Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Chapter 9. Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

The brief introduction to relativistic quantum mechanics, presented in this chapter, consists of two very
different parts. Its first part is a discussion of the basic elements of the quantum theory of the
electromagnetic field (usually called quantum electrodynamics, QED), including the field quantization
scheme, photon statistics, radiative atomic transitions, the spontaneous and stimulated radiation, and
so-called cavity QED. We will see, in particular, that the QED may be considered as the relativistic
quantum theory of particles with zero rest mass – photons. The second part of the chapter is a brief
review of the relativistic quantum theory of particles with non-zero rest mass, including the Dirac
theory of spin-½ particles. These theories mark the point of entry into a more complete relativistic
quantum theory – the quantum field theory – which is beyond the scope of this course.1

9.1. Electromagnetic field quantization2

Classical physics gives us3 the following general relativistic relation between the momentum p
and energy E of a free particle with rest mass m, which may be simplified in two limits – non-relativistic
and ultra-relativistic:

 
Free
mc 2  p 2 / 2m, for p  mc,
E   pc   (mc 2 ) 2
particle’s 2 1/ 2
relativistic  (9.1)
energy  pc, for p  mc .
In both limits, the transfer from classical to quantum mechanics is easier than in the arbitrary case. Since
all the previous part of this course was committed to the first, non-relativistic limit, I will now jump to a
brief discussion of the ultra-relativistic limit p >> mc, for a particular but very important system – the
electromagnetic field. Since the excitations of this field, called photons, are currently believed to have
zero rest mass m,4 the ultra-relativistic relation E = pc is exactly valid for any photon energy E, and the
quantization scheme is rather straightforward.
As usual, the quantization has to be based on the classical theory of the system – in this case, the
Maxwell equations. As the simplest case, let us consider the electromagnetic field inside a finite free-
space volume limited by ideal walls, which reflect incident waves perfectly.5 Inside the volume, the
Maxwell equations give a simple wave equation6 for the electric field
1  2E
 2E   0, (9.2)
c 2 t 2

1 Note that some material covered in this chapter is frequently taught as a part of the quantum field theory. I will
focus on the most important results that may be obtained without starting the heavy engines of that theory.
2 The described approach was pioneered by the same P. A. M. Dirac as early as 1927.
3 See, e.g., EM Chapter 9.
4 By now this fact has been verified experimentally with an accuracy of at least ~10-22 m – see S. Eidelman et al.,
e
Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004).
5 In the case of finite energy absorption in the walls, or in the wave propagation media (say, described by complex

constants  and ), the system is not energy-conserving (Hamiltonian), i.e. interacts with some dissipative
environment. Specific cases of such interaction will be considered in Sections 2 and 3 below.
6 See, e.g., EM Eq. (7.3), for the particular case  =  ,  =  , so that v2  1/ = 1/   c2.
0 0 0 0

© K. Likharev
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

and an absolutely similar equation for the magnetic field B . We may look for the general solution of Eq.
(2) in the variable-separating form
E (r, t )   p j (t )e j (r ) . (9.3)
j

Physically, each term of this sum is a standing wave whose spatial distribution and polarization
(“mode”) are described by the vector function ej(r), while the temporal dynamics, by the function pj(t).
Plugging an arbitrary term of this sum into Eq. (2), and separating the variables exactly as we did, for
example, in the Schrödinger equation in Sec. 1.5, we get
 2e j 1 p j
 2
 const   k 2j , (9.4)
ej c p j

so that the spatial distribution of the mode satisfies the 3D Helmholtz equation:
Equation
 2 e j  k 2j e j  0. (9.5) for spatial
distribution

The set of solutions of this equation, with appropriate boundary conditions, determines the set of the
functions ej, and simultaneously the spectrum of the wave number magnitudes kj. The latter values
determine the mode eigenfrequencies, following from Eq. (4):

p j   2j p j  0, with  j  k j c . (9.6)

There is a big philosophical difference between the quantum-mechanical approach to Eqs. (5)
and (6), despite their single origin (4). The first (Helmholtz) equation may be rather difficult to solve in
realistic geometries,7 but it remains intact in the basic quantum electrodynamics, with the scalar
components of the vector functions ej(r) still treated (at each point r) as c-numbers. In contrast, the
classical Eq. (6) is readily solvable (giving sinusoidal oscillations with frequency j), but this is exactly
where we can make the transfer to quantum mechanics, because we already know how to quantize a
mechanical 1D harmonic oscillator, which in classics obeys the same equation.
As usual, we need to start with the appropriate Hamiltonian – the operator corresponding to the
classical Hamiltonian function H of the proper set of generalized coordinates and momenta. The
electromagnetic field’s Hamiltonian function (which in this case coincides with the field’s energy) is8
 E 2 B2 
H   d 3 r  0  .
 (9.7)
 2 2 0 
Let us represent the magnetic field in a form similar to Eq. (3),9

7 See, e.g., various problems discussed in EM Chapter 7, especially in Sec. 7.9.

8 See, e.g., EM Sec. 9.8, in particular, Eq. (9.225). Here I am using SI units, with 00  c-2; in the Gaussian units,
the coefficients 0 and 0 disappear, but there is an additional common factor 1/4 in the equation for energy.
However, if we modify the normalization conditions (see below) accordingly, all the subsequent results, starting
from Eq. (10), look similar in any system of units.
9 Here I am using the letter q instead of x , for the generalized coordinate of the field oscillator, in order to
j, j
emphasize the difference between the former variable, and one of the Cartesian coordinates, i.e. one of the
arguments of the c-number functions e and b.

Chapter 9 Page 2 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

B (r, t )    j q j (t )b j (r ) . (9.8)
j

Since, according to the Maxwell equations, in our case the magnetic field satisfies the equation similar
to Eq. (2), the time-dependent amplitude qj of each of its modes bj(r) obeys an equation similar to Eq.
(6), i.e. in the classical theory also changes in time sinusoidally, with the same frequency j. Plugging
Eqs. (3) and (8) into Eq. (7), we may recast it as
 p 2j  2j q 2j 1 
H      0 e j (r )d r 
2 3
 0 j
b 2
r d 3
r . (9.9)
 2
j  2 
Since the distribution of constant factors between two multiplication operands in each term of Eq. (3) is
so far arbitrary, we may fix it by requiring the first integral in Eq. (9) to equal 1. It is straightforward to
check that according to the Maxwell equations, which give a specific relation between vectors E and
B,10 this normalization makes the second integral in Eq. (9) equal 1 as well, and Eq. (9) becomes
p 2j  2j q 2j
H  H j, Hj   . (9.10a)
j 2 2
Note that that pj is the legitimate generalized momentum corresponding to the generalized coordinate qj,
because it is equal to L / q j , where L is the Lagrangian function of the field – see EM Eq. (9.217):
  0E 2 B 2  p 2j  2j q 2j
L   d r 3
    Lj , Lj   . (9.10b)
 2 2 0  j 2 2
Hence we can carry out the standard quantization procedure, namely declare Hj, pj, and qj the
quantum-mechanical operators related exactly as in Eq. (10a),
Electro-
pˆ 2j  2j qˆ 2j
magnetic
mode’s Hˆ j   . (9.11)
Hamiltonian 2 2
We see that this Hamiltonian coincides with that of a 1D harmonic oscillator with the mass mj formally
equal to 1,11 and the eigenfrequency equal to j. However, in order to use Eq. (11) in the general Eq.
(4.199) for the time evolution of Heisenberg-picture operators pˆ j and qˆ j , we need to know the
commutation relation between these operators. To find them, let us calculate the Poisson bracket (4.204)
for the functions A = qj’ and B = pj”, taking into account that in the classical Hamiltonian mechanics, all
generalized coordinates qj and the corresponding momenta pj have to be considered independent
arguments of H, only one term (with j = j’ = j”) in only one of the sums (12) (namely, with j’ = j”),
gives a non-zero value (-1), so that
 q j' p j " q j' p j" 
q ,p j" P   

    j'j" . (9.12)
q j p j 
j'
j  p j q j

Hence, according to the general quantization rule (4.205), the commutation relation of the operators
corresponding to qj’ and pj” is

10See, e.g., EM Eq. (7.6).

11Selecting a different normalization of the functions ej(r) and bj(r), we could readily arrange any value of mj,
and the choice corresponding to mj = 1 is the best one just for the notation simplicity.

Chapter 9 Page 3 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

qˆ j' 
,pˆ j"  i j'j" , (9.13)

i.e. is exactly the same as for the usual Cartesian components of the radius-vector and momentum of a
mechanical particle – see Eq. (2.14).
As the reader already knows, Eqs. (11) and (13) open for us several alternative ways to proceed:
(i) Use the Schrödinger-picture wave mechanics based on wavefunctions j(qj, t). As we know
from Sec. 2.9, this way is inconvenient for most tasks, because the eigenfunctions of the harmonic
oscillator are rather clumsy.
(ii) A substantially better way (for the harmonic oscillator case) is to write the equations of the
time evolution of the operators qˆ j (t ) and pˆ j (t ) in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics.

