that shift key at work again. The number of times I accidentally hit the bloody capslock which is in the wrong place on my laptop and end up with a line of typing I have to redo as it is in the wrong case. Pmb likes this.
 May 30th 2018, 04:41 PM #5 Physics Team   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore Posts: 1,574 I can place Griffiths text on my website if you want. When you download it let me to so I can delete it. Its the newer second edition too! You should see the massive physics library I have. It takes 2 DVDs to put them all on. I'll mail you a copy if you'd like.
 May 31st 2018, 05:13 AM #6 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Glasgow Posts: 280 Can you scan page 47 please?
May 31st 2018, 06:19 AM   #7
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,574
 Originally Posted by benit13 Can you scan page 47 please?
Whoops!

Done. A friend of mine sent me a description of what's going on. I'll figure it out after I wake up.

Last edited by Pmb; May 31st 2018 at 06:23 AM.

 May 31st 2018, 11:45 AM #8 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Glasgow Posts: 280 Thanks for the extra page. I think it's easier than it looks: Eq. 2.57: $\displaystyle \hbar \omega \left(a_{\pm}a_{\mp} \pm \frac{1}{2}\right) \psi = E \psi$ Let $\displaystyle \psi = \psi_n$ and $\displaystyle E = E_n = \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right) \hbar \omega$ from Eq. 2.61. Therefore $\displaystyle \hbar\omega \left(a_{\pm}a_{\mp} \pm \frac{1}{2}\right) \psi_n = E_n \psi_n = \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right)\hbar\omega \psi_n$ Cancel $\displaystyle \hbar \omega$ and expand brackets: $\displaystyle a_{\pm}a_{\mp}\psi_n \pm \frac{1}{2}\psi_n = n \psi_n + \frac{1}{2}\psi_n$ $\displaystyle \mp$ the term $\displaystyle \pm \frac{1}{2} \psi_n$ on both sides then yields $\displaystyle a_{\pm}a_{\mp}\psi_n = \left(n + \frac{1}{2} \mp \frac{1}{2}\right) \psi_n$ which expressed separately yields $\displaystyle a_{+}a_{-}\psi_n = n \psi_n$ and $\displaystyle a_{-}a_{+}\psi_n = \left(n+1\right) \psi_n$ Pmb and studiot like this.
Jun 1st 2018, 12:54 AM   #9
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,574
 Originally Posted by benit13 Thanks for the extra page. I think it's easier than it looks:
Thank you very much. Yep. That's what my friend showed me. He added that Griffith wasn't his usual clear self and that's how I got confused. In this particular case it appeared to me from his writing that Eq. (26,5)) followed fom what was before it. And my friend teaches QM at MIT using this text.

I wanted to slap myself once I realized how easy it was.

Thanks for you help.

Last edited by Pmb; Jun 2nd 2018 at 08:20 PM.

 Jun 1st 2018, 12:50 PM #10 Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Somerset, England Posts: 995 This 'ladder technique' is often presented in QM as something new and cunning but it is really quite old and was originated by messers Newton and Gregory several hundred years ago. It also goes under the name the shift operator or the displacement operator. As such it was originally developed as a result of Newton's study of finite differences. If you think about it is is not so suprising that step up followed by step down leaves you back where you started so if A is the upshift and B is the downshift then BA = 1. However AB is more tricky because it depends upon where you start since there is no lower level to descend to if you start with a downshift. About the Griffiths book I note it is being offered at reasonable price by lots of vendors, but there seems to be some discrepancies as to whether they are offereing a hardback or paperback, whether the edition is first or second (what's the date of the second please?) or some 'student version' and what the difference between the European and US versions are. Comments appreciated as I might buy one copy. Last edited by studiot; Jun 1st 2018 at 01:45 PM.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post toyota11 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Mar 15th 2012 12:54 PM VincentP Special and General Relativity 0 Nov 23rd 2011 05:27 AM aaaa202 Quantum Physics 1 Jan 4th 2011 09:04 PM CorruptioN Quantum Physics 1 Sep 26th 2010 06:13 AM sathys Quantum Physics 8 Apr 17th 2008 12:26 PM