(iii) An even more convenient approach is to use equations similar to Eqs. (5.65) to decompose
†
the Heisenberg operators qˆ j (t ) and pˆ j (t ) into the creation-annihilation operators aˆ j t  and aˆ j t  , and
work with these operators.
In this chapter, I will mostly use the last route. Replacing m with mj 1, and 0 with j, the last
forms of Eqs. (5.65) become
1/ 2 1/ 2
j 
 pˆ  j   pˆ j 
 qˆ j  i j ,
aˆ j    aˆ †j     qˆ j  i . (9.14)
     
 2 
 j  2 
   j 
Due to Eq. (13), the creation-annihilation operators obey the commutation similar to Eq. (5.68),
aˆ , aˆ †   Iˆ . (9.15)
 j j'  jj'

As a result, according to Eqs. (3) and (8), the quantum-mechanical operators of the electric and
magnetic fields are sums over all field oscillators:
1/ 2
  
Eˆ(r, t )  i   j  e j (r )  aˆ †j  aˆ j  , (9.16a) Electro-
j  2    magnetic
fields’
1/ 2
   operators
Bˆ(r, t )    j  b j (r )  aˆ †j  aˆ j  , (9.16b)
j  2   
and Eq. (11) for the jth mode’s Hamiltonian becomes
 1   1 
Hˆ j   j  aˆ †j aˆ j  Iˆ    j  nˆ j  Iˆ , with nˆ j  aˆ †j aˆ j , (9.17)
 2   2 
absolutely similar to Eq. (5.72) for a mechanical oscillator.
Now comes a very important conceptual step. From Sec. 5.4 we know that the eigenfunctions
(Fock states) nj of the Hamiltonian (17) have energies
Electro-
 1 magnetic
E j   j  n j   , n j  0, 1, 2,... (9.18) mode’s
 2 eigen-
energies
†
and, according to Eq. (5.89), the operators aˆ j and â j act on the eigenkets of these partial states as

Chapter 9 Page 4 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

aˆ j n j  n j  n j  1 , aˆ †j n j  n j  1 n j  1 ,
1/ 2 1/ 2
(9.19)

regardless of the quantum states of other modes. These rules coincide with the definitions (8.64) and
(8.68) of bosonic creation-annihilation operators, and hence their action may be considered as the
creation/annihilation of certain bosons. Such a “particle” (actually, an excitation, with energy j, of an
electromagnetic field oscillator) is exactly what is, strictly speaking, called a photon. Note immediately
that according to Eq. (16), such an excitation does not change the spatial distribution of the jth mode of
the field. So, such a “global” photon is an excitation created simultaneously at all points of the field
confinement region.
If this picture is too contrary to the intuitive image of a particle, please recall that in Chapter 2,
we discussed a similar situation with the fundamental solutions of the Schrödinger equation of a free
non-relativistic particle: they represent sinusoidal de Broglie waves existing simultaneously in all points
of the particle confinement region. The (partial :-) reconciliation with the classical picture of a moving
particle might be obtained by using the linear superposition principle to assemble a quasi-localized wave
packet, as a group of sinusoidal waves with close wave numbers. Very similarly, we may form a similar
wave packet using a linear superposition of the “global” photons with close values of kj (and hence j),
to form a quasi-localized photon. An additional simplification here is that the dispersion relation for
electromagnetic waves (at least in free space) is linear:
 j  2 j
 c  const, i.e.  0, (9.20)
k j k j
2

so that, according to Eq. (2.39a), the electromagnetic wave packets (i.e. space-localized photons) do not
spread out during their propagation. Note also that due to the fundamental classical relations p = nE/c
for the linear momentum of the traveling electromagnetic wave packet of energy E, propagating along
the direction n  k/k, and L = nE/j for its angular momentum,12 such photon may be prescribed the
linear momentum p = nj/c  k and the angular momentum L = n, with the sign depending on the
direction of its circular polarization (“helicity”).
This electromagnetic field quantization scheme should look very straightforward, but it raises an
important conceptual issue of the ground state energy. Indeed, Eq. (18) implies that the total ground-
state (i.e., the lowest) energy of the field is
Ground-
 j
Eg   ( Eg ) j  
state
energy . (9.21)
of EM field j j 2
Since for any realistic model of the field-confining volume, either infinite or not, the density of
electromagnetic field modes only grows with frequency,13 this sum diverges on its upper limit, leading
to infinite ground-state energy per unit volume. This infinite-energy paradox cannot be dismissed by
declaring the ground-state energy of field oscillators unobservable, because this would contradict
numerous experimental observations – starting perhaps from the famous Casimir effect.14 The

12 See, e.g., EM Sections 7.7 and 9.8.

13See, e.g., Eq. (1.1), which is similar to Eq. (1.90) for the de Broglie waves, derived in Sec. 1.7.
14This effect was predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder, and confirmed semi-quantitatively in
experiments by M. Sparnaay, Nature 180, 334 (1957). After this, and several other experiments, a decisive error
bar reduction (to about ~5%), providing a quantitative confirmation of the Casimir formula (23), was achieved by

Chapter 9 Page 5 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

conceptually simplest implementation of this effect involves two parallel, perfectly conducting plates of
area A, separated by a vacuum gap of thickness t << A1/2 (Fig. 1).
z

t Fig. 9.1. The simplest geometry of

the Casimir effect manifestation.

Rather counter-intuitively, the plates attract each other with a force F proportional to the area A
and rapidly increasing with the decrease of t, even in the absence of any explicit electromagnetic field
sources. The effect’s explanation is that the energy of each electromagnetic field mode, including its
ground-state energy, exerts average pressure,
E j
Pj   , (9.22)
V
on the walls constraining it to volume V. While the field’s pressure on the external surfaces on the plates
is due to the contributions (22) of all free-space modes, with arbitrary values of kz (the z-component of
the wave vector kj), in the gap between the plates the spectrum of kz is limited to the multiples of π/t, so
that the pressure on the internal surfaces is lower. This is why the net force exerted on the plates may be
calculated as the sum of the contributions (22) from all “missing” low-frequency modes in the gap, with
the minus sign. In the simplest model when the plates are made of an ideal conductor, which provides
boundary conditions E = Bn = 0 on their surfaces,15 such calculation is quite straightforward (and is
hence left for the reader’s exercise), and its result is
 2 Ac Casimir
F  4
. (9.23) effect
240t
Note that for such calculation, the high-frequency divergence of Eq. (21) is not important,
because it participates in the forces exerted on all surfaces of each plate, and cancels out from the net
pressure. In this way, the Casimir effect not only confirms Eq. (21), but also teaches us an important
lesson on how to deal with the divergences of such sums at ωj → . The lesson is: just get accustomed
to the idea that the divergence exists, and ignore this fact while you can, i.e. if the final result you are
interested in is finite. However, for some more complex problems of quantum electrodynamics (and the

S. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5 (1997) and by U. Mohideen and A. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 004549 (1998).
Note also that there are other experimental confirmations of the reality of the ground-state electromagnetic field,
including, for example, the experiments by R. Koch et al. already discussed in Sec. 7.5, and the recent spectacular
direct observations by C. Riek et al., Science 350, 420 (2015).
15 For realistic conductors, the reduction of t below ~1 μm causes significant deviations from this simple model,
and hence from Eq. (23). The reason is that for gaps so narrow, the depth of field penetration into the conductors
(see, e.g., EM Sec. 6.2), at the important frequencies ω ~ c/t, becomes comparable with t, and an adequate theory
of the Casimir effect has to involve a certain model of the penetration. (It is curious that in-depth analyses of this
problem, pioneered in 1956 by E. Lifshitz, have revealed a deep relation between the Casimir effect and the
London dispersion force which was the subject of Problems 3.16, 5.15, and 6.18 – for a review see, e.g., either I.
Dzhyaloshinskii et al., Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 4, 153 (1961), or K. Milton, The Casimir Effect, World Scientific,
2001. Recent experiments in the 100 nm – 2 m range of t, with an accuracy better than 1%, have allowed not
only to observe the effects of field penetration on the Casimir force, but even to make a selection between some
approximate models of the penetration – see D. Garcia-Sanchez et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 027202 (2012).

Chapter 9 Page 6 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

quantum theory of any other fields), this simplest approach becomes impossible, and then more
complex, renormalization techniques become necessary. For their study, I have to refer the reader to a
quantum field theory course – see the references at the end of this chapter.

9.2. Photon absorption and counting

As a matter of principle, the Casimir effect may be used to measure quantum effects in not only
the free-space electromagnetic field but also that the field arriving from active sources – lasers, etc.
However, usually such studies may be done by simpler detectors, in which the absorption of a photon by
a single atom leads to its ionization. This ionization, i.e. the emission of a free electron, triggers an
avalanche reaction (e.g., an electric discharge in a Geiger-type counter), which may be readily registered
using appropriate electronic circuitry. In good photon counters, the first step, the “trigger” atom
ionization, is the bottleneck of the whole process (the photon count), so that to analyze their statistics, it
is sufficient to consider the field’s interaction with just this atom.
Its ionization is a quantum transition from a discrete initial state of the atom to its final, ionized
state with a continuous energy spectrum, induced by an external electromagnetic field. This is exactly
the situation shown in Fig. 6.12, so we may apply to it the Golden Rule of quantum mechanics in the
form (6.149), with the system a associated with the electromagnetic field, and system b with the trigger
atom. The atom’s size is typically much smaller than the radiation wavelength, so that the field-atom
interaction may be adequately described in the electric dipole approximation (6.146)

Hˆ int  Eˆ  d̂ , (9.24)

where d̂ is the dipole moment’s operator. Hence we may associate this operator with the operand B̂ in
Eqs. (6.145)-(6.149), while the electric field operator Eˆ is associated with the operand  in those
relations. First, let us assume that our field consists of only one mode ej(r) of frequency . Then we can
keep only one term in the sum (16a), and drop the index j, so that Eq. (6.149) may be rewritten as
2 2
fin dˆ t   n e ini  a
2
Γ fin Eˆ(r, t ) ini

(9.25)
2 
2
fin aˆ † t   aˆ t  e(r ) ini fin dˆ t   n e ini
2
 a ,
 2  

where ne  e(r)/e(r) is the local direction of the vector e(r), symbols “ini” and “fin” denote the initial
and final states of the corresponding system (the electromagnetic field in the first long bracket, and the
atom in the second bracket), and the density a of the continuous atomic states should be calculated at its
final energy Efin = Eini + .
As a reminder, in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics, the initial and final states are
time-independent, while the creation-annihilation operators are functions of time. In the Golden Rule
formula (25), as in any perturbative result, this time dependence has to be calculated ignoring the
perturbation – in this case, the field-atom interaction. For the field’s creation-annihilation operators, this
dependence coincides with that of the usual 1D oscillator – see Eq. (5.141), in which 0 should be, in
our current notation, replaced with :

aˆ (t )  aˆ (0)e  it , aˆ † (t )  aˆ † (0)e  it . (9.26)

Chapter 9 Page 7 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Hence Eq. (25) becomes

2

   fin aˆ † (0)e it  aˆ (0)e  it  e(r ) ini

2
fin dˆ (t )  n e ini a . (9.27a)
 

Now let us multiply the first long bracket by exp{it}, and the second one by exp{-it}:
2 2
   fin aˆ † (0)e 2it  aˆ (0) e(r ) ini fin dˆ (t )  n e e  it ini a . (9.27b)
 
This, mathematically equivalent form of the previous relation shows more clearly that at resonant
photon absorption, only the annihilation operator gives a significant time-averaged contribution to the
first bracket matrix element. (As a reminder, the quantum-mechanical Golden Rule for time-dependent
perturbations is a result of averaging over a time interval much larger than 1/ – see Sec. 6.6.) Similarly,
according to Eq. (4.199), the Heisenberg operator of the dipole moment, corresponding to the increase
of atom’s energy by , has the Fourier components that differ in frequency from  only by ~ << ,
so that its time dependence virtually compensates the additional factor in the second bracket of Eq.
(27b), and this bracket also may have a substantial time average. Hence, in the first bracket we may
neglect the fast-oscillating term, whose average over time interval ~1/ is very close to zero.16
Now let us assume, first, that we use the same detector, characterized by the same matrix
element of the quantum transition, i.e. the same second bracket in Eq. (27), and the same final state
density a, for measurement of various electromagnetic fields – or just of the same field at different
points r. Then we are only interested in the behavior of the first, field-related bracket, and may write
*
 fin aˆe(r ) ini fin aˆe(r ) ini  ini aˆ † e* (r ) fin fin aˆe(r ) ini , (9.28)
2
  fin aˆe(r ) ini

where the creation-annihilation operators are implied to be taken at t = 0, i.e. in the Schrödinger picture,
and the initial and final states are those of the field alone. Second, let us now calculate the total rate of
transitions to all available final states of the given mode e(r). If such states formed a full and
orthonormal set, we could use the closure relation (4.44), applied to the final states, to write
Photon
†
Γ   ini aˆ † e* (r ) fin fin aˆe(r ) ini  ini aˆ aˆ ini e* (r )e(r )  n
2
ini
e(r ) , (9.29) counting
fin
rate

where, for a given field mode, nini is the expectation value of the operator nˆ  aˆ † aˆ for the initial state
of the electromagnetic field. In the more realistic case of fields in relatively large volumes, V >> 3, with
their virtually continuous spectrum of final states, the middle equality in this relation is not strictly valid,
but it is correct to a constant multiplier,17 which we are currently not interested in. Note, however, that
Eq. (29) may be substantially wrong for high-Q electromagnetic resonators (“cavities”), which may
make just one (or a few) modes available for transitions. (Quantum electrodynamics of such cavities will
be briefly discussed in Sec. 4 below.)
Let us apply Eq. (29) to several possible quantum states of the mode.

16This is essentially the same rotating wave approximation (RWA), which was already used in Sec. 6.5 and
beyond – see, e.g., the transition from Eq. (6.90) to the first of Eqs. (6.94).
17 As the Golden Rule shows, this multiplier is proportional to the density f of the final states of the
field.

Chapter 9 Page 8 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

(i) First, as a sanity check, the ground initial state, n = 0, gives no photon absorption at all. The
interpretation is easy: the ground state field, cannot emit a photon that would ionize an atom in the
counter. Again, this does not mean that the ground-state “motion” is not observable (if you still think so,
please review the Casimir effect discussion in Sec. 1), just that it cannot ionize the trigger atom –
because it does not have any spare energy for doing that.
(ii) All other coherent states (Fock, Glauber, squeezed, etc.) of the field oscillator give the same
counting rate, provided that their nini is the same. This result may be less evident if we apply Eq. (29)
to the interference of two light beams from the same source – say, in the double-slit or the Bragg-
scattering configurations. In this case, we may represent the spatial distribution of the field as a sum
e(r )  e1 (r )  e2 (r ) . (9.30)
Here each term describes one possible wave path, so that the operator product in Eq. (29) may be a
rapidly changing function of the detector position. For this configuration, our result (29) means that the
interference pattern (and its contrast) are independent of the particular state of the electromagnetic
field’s mode.
(iii) Surprisingly, the last statement is also valid for a classical mixture of the different
eigenstates of the same field mode, for example for its thermal-equilibrium state. Indeed, in this case we
need to average Eq. (29) over the corresponding classical ensemble, but it would only result in a
different meaning of averaging n in that equation; the field part describing the interference pattern is not
affected.
The last result may look a bit counter-intuitive because common sense tells us that the
stochasticity associated with thermal equilibrium has to suppress the interference pattern contrast. These
expectations are (partly :-) justified because a typical thermal source of radiation produces many field
modes j, rather than one mode we have analyzed. These modes may have different wave numbers kj and
hence different field distribution functions ej(r), resulting in shifted interference patterns. Their
summation would indeed smear the interference, suppressing its contrast.
So the use of one photon detector is not the best way to distinguish different quantum states of an
electromagnetic field mode. This task, however, may be achieved using the photon counting correlation
technique shown in Fig. 2.18
controllable
semi-transparent delay
mirror

light
source detector 2 detector 1

count
statistics Fig. 9.2. Photon count
calculation correlation measurement.

18It was pioneered as early as the mid-1950s (i.e. before the advent of lasers), by Robert Hanbury Brown and
Richard Twiss. Their second experiment was also remarkable for the rather unusual light source – the star Sirius!
(Their work was an effort to improve astrophysics interferometry techniques.)

Chapter 9 Page 9 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

In this experiment, the counter rate correlation may be characterized by the so-called second-
order correlation function of the counting rates,
Second-
1 (t )2 (t   ) order
g ( 2)
( )  , (9.31) correlation
1 (t ) 2 (t ) function

where the averaging may be carried out either over many similar experiments, or over a relatively long
time interval t >> , with usual field sources – due to their ergodicity. Using the normalized correlation
function (31) is very convenient because the characteristics of both detectors and the beam splitter (e.g.,
a semi-transparent mirror, see Fig. 2) drop out from this fraction.
Very unexpectedly for the mid-1950s, Hanbury Brown and Twiss discovered that the correlation
function depends on time delay  in the way shown (schematically) with the solid line in Fig. 3. It is
evident from Eq. (31) that if the counting events are completely independent, g(2)() should be equal to 1
– which is always the case in the limit   . (As will be shown in the next section, the characteristic
time of this approach is usually between 10-11s and 10-8s, so that for its measurement, the delay time
control may be provided just by moving one of the detectors by a human-scale distance between a few
millimeters to a few meters.) Hence, the observed behavior at   0 corresponds to a positive
correlation of detector counts at small time delays, i.e. to a higher probability of the nearly simultaneous
arrival of photons to both counters. This counter-intuitive effect is called photon bunching.

g ( 2)
2

1 Fig. 9.3. Photon bunching (solid line) and

antibunching for various n (dashed lines). The
n 1 lines approach level g(2) = 1 at    (on the
0 time scale depending on the light source).

Let us use our simple single-mode model to analyze this experiment. Now the elementary
quantum process characterized by the numerator of Eq. (31), is the correlated, simultaneous ionization
of two trigger atoms, at two spatial-temporal points {r1, t} and (r2, t – }, by the same field mode, so
that we need to make the following replacement in the first of Eqs. (25):
Eˆ(r, t )  const  Eˆ(r1 , t )Eˆ(r2 , t   ) . (9.32)
Repeating all the manipulations done above for the single-counter case, we get

Γ1 t Γ 2 t     ini aˆ (t ) † aˆ (t   ) † aˆ (t   )aˆ (t ) ini e* (r1 )e* (r2 )e(r1 )e(r2 ). (9.33)

Plugging this expression, as well as Eq. (29) for single-counter rates, into Eq. (31), we see that the field
distribution factors (as well as the detector-specific brackets and the density of states a) cancel, giving a
very simple final expression:
aˆ † (t )aˆ † (t   )aˆ (t   )aˆ (t )
g ( ) 
( 2)
2
, (9.34)
aˆ † (t )aˆ (t )

Chapter 9 Page 10 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

where the averaging should be carried out, as before, over the initial state of the field.
Still, the calculation of this expression for arbitrary  may be quite complex, because in many
cases the relaxation of the correlation function to the asymptotic value g(2)() is due to the interaction of
the light source with the environment, and hence requires the open-system techniques that were
discussed in Chapter 7. However, the zero-delay value g(2)(0) may be calculated straightforwardly,
because the time arguments of all operators are equal, so that we may write

Zero-delay
aˆ † aˆ † aˆaˆ
correlation g ( 2 ) (0)  2
. (9.35)
†
aˆ aˆ

Let us evaluate this ratio for the simplest states of the field.
(i) The nth Fock state. In this case, it is convenient to act with the annihilation operators upon the
ket-vectors, and by the creation operators, upon the bra-vectors, using Eqs. (19):

n aˆ † aˆ † aˆaˆ n n  2 n(n  1) n(n  1)1 / 2 n  2

1/ 2
Photon n(n  1) 1
anti- g ( 2)
(0)     1 . (9.36)
n aˆ † aˆ n
2 2 2
bunching n  1 n1 / 2 n1 / 2 n  1 n n

We see that the correlation function at small delays is suppressed rather than enhanced – see the dashed
lines in Fig. 3. This photon antibunching effect has a very simple handwaving explanation: a single
photon emitted by the wave source may be absorbed by just one of the detectors. For the initial state n =
1, this is the only option, and it is very natural that Eq. (36) predicts no simultaneous counts at  = 0.
Despite this theoretical simplicity, reliable observations of the antibunching have not been carried out
until 1977,19 due to the experimental difficulty of driving electromagnetic field oscillators into their
Fock states – see Sec. 4 below.
(ii) The Glauber state . A similar procedure, but now using Eq. (5.124) and its Hermitian
conjugate,  aˆ †    * , yields
 aˆ † aˆ † aˆaˆ   * *
Glauber
g ( 2)
( 0)    1, (9.37)
 aˆ † aˆ 
field 2
statistics ( * ) 2
for any parameter . We see that the result is different from that for the Fock states, unless in the latter
case n  . (We know that the Fock and Glauber properties should also coincide for the ground state,
but at that state the correlation function’s value is uncertain, because there are no photon counts at all.)
(iii) Classical mixture. From Chapter 7, we know that such statistical ensembles cannot be
described by single state vectors, and require the density matrix w for their description. Here, we may
combine Eqs. (35) and (7.5) to write

g ( 0) 
( 2) Tr wˆ aˆ † aˆ † aˆaˆ
.
 (9.38)

 
2
 Tr wˆ aˆ † aˆ 
 

19 ByH. J. Kimble et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977). For a detailed review of phonon antibunching, see, e.g.,
H. Paul, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 1061 (1982).

Chapter 9 Page 11 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Spelling out this expression is easy for the field in thermal equilibrium at some temperature T,
because its density matrix is diagonal in the basis of Fock states n – see Eqs. (7.24):

 E  
  
wnn '  Wn nn ' , Wn  exp n  Z  n  n
, where   exp . (9.39)
 k BT  n 0  k BT 
So, for the operators in the numerator and denominator of Eq. (38) we also need just the diagonal terms
of the operator products, which have already been calculated – see Eq. (36). As a result, we get
  

W n(n  1)   n(n  1)   
n
n n

g ( 2) (0)  n 0
. 2
 n 0
2
n 0
(9.40)
     n 
  Wn n   n
 n 0   n 0 
One of the three series involved in this expression is just the usual geometric progression,

1

n 0
n

1 
, (9.41)

and the remaining two series may be readily calculated by its differentiation over the parameter :
 
d  n d 1 
 n n    n1n  
n 0 n 0

d n 0
  
d 1   (1   ) 2
,
(9.42)
 
d2    d2 1 22
  n(n  1)    
n 0
n 2

n 0
n2
n(n  1)   2   n   2 2
d   n 0 
2

d 1   (1   ) 3
,

and for the correlation function we get an extremely simple result independent of the parameter  and
hence of temperature:

g ( 2)
( 0) 
2 2

/(1   ) 3 1 /(1   )
 2. (9.43) Photon

 /(1   )  2 2 bunching

This is exactly the photon bunching effect first observed by Hanbury Brown and Twiss – see Fig.
3. We see that in contrast to antibunching, this is an essentially classical (statistical) effect. Indeed, Eq.
(43) allows a purely classical derivation. In the classical theory, the counting rate (of a single counter) is
proportional to the wave intensity I, so that Eq. (31) with  = 0 is reduced to
I2
g ( 2)
(0)  2
, with I  E 2 (t )  E E* . (9.44)
I
For a sinusoidal field, the intensity is constant, and g(2)(0) = 1. (This is also evident from Eq. (37),
because the classical state may be considered as a Glauber state with   .) On the other hand, if the
intensity fluctuates (either in time, or from one experiment to another), the averages in Eq. (44) should
be calculated as
 
I k   w( I ) I k dI , with  w( I )dI  1, and k  1, 2 , (9.45)
0 0

Chapter 9 Page 12 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

where w(I) is the probability density. For classical statistics, the probability is an exponential function of
the electromagnetic field energy, and hence its intensity:
 I
w( I )  Ce , where   1 / k BT , (9.46)
so that Eqs. (45) yield:20


 C exp I dI  C /   1, and hence C   ,

0
(9.47)
 
1

1 /  , for k  1,
I k
  w( I ) I dI  C  exp  I I dI  k  exp   d  
k k k

 0 2 /  , for k  2.
2
0 0

Plugging these results into Eq. (44), we get g(2)(0) = 0, in complete agreement with Eq. (43).
For some field states, including the squeezed ground states  discussed at the end of Sec. 5.5,
values g(2)(0) may be even higher than 2 – the so-called super-bunching. Analyses of two cases of such
super-bunching are offered for the reader’s exercise – see the problem list in the chapter’s end.

9.3. Photon emission: spontaneous and stimulated

In our simple model of photon counting, considered in the last section, the trigger atom in the
counter absorbed a photon. Now let us have a look at the opposite process of spontaneous emission of
photons by an atom in an excited state, still using the same electric-dipole approximation (24) for the
atom-to-field interaction. For this, we may still use the Golden Rule for the model depicted in Fig. 6.12,
but now the roles have changed: we have to associate the operator  with the electric dipole moment of
the atom, while the operator B̂ , with the electric field, so that the continuous spectrum of the system b
represents the plurality of the electromagnetic field modes into which the spontaneous radiation may
happen. Since now the transition increases the energy of the electromagnetic field, and decreases that of
the atom, after the multiplication of the field bracket in Eq. (27a) by exp{-it}, and the second, by
exp{+ it}, we may keep only the photon creation operator whose time evolution (26) compensates this
additional fast “rotation”. As a result, the Golden Rule takes the following form:
Spontaneous 2 2
photon
emission
s   fin aˆ † 0 fin dˆ  e(r ) ini f , (9.48)
rate
where all operators and states are time-independent (i.e. taken in the Schrödinger picture), and f is the
density of final states of the electromagnetic field – which in this problem plays the role of the atom’s
environment.21 Here the electromagnetic field oscillator has been assumed to be initially in the ground
state – the assumption that will be changed later in this section.
This relation, together with Eq. (19), shows that for the field’s matrix element be different from
zero, the final state of the field has to be the first excited Fock state, n = 1. (By the way, this is exactly

20See, e.g., MA Eq. (6.7c) with n = 0 and n = 1.

21 Here the sum over all electromagnetic field modes j may be smuggled back. Since in the quasi-static
approximation kja << 1, which is necessary for the interaction representation by Eq. (24), the matrix elements in
Eq. (48) are virtually independent on the direction of the wave vectors, and their magnitudes are fixed by , the
summation is reduced to the calculation of the total f for all modes, and the averaging of e2(r) – see below.

Chapter 9 Page 13 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

the most practicable way of generating an excited Fock state of a field oscillator.) With that, Eq. (48)
yields
2 2
Γ s   fin dˆ  e(r ) ini  f   fin dˆed (r ) ini  f , (9.49)

where the density f of the excited electromagnetic field states should be calculated at the energy E =
, and ed is the Cartesian component of the vector e(r) along the electric dipole’s direction. The
expression for the density f was our first formula in this course – see Eq. (1.1).22 From it, we get
dN 2
f  V 2 3 , (9.50)
dE  c
where the bounding volume V should be large enough to ensure spectrum’s virtual continuity: V >> 3 =
(2c/)3. Because of that, in the normalization condition used to simplify Eq. (9), we may consider e2(r)
constant. Let us represent this square as a sum of squares of the three Cartesian components of the
vector e(r): one of those (ed) aligned with the dipole’s direction; due to the space isotropy we may write
e 2  ed2  e21  e2 2  3ed2 . (9.51)
As a result, the normalization condition yields
1
ed2 . (9.52)
3 0V
and Eq. (49) gives the famous (and very important) formula23
Free-space
1 4 3 2 1 4 3 * spontaneous
Γs  fin dˆ ini  fin dˆ ini  ini dˆ fin . (9.53) emission
4 0 3c 3 4 0 3c 3
rate

Leaving a comparison of this formula with the classical theory of radiation,24 and the exact
evaluation of s for a particular transition in the hydrogen atom, for reader’s exercises, let me just
estimate its order of magnitude. Assuming that d ~ erB  e2/me(e2/40) and  ~ EH  me(e2/40)2/2,
and taking into account the definition (6.62) of the fine structure constant   1/137, we get
3
Γ  e2 
~     3 ~ 3  10 7. (9.54)
  4 0 c 
This estimate shows that the emission lines at atomic transitions are typically very sharp. With the
present-day availability of high-speed electronics, it also makes sense to evaluate the time scale  = 1/
of the typical quantum transition: for a typical optical frequency  ~ 31015 s-1, it is close to 1 ns. This is

22 If the same atom is placed into a high-Q resonant cavity (see, e.g., EM 7.9), the rate of its photon emission is
strongly suppressed at frequencies between the cavity resonances (where f  0) – see, e.g., the review by S.
Haroche and D. Klepner, Phys. Today 42, 24 (Jan. 1989). On the other hand, the emission is strongly (by a factor
~ (3/V)Q, where V is cavity’s volume) enhanced at resonance frequencies – the so-called Purcell effect,
discovered by E. Purcell in the 1940s. For a brief discussion of this and other quantum electrodynamic effects in
cavities, see the next section.
23 This was the breakthrough result obtained by P. Dirac in 1927, which jumpstarted the whole field of quantum
electrodynamics. An equivalent expression was obtained from more formal arguments in 1930 by V. Weisskopf
and E. Wigner, so that sometimes Eq. (53) is (very unfairly) called the “Weisskopf-Wigner formula”.
24 See, e.g., EM Sec. 8.2, in particular Eq. (8.29).

Chapter 9 Page 14 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

exactly the time constant that determines the time-delay dependence of the photon counting statistics of
the spontaneously emitted radiation – see Fig. 3. Colloquially, this is the temporal scale of the photon
emitted by an atom.25
Note, however, that the above estimate of  is only valid for a transition with a non-zero electric-
dipole matrix element. If it equals zero, i.e. the transition does not satisfy the selection rules,26 – say,
due to the initial and final state symmetry – it is “forbidden”. The “forbidden” transition may still take
place due to a different, smaller interaction (say, via a magnetic dipole field of the atom, or its
quadrupole electric field27), but takes much longer. In some cases the increase of  is rather dramatic –
sometimes to hours! Such long-lasting radiation is called the luminescence – or the fluorescence if the
initial atom’s excitation was due to external radiation of a higher frequency, followed first by non-
radiative transitions down the ladder of energy levels.
Now let us consider a more general case when the electromagnetic field mode of frequency  is
initially in an arbitrary Fock state n, and from it may either get energy  from the atomic system
(photon emission) or, vice versa, give such energy back to the atom (photon absorption). For the photon
emission rate, an evident generalization of Eq. (48) gives
2
fin aˆ † n
e nfin
  , (9.55)
s 01 †
2
1 aˆ 0

where both brackets should be calculated in the Schrödinger picture, and s is the spontaneous emission
rate (48) of the same atomic system. According to the second of Eqs. (19), at the photon emission, the
final field state has to be the Fock state with n’ = n + 1, and Eq. (55) yields
Stimulated
photon e  (n  1) s . (9.56)
emission rate

Thus the initial field increases the photon emission rate; this effect is called the stimulated emission of
radiation. Note that the spontaneous emission may be considered as a particular case of the stimulated
emission for n = 0, and hence interpreted as the emission stimulated by the ground state of the
electromagnetic field – one more manifestation of the non-trivial nature of this “vacuum” state.
On the other hand, following the arguments of Sec. 2,28 for the description of radiation
absorption, the photon creation operator has to be replaced with the annihilation operator, giving the
rate ratio

25 The scale c of the spatial extension of the corresponding wave packet is surprisingly macroscopic – in the
range of a few millimeters. Such a “human” size of spontaneously emitted photons makes the usual optical table,
with its 1-cm-scale components, the key equipment for many optical experiments – see, e.g., Fig. 2.
26 As was already discussed in Sec. 5.6, for a single spin-less particle moving in a spherically-symmetric potential
(e.g., a hydrogen-like atom), the orbital selection rules are simple: the only allowed electric-dipole transitions are
those with l  lfin- lini = 1 and m  mfin- mini = 0 or 1. The simplest example of the transition that does not
satisfy this rule, i.e. is “forbidden”, is that between the s-states (l = 0) with n = 2 and n = 1; because of that, the
lifetime of the lowest excited s-state of a hydrogen atom is as long as ~0.15 s.
27 See, e.g., EM Sec. 8.9.
28 Note, however, a major difference between the rate  discussed in Sec. 2, and  in Eq. (57). In our current
a
case, the atomic transition is still between two discrete energy levels (see Fig. 4 below), so that the rate a is

Chapter 9 Page 15 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

2
a fin aˆ n
 . (9.57)
s †
2
1 aˆ 0

According to this relation and the first of Eqs. (19), the final state of the field at the photon absorption
has to be the Fock state with n’ = n – 1, and Eq. (57) yields
Photon
a  ns . (9.58) absorption
rate
The results (56) and (58) are usually formulated in terms of relations between the Einstein
coefficients A and B defined in the way shown in Fig. 4, where the two energy levels are those of the
atom, a is the rate of energy absorption from the electromagnetic field in its nth Fock state, and e is that
of energy emission into the field, initially in the same state. In this notation, Eqs. (56) and (58) yield29
Einstein
A21  B21  B12 , (9.59) coefficients’
relation

because each of these coefficients equals the spontaneous emission rate s.

W2

E   a  B12 n e  A21  B21 n Fig. 9.4. The Einstein coefficients

on the atomic quantum transition
diagram – cf. Fig. 7.6.
W1
I cannot resist the temptation to use this point for a small detour – an alternative derivation of the
Bose-Einstein statistics for photons. Indeed, in the thermodynamic equilibrium, the average probability
flows between levels 1 and 2 (see Fig. 4 again) should be equal:30
W2 e  W1 a , (9.60)

where W1 and W2 are the probabilities for the atomic system to occupy the corresponding levels, so that
Eqs. (56) and (58) yield
W n
W2 s 1  n  W1s n , i.e. 2  , (9.61)
W1 n 1
where n is the average number of photons in the field causing the interstate transitions. But, on the
other hand, for an atomic subsystem only weakly coupled to its electromagnetic environment, we ought
to have the Gibbs distribution of these probabilities:

W2 exp{ E 2 / k BT }  E    
  exp   exp . (9.62)
W1 exp{ E1 / k BT }  k BT   k BT 

proportional to f, the density of final states of the electromagnetic field, i.e. the same density as in Eq. (48) and
beyond, while the rate (27) is proportional to a, the density of final (ionized) states of the “trigger” atom – more
exactly, of it’s the electron released at its ionization.
29 These relations were conjectured, from very general arguments, by Albert Einstein as early as 1916.
30 This is just a particular embodiment of the detailed balance equation (7.198).

Chapter 9 Page 16 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Requiring Eqs. (61) and (62) to give the same result for the probability ratio, we get the Bose-Einstein
distribution for the electromagnetic field in thermal equilibrium:
1
n  (9.63)
exp{ / k BT }  1
- the same result as that obtained in Sec. 7.1 by other means – see Eq. (7.26b).
Now returning to the discussion of Eqs. (56) and (58), their very important implication is the
possibility to achieve the stimulated emission of coherent radiation using the level occupancy inversion.
Indeed, if the ratio W2/ W1 is larger than that given by Eq. (62), the net power flow from the atomic
system into the electromagnetic field,

power    s W2  n  1  W1 n  , (9.64)

may be positive. The necessary inversion may be produced using several ways, notably by intensive
quantum transitions to level 2 from an even higher energy level (which, in turn, is populated, e.g., by
absorption of external radiation, usually called pumping, at a higher frequency.)
A less obvious, but crucial feature of the stimulated emission is spelled out by Eq. (55): as was
mentioned above, it shows that the final state of the field after the absorption of energy  from the
atom is a pure (coherent) Fock state (n + 1). Colloquially, one may say that the new, (n + 1)st photon
emitted from the atom is automatically in phase with the n photons that had been in the field mode
initially, i.e. joins them coherently.31 The idea of stimulated emission of coherent radiation using
population inversion32 was first implemented in the early 1950s in the microwave range (masers) and in
1960 in the optical range (lasers). Nowadays, lasers are ubiquitous components of almost all high-tech
systems and constitute one of the cornerstones of our technological civilization.
A quantitative discussion of laser operation is well beyond the framework of this course, and I
have to refer the reader to special literature,33 but still would like to briefly mention two key points:
(i) In a typical laser, each generated electromagnetic field mode is in its Glauber (rather than the
Fock) state, so that Eqs. (56) and (58) are applicable only for the n averaged over the Fock-state
decomposition of the Glauber state – see Eq. (5.134).
(ii) Since in a typical laser n >> 1, its operation may be well described using quasiclassical
theories that use Eq. (64) to describe the electromagnetic energy balance (with the addition of a term
describing the energy loss due to field absorption in external components of the laser, including the
useful load), plus the equation describing the balance of occupancies W1,2 due to all interlevel transitions
– similar to Eq. (60), but including also the contribution(s) from the particular population inversion
mechanism used in the laser. At this approach, the role of quantum mechanics in laser science is
essentially reduced to the calculation of the parameter s for the particular system.
This role becomes more prominent when one needs to describe fluctuations of the laser field.
Here two approaches are possible, following the two options discussed in Chapter 7. If the fluctuations

31 It is straightforward to show that this fact is also true if the field is initially in the Glauber state – which is more
typical for modes in practical lasers.
32 This idea may be traced back at least to an obscure 1939 publication by V. Fabrikant.
33 I can recommend, for example, P. Milloni and J. Eberly, Laser Physics, 2nd ed., Wiley, 2010, and a less
technical text by A. Yariv, Quantum Electronics, 3rd ed., Wiley, 1989.

Chapter 9 Page 17 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

are relatively small, one can linearize the Heisenberg equations of motion of the field oscillator
operators near their stationary-lasing “values”, with the Langevin “forces” (also time-dependent
operators) describing the fluctuation sources, and use these Heisenberg-Langevin equations to calculate
the radiation fluctuations, just as was described in Sec. 7.5. On the other hand, near the lasing threshold,
the field fluctuations are relatively large, smearing the phase transition between the no-lasing and lasing
states. Here the linearization is not an option, but one can use the density-matrix approach described in
Sec. 7.6, for the fluctuation analysis.34 Note that while the laser fluctuations may look like a peripheral
issue, pioneering research in that field has led to the development of the general theory of open quantum
systems, which was discussed in Chapter 7.

9.4. Cavity QED

Now I have to visit, at least in passing, the field of cavity quantum electrodynamics (usually
called cavity QED for short) – the art and science of creating and using the entanglement between
quantum states of an atomic system (either an atom, or an ion, or a molecule, etc.) and the
electromagnetic field in a macroscopic volume called the resonant cavity (or just “resonator”, or just
“cavity”). This field is very popular nowadays, especially in the context of the quantum computation
and communication research discussed in Sec. 8.5.35
The discussion in the previous section was based on the implicit assumption that the energy
spectrum of the electromagnetic field interacting with an atomic subsystem is essentially continuous, so
that its final state is spread among many field modes, effectively losing its coherence with the quantum
state of the atomic subsystem. This assumption has justified using the quantum-mechanical Golden Rule
for the calculation of the spontaneous and stimulated transition rates. However, the assumption becomes
invalid if the electromagnetic field is contained inside a relatively small volume, with its linear size
comparable with the radiation wavelength. If the walls of such a cavity mostly reflect, rather than
absorb, radiation, then the 0th approximation the energy dissipation may be disregarded, and the
particular solutions ej(r) of the Helmholtz equation (5) correspond to discrete, well-separated mode
wave numbers kj and hence well-separated frequencies j.36 Due to the energy conservation, an atomic
transition corresponding to energy E =  Eini – Efin  may be effective only if the corresponding quantum
transition frequency   E/ is close to one of these resonance frequencies.37 As a result of such
resonant interaction, the quantum states of the atomic system and the resonant electromagnetic mode
may become entangled.
A very popular approximation for the quantitative description of this effect is the so-called Rabi
model,38 in which the atom is treated as a two-level system interacting with a single electromagnetic
field mode of the resonant cavity. (As was shown in Sec. 6.5, this model is justified, e.g., if transitions

34 This path has been developed (also in the mid-1960s), by several researchers, notably including M. Sully and
W. Lamb – see, e.g., M. Sargent III, M. Scully, and W. Lamb, Jr., Laser Physics, Westview, 1977.
35 This popularity was demonstrated, for example, by the award of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics to cavity QED
experimentalists S. Haroche and D. Wineland.
36 The calculation of such modes and corresponding frequencies for several simple cavity geometries was the
subject of EM Sec. 7.8 of this series.
37 On the contrary, if  is far from any  , the interaction is suppressed; in particular, the spontaneous emission
j
rate may be much lower than that given by Eq. (53) – so that this result is not as fundamental as it may look.
38 After the pioneering work by I. Rabi in 1936-37.

Chapter 9 Page 18 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

between all other energy level pairs have considerably different frequencies.) As the reader knows well
from Chapters 4-6 (see in particular Sec. 5.1), any two-level system may be described, just as a spin-½,
by the Hamiltonian bIˆ  c  σˆ . Since we may always select the energy origin that b = 0, and the state
basis in which c = cnz, the Hamiltonian of the atomic subsystem may be taken in the diagonal form
Ω
Hˆ a  cσˆ z  σˆ z , (9.65)
2
where   2c = E is the difference between the energy levels in the absence of interaction with the
field. Next, according to Eq. (17), ignoring the constant ground-state energy /2 (which may be always
added to the energy at the end – if necessary), the contribution of a single field mode of frequency  to
the total Hamiltonian of the system is
Hˆ  aˆ † aˆ .
f (9.66)
Finally, according to Eq. (16a), the electric field of the mode may be represented as
1/ 2
1 
Eˆ(r, t )    e(r ) aˆ  aˆ †  , (9.67)
i 2   
so that in the electric-dipole approximation (24), the cavity-atom interaction may be represented as a
product of the field by some (say, y-) Cartesian component39 of the Pauli spin-½ operator:
1/ 2
   1 †  †
Hˆ int  const  ˆ y  E  const  ˆ y     aˆ  aˆ   iˆ y  aˆ  aˆ  , (9.68)
 2  i   
where  is a coupling constant (with the dimension of frequency). The sum of these three terms,
Ω
Rabi
Hamiltonian Hˆ  Hˆ a  Hˆ f  Hˆ int  σˆ z  aˆ † aˆ  iˆ y  aˆ  aˆ †  . (9.69)
2  
giving a very reasonable description of the system, is called the Rabi Hamiltonian. Despite its apparent
simplicity, using this Hamiltonian for calculations is not that straightforward.40 Only in the case when
the electromagnetic field is large and hence may be treated classically, the results following from Eq.
(69) are reduced to Eqs. (6.94) describing, in particular, the Rabi oscillations discussed in Sec. 6.3.
The situation becomes simpler in the most important case when the frequencies  and  are very
close, enabling an effective interaction between the cavity field and the atom even if the coupling
constant  is relatively small. Indeed, if both the  and the so-called detuning (defined similarly to the
parameter  used in Sec. 6.5),
  Ω  , (9.70)

39The exact component is not important for final results, while intermediate formulas simplify if the interaction is
proportional to either pure ̂ x or pure ˆ y .
40 For example, an exact quasi-analytical expression for its eigenenergies (as zeros of a Taylor series in the
parameter , with coefficients determined by a recurrence relation) was found only recently – see D. Braak, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011).

Chapter 9 Page 19 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

are much smaller than   , the Rabi Hamiltonian may be simplified using the rotating-wave
approximation, already used several times in this course. For this, it is convenient to use the spin ladder
operators, defined absolutely similarly for those of the orbital angular momentum – see Eqs. (5.153):
ˆ   ˆ 
ˆ   ˆ x  iˆ y , so that ˆ y  . (9.71)
2i
From Eq. (4.105), it is very easy to find the matrices of these operators in the standard z-basis,
0 2  0 0
σ     , σ     , (9.72)
0 0  2 0
and their commutation rules – which turn out to be naturally similar to Eqs. (5.154):
ˆ  , ˆ    4ˆ z , ˆ z , ˆ    2ˆ  . (9.73)
In this notation, the Rabi Hamiltonian becomes
Ω 
Hˆ  σ̂ z  aˆ † aˆ  ˆ   ˆ   aˆ  aˆ †  , (9.74)
2 2  
and it is straightforward to use Eq. (4.199) and (73) to derive the Heisenberg-picture equations of
motion for the involved operators. (Doing this, we have to remember that operators of the “spin”
subsystem, on one hand, and of the field mode, on the other hand, are defined in different Hilbert spaces
and hence commute – at least at coinciding time moments.) The result (so far, exact!) is
i i
aˆ  iaˆ  ˆ   ˆ  , aˆ †  iaˆ †  ˆ   ˆ  ,
2 2 (9.75)
  †
ˆ   iΩˆ   2i  aˆ  aˆ ˆ z ,  
ˆ z  i  aˆ  aˆ ˆ   ˆ  .
 †
   
At negligible coupling,   0, these equations have simple solutions,

aˆ t   e it , aˆ † t   e it , ˆ  t   e iΩt , ˆ z t   const , (9.76)

and the small terms proportional to  on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (75) cannot affect these time
evolution laws dramatically even if  is not exactly zero. Of those terms, ones with frequencies close to
the “basic” frequency of each variable would act in resonance and hence may have a substantial impact
on the system’s dynamics, while non-resonant terms may be ignored. In this rotating-wave
approximation, Eqs. (75) are reduced to a much simpler system of equations:
i i
aˆ  iaˆ  ˆ  , aˆ †  iaˆ †  ˆ  ,
2 2 (9.77)
ˆ   iΩˆ   2iaˆ †ˆ z , ˆ   iΩˆ   2iaˆˆ z , ˆ z  i  aˆ †ˆ   aˆ ˆ   .
 
Alternatively, these equations of motion may be obtained exactly from the Rabi Hamiltonian
(74), if it is preliminary cleared of the terms proportional to ˆ  aˆ † and ˆ  â , that oscillate fast and hence
self-average to produce virtually zero effect:

Chapter 9 Page 20 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Jaynes- Ω   †
Cummings Hˆ  σ̂ z  aˆ † aˆ   ˆ  aˆ  ˆ  aˆ  , at  ,    , Ω . (9.78)
Hamiltonian 2 2  
This is the famous Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian,41 which is basic model used in the cavity QED and
its applications.42 To find its eigenstates and eigenenergies, let us note that at negligible interaction (
 0), the spectrum of the total energy E of the system, which in this limit is the sum of two independent
contributions from the atomic and cavity-field subsystems,
Ω 
E  0    n  E n  , with n  1, 2,... , (9.79)
2 2
consists43 of close level pairs (Fig. 5) centered to values
 1
E n    n   . (9.80)
 2
(At the exact resonance  = , i.e. at  = 0, each pair merges into one double-degenerate level En.)
Since at   0 the two subsystems do not interact, the eigenstates corresponding to the sublevels of the
nth pair may be represented by direct products of their independent state vectors:
    n 1 and -    n , (9.81)

where the first ket of each product represents the state of the two-level (spin-½-like) atomic subsystem,
and the second ket, that of the field oscillator.
... ... ...
 Ω/2    E2  
E 2  3 / 2

 Ω/2  2  E2  
 Ω/2  E1  
 E1   / 2
 Ω/2    E1  
E 0 Ω

E g  Ω/2
atom field total system

Fig. 9.5. The energy spectrum (79) of the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian in the limit  <<  .
Note again that the energy is referred to the ground-state energy /2 of the cavity field.

As we know from Chapter 6, even weak interaction may lead to strong coherent mixing44 of
quantum states with close energies (in this case, the two states (81) within each pair with the same n),

41 It was first proposed and analyzed in 1963 by two engineers, Edwin Jaynes and Fred Cummings, in a Proc.
IEEE publication, and it took the physics community a while to recognize and acknowledge the fundamental
importance of that work.
42 For most applications, the baseline Hamiltonian (78) has to be augmented by additional term(s) describing, for
example, the incoming radiation and/or the system’s coupling to the environment, for example, due to the
electromagnetic energy loss in a finite-Q-factor cavity – see Eq. (7.68).
43 Only the ground state level E = –/2 is non-degenerate – see Fig. 5.
g

Chapter 9 Page 21 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

while their mixing with the states with farther energies is still negligible. Hence, at 0 < ,  <<   , a
good approximation of the eigenstate with E  En is given by a linear superposition of the states (81):
Jaynes-
 n  c   c   c   n  1  c   n , (9.82) Cummings
eigenstates

with certain c-number coefficients c. This relation describes the entanglement of the atomic eigenstates
 and  with the Fock states number n and n – 1 of the field mode. Let me leave the (straightforward)
calculation of the coefficients (c) for each of two entangled states (for each n) for the reader’s exercise.
(The result for the corresponding two eigenenergies (En) may be again represented by the same
anticrossing diagram as shown in Figs. 2.29 and 5.1, now with the detuning  as the argument.) This
calculation shows, in particular, that at  = 0 (i.e. at  = ), c+ = c- = 1/2 for both states of the pair.
This fact may be interpreted as a (coherent!) equal sharing of an energy quantum  =  by the atom
and the cavity field at the exact resonance.
As a (hopefully, self-evident) by-product of the calculation of c is the fact that the dynamics of
the state n described by Eq. (82), is similar to that of the generic two-level system that was repeatedly
discussed in this course – the first time in Sec. 2.6 and then in Chapters 4-6. In particular, if the
composite system had been initially prepared to be in one component state, for example 0 (i.e.
with the atom excited, while the cavity in its ground state), and then allowed to evolve on its own, after
some time interval t ~ 1/ it may be found definitely in the counterpart state 1, including the first
excited Fock state n = 1 of the field mode. If the process is allowed to continue, after the equal time
interval t, the system returns to the initial state 0, etc. This most striking prediction of the Jaynes-
Cummings model was directly observed, by G. Rempe et al., only in 1987, although less directly this
model was repeatedly confirmed by numerous experiments carried out in the 1960s and 1970s.
This quantized version of the Rabi oscillations can only persist in time if the inevitable
electromagnetic energy losses (not described by the basic Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian) are somehow
compensated – for example, by passing a beam of particles, externally excited into the higher-energy
state , though the cavity. If the losses become higher, the dissipation suppresses quantum coherence, in
our case the coherence between two components of each pair (82), as was discussed in Chapter 7. As a
result, the transition from the higher-energy atomic state  to the lower-energy state , giving energy 
to the cavity (n – 1  n), which is then rapidly drained into the environment, becomes incoherent, so
that the system’s dynamics is reduced to the Purcell effect, already mentioned in Sec. 3. A quantitative
analysis of this effect is left for the reader’s exercise.
The number of interesting physics games one can play with such systems – say by adding
external sources of radiation at a frequency close to  and , in particular with manipulated time-
dependent amplitude and/or phase, is always unlimited.45 Unfortunately, my time/space allowance for
the cavity QED is over, and for further discussion, I have to refer the interested reader to special
literature.46

44 In some fields, especially chemistry, such mixing is frequently called hybridization.

45 Most of them may be described by adding new terms to the basic Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (78).
46 I can recommend, for example, either C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics, Cambridge U.
Press, 2005, or G. Agarwal, Quantum Optics, Cambridge U. Press, 2012.

Chapter 9 Page 22 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

9.5. The Klein-Gordon and relativistic Schrödinger equations

Now let me switch gears and discuss the basics of relativistic quantum mechanics of particles
with a non-zero rest mass m. In the ultra-relativistic limit pc >> mc2 the quantization scheme of such
particles may be essentially the same as for electromagnetic waves, but for the intermediate energy
range, pc ~ mc2, a more general approach is necessary. Historically, the first attempts47 to extend the
non-relativistic wave mechanics into the relativistic energy range were based on performing the same
transitions from classical observables to their quantum-mechanical operators as in the non-relativistic
limit:

p  pˆ  i , E  Hˆ  i . (9.83)
t
The substitution of these operators, acting on the Schrödinger-picture wavefunction (r,t), into the
classical relation (1) between the energy E and momentum p (for of a free particle) leads to the
following formulas:

Table 9.1. Deriving the Klein-Gordon equation for a free relativistic particle. 48

Non-relativistic limit Relativistic case

E 2  c 2 p 2  mc 2 
Classical 1 2 2
E p
mechanics 2m
2
 1  
Wave i Ψ   i 2 Ψ  i  Ψ  c  i  Ψ  (mc ) Ψ
2 2 2 2
mechanics t 2m  t 

The resulting equation for the non-relativistic limit, in the left-bottom cell of the table, is just the
usual Schrödinger equation (1.28) for a free particle. Its relativistic generalization, in the right-bottom
cell, usually rewritten as
Klein-  1 2  mc
Gordon  2 2   2 Ψ   2 Ψ  0, with   , (9.84)
equation
 c t  
is called the Klein-Gordon (or sometimes “Klein-Gordon-Fock”) equation. The fundamental solutions
of this equation are the same plane, monochromatic waves
Ψ(r, t )  expik  r  t . (9.85)
as in the non-relativistic case. Indeed, such waves are eigenstates of the operators (83), with
eigenvalues, respectively,
p  k , and E   , (9.86)

so that their substitution into Eq. (84) immediately returns us to Eq. (1) with the replacements (86):

47 This approach was suggested in 1926-1927, i.e. virtually simultaneously, by (at least) V. Fock, E. Schrödinger,
O. Klein and W. Gordon, J. Kudar, T. de Donder and F.-H. van der Dungen, and L. de Broglie.
48 Note that in the left, non-relativistic column of this table, the energy is referred to the rest energy mc2, while in
its right, relativistic column, it is referred to zero – see Eq. (1).

Chapter 9 Page 23 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics


E       ck   mc 2
2
  2 1/ 2
. (9.87)
Though one may say that this dispersion relation is just a simple combination of the classical
relation (1) and the same basic quantum-mechanical relations (86) as in non-relativistic limit, it attracts
our attention to the fact that the energy  as a function of the momentum k has two branches, with E–
(p) = –E+(p) – see Fig. 6a. Historically, this fact has played a very important role in spurring the
fundamental idea of particle-antiparticle pairs. In this idea (very similar to the concept of electrons and
holes in semiconductors, which was discussed in Sec. 2.8), what we call the “vacuum” actually
corresponds to all quantum states of the lower branch, with energies E–(p) < 0, being completely filled,
while the states on the upper branch, with energies E+(p) > 0, being empty. Then an externally supplied
energy,
ΔE  E   E   E    E    2mc 2  0 , (9.88)

may bring the system from the lower branch to the upper one (Fig. 6b). The resulting excited state is
interpreted as a combination of a particle (formally, of the infinite spatial extension) with the energy E+
and the momentum p, and a “hole” (antiparticle) of the positive energy (–E-) and the momentum –p.
This idea49 has led to a search for, and discovery of the positron: the electron’s antiparticle with charge q
= +e, in 1932, and later of the antiproton and other antiparticles.

 (a)  (b)
E
E
 mc 2
  ck Fig. 9.6. (a) The free-particle
ΔE dispersion relation resulting from
0 k 0 k the Klein-Gordon and Dirac
 mc 2 equations, and (b) the scheme of
E creation of a particle-antiparticle
E pair from the vacuum.

Free particles of a finite spatial extension may be described, in this approach, just as in the non-
relativistic Schrödinger equation, by wave packets, i.e. linear superpositions of the de Broglie waves
(85) with close wave vectors k, and the corresponding values of  given by Eq. (87), with the positive
sign for the “usual” particles, and negative sign for antiparticles – see Fig. 6a above. Note that to form,
from a particle’s wave packet, a similar wave packet for the antiparticle, with the same phase and group
velocities (2.33a) in each direction, we need to change the sign not only before , but also before k, i.e.
to replace all component wavefunctions (85), and hence the full wavefunction, with their complex
conjugates.
Of more formal properties of Eq. (84), it is easy to prove that its solutions satisfy the same
continuity equation (1.52), with the probability current density j still given by Eq. (1.47), but a different
expression for the probability density w – which becomes very similar to that for j:

w
i
2mc 2
 * Ψ
Ψ
 t

 c.c.,

j
i
2m

 *  c.c.  (9.89)

49 Due to the same P. A. M. Dirac!

Chapter 9 Page 24 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

– very much in the spirit of the relativity theory, treating space and time on equal footing. (In the non-
relativistic limit p/mc  0, Eq. (84) allows the reduction of this expression for w to the non-relativistic
Eq. (1.22): w  *.)
The Klein-Gordon equation may be readily generalized to describe a particle moving in external
fields; for example, the electromagnetic field effects on a particle with charge q may be described by the
same replacement as in the non-relativistic limit (see Sec. 3.1):

pˆ  Pˆ  qAr, t , Hˆ  Hˆ  q (r, t ) , (9.90)

where P̂  i is the canonical momentum operator (3.25), and the vector- and scalar potentials, A
and , should be treated appropriately – either as c-number functions if the electromagnetic field
quantization is not important for the particular problem, or as operators (see Secs. 1-4 above) if it is.
However, the practical value of the resulting relativistic Schrödinger equation is rather limited,
for two main reasons. First of all, it does not give the correct description of particles with spin. For
example, for the hydrogen-like atom/ion problem, i.e. the motion of an electron with the electric charge
–e, in the Coulomb central field of an immobile nucleus with charge +Ze, the equation may be readily
solved exactly50 and yields the following spectrum of (doubly-degenerate) energy levels:
1 / 2
 Z 2 2
E  mc 1 
2

2

 
, with   n  l  ½   Z 2 2
2
 1/ 2
 l  ½ , (9.91)
 
where n = 1, 2,… and l = 0, 1,…, n – 1 are the same quantum numbers as in the non-relativistic theory
(see Sec. 3.6), and   1/137 is the fine structure constant (6.62). The three leading terms of the Taylor
expansion of this result in the small parameter Z are as follows:
 Z 2 2 Z 4 4  n 3 
E  mc 2 1      . (9.92)
 2n 2 2n 4  l  ½ 4 
The first of these terms is just the rest energy of the particle. The second term,
Z 2 2 mZ 2 e 4 1 E
E n  mc 2     02 , with E 0  Z 2 E H , (9.93)
2n 2
4 0   2n
2 2 2
2n
reproduces the non-relativistic Bohr’s formula (3.201). Finally, the third term,
Z 4 4  n 3 2 E n2  n 3
 mc 2
4 
  2 
 , (9.94)
2n  l  ½ 4  mc  l  ½ 4 
is just the perturbative kinetic-relativistic contribution (6.51) to the fine structure of the Bohr levels (93).
However, as we already know from Sec. 6.3, for a spin-½ particle such as the electron, the spin-orbit
interaction (6.55) gives an additional contribution to the fine structure, of the same order, so that the net
result, confirmed by experiment, is given by Eq. (6.60), i.e. is different from Eq. (94). This is very
natural, because the relativistic Schrödinger equation does not have the very notion of spin.
Second, even for massive spinless particles (such as the Z0 bosons), for which this equation is
believed to be valid, the most important problems are related to particle interactions at high energies of

50 This task is left for the reader’s exercise.

Chapter 9 Page 25 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

the order of  ~ 2mc2 and beyond – see Eq. (88). Due to the possibility of creation and annihilation of
particle-antiparticle pairs at such energies, the number of particles participating in such interactions is
typically considerable (and variable), and the adequate description of the system is given not by the
relativistic Schrödinger equation (which is formulated in single-particle terms), but by the quantum field
theory – to which I will devote only a few sentences in the very end of this chapter.

9.6. Dirac’s theory

The real breakthrough toward the quantum relativistic theory of electrons (and other spin-½
fermions) was achieved in 1928 by P. A. M. Dirac. For that time, the structure of his theory was highly
nontrivial. Namely, while formally preserving, in the coordinate representation, the same Schrödinger-
picture equation of quantum dynamics as in the non-relativistic quantum mechanics,51

i  Hˆ  , (9.95)
t
it postulates that the wavefunction  it describes is not a scalar complex function of time and
coordinates, but a four-component column-vector (sometimes called the bispinor) of such functions, its
Hermitian-conjugate bispinor † being a 4-component row-vector of their complex conjugates:
 Ψ 1 (r, t ) 
 
 Ψ 2 (r, t ) 
Ψ
Ψ 3 (r, t ) 
,  
Ψ †  Ψ 1* (r, t ), Ψ *2 (r, t ), Ψ *3 (r, t ), Ψ *4 (r, t ) , (9.96)
 
 Ψ (r, t ) 
 4 
and that the Hamiltonian participating in Eq. (95) is a 44 matrix defined in the Hilbert space of
bispinors . For a free particle, the postulated Hamiltonian looks amazingly simple: 52

51 After the “naturally-relativistic” form of the Klein-Gordon equation (84), this apparent return to the non-
relativistic Schrödinger equation may look very counter-intuitive. However, it becomes a bit less surprising taking
into account the fact (whose proof is left for the reader’s exercise) that Eq. (84) may be also recast into the form
(95) for a two-component column-vector  (sometimes called spinor), with a Hamiltonian which may be
represented by a 22 matrix – and hence expressed via the Pauli matrices (4.105) and the identity matrix I.
52 Moreover, if the time derivative participating in Eq. (95), and the three coordinate derivatives participating (via

the momentum operator) in Eq. (97), are merged into one 4-vector operator /xk  {, /(ct)}, the Dirac
equation (95) may be rewritten in an even simpler, manifestly Lorentz-invariant 4-vector form (with the implied
summation over the repeated index k = 1, ..., 4 – see, e.g., EM Sec. 9.4):
    0 - iσˆ 
 γˆk   Ψ  0, where γˆ  γˆ1 , γˆ2 , γˆ3    , γ̂ 4  β̂,
 xk   iσˆ 0 
where μ  mc/ – just as in Eq. (84). Note also that, very counter-intuitively, the Dirac Hamiltonian (97) is linear
in the momentum, while the non-relativistic Hamiltonian of a particle, as well as the relativistic Schrödinger
equation, are quadratic in p. In my humble opinion, the Dirac theory (including the concept of antiparticles it has
inspired) may compete for the title of the most revolutionary theoretical idea in physics of all times, despite such
strong contenders as Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s equations, Gibbs’ statistical distribution, Bohr’s theory of the
hydrogen atom, and Einstein’s general relativity.

Chapter 9 Page 26 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Free-
particle’s
Hamiltonian
Hˆ  cαˆ  pˆ  ˆ mc 2 . (9.97)
where p̂ = –i is the same 3D vector operator of momentum as in the non-relativistic case, while the
operators α̂ and ˆ may be represented in the following shorthand 22 form:
 0̂ σˆ   Iˆ 0̂ 
Dirac
αˆ   ,
 βˆ   . (9.98a)
operators
ˆ
σ 0̂ 0̂  ˆ
I
   
The operator α̂ , composed of the Pauli vector operators σ̂ , is also a vector in the usual 3D
space, with each of its 3 Cartesian components being a 44 matrix. The particular form of the 22
matrices corresponding to the operators σ̂ and Iˆ in Eq. (98a) depends on the basis selected for the spin
state representation; for example, in the standard z-basis, in which the Cartesian components of σ̂ are
represented by the Pauli matrices (4.105), the 44 matrix form of Eq. (98a) is

0 0 0 1 0 0 0  i 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
       
0 0 1 0 0 0 i 0  0 0 0  1 0 1 0 0
αx   , αy   , αz   , β . (9.98b)
0 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
       
1
 0 0 0  i 0 0 0 
 
0 1
 0 0  0
 0 0  1
It is straightforward to use Eqs. (98) to verify that the matrices x, y, z and  satisfy the following
relations:
α 2x  α 2y  α 2z  β 2  I, (9.99)

α x α y  α y α x  α y α z  α z α y  α z α x  α x α z  α x β  βα x  α y β  βα y  α z β  βα z  0 , (9.100)

i.e. anticommute.
Using these commutation relations, and acting essentially as in Sec. 1.4, it is straightforward to
show that any solution to the Dirac equation obeys the probability conservation law, i.e. the continuity
equation (1.52), with the probability density:

w   † , (9.101)
and the probability current,
j  Ψ † cαˆ Ψ , (9.102)
looking almost as in the non-relativistic wave mechanics – cf. Eqs. (1.22) and (1.47). Note, however, the
Hermitian conjugation used in these formulas instead of the complex conjugation, to form the scalars w,
jx, jy, and jz from the 4-component state vectors (96).
This close similarity is extended to the fundamental, plane-wave solutions of the Dirac equations
is free space. Indeed, plugging such solution, in the form
u 
 1
u 
Ψ  ue i k r t    2  e i kr t  , (9.103)
u
 3
u 
 4

Chapter 9 Page 27 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

into Eqs. (95) and (97), we see that they are indeed satisfied, provided that a system of four coupled,
linear algebraic equations for four complex c-number amplitudes u1,2,3,4 is satisfied. The condition of its
consistency yields the same dispersion relation (87), i.e. the same two-branch diagram shown in Fig. 6,
as follows from the Klein-Gordon equation. The difference is that plugging each value of , given by
Eq. (87), back into the system of the linear equations for four amplitudes u, we get two solutions for
their vector u  (u1, u2, u3, u4) for each of the two energy branches – see Fig. 6 again. In the standard z-
basis of spin operators, they may be represented as follows:
 1   0 
   
 0   1 
 cp z   cp  
for E  E   0 : u   c   2 , u   c   2 , (9.104a)
E  mc E  mc
     
 cp     cp z 
 E  mc 2   E  mc 2 
     
 cp z   cp  
   
 E   mc   E   mc 
2 2

 cp     cp z 
for E  E   0 : u   c   2 , u   c   2 , (9.104b)
 E   mc   E   mc 
 1   0 
 0   1 
   
where p  px  ipy, and c are normalization coefficients.
The simplest interpretation of these solutions is that Eq. (103), with the vectors u+ given by Eq.
(104a), represents a spin-½ particle (say, an electron), while with the vectors u– given by Eq. (104b), it
represents an antiparticle (a positron), and the two solutions for each particle, indexed with opposite
arrows, correspond to two possible directions of the spin–½ , z = 1, i.e. Sz = /2. This interpretation
is indeed solid in the non-relativistic limit, when two last components of the vector (104a), and two first
components of the vector (104b) are negligibly small:

1 0  0  0
       
 0 1  0  0 p x, y, z
u    , u    , u    , u    , for  0. (9.105)
0 0 1 0 mc
       
 0 0  0 1
       
However, at arbitrary energies, the physical picture is more complex. To show this, let us use the
Dirac equation to calculate the Heisenberg-picture law of time evolution of the operator of some
Cartesian component of the orbital angular momentum L  rp, for example of Lx = ypz – zpy, taking
into account that the Dirac operators (98a) commute with those of r and p, and also the Heisenberg
commutation relations (2.14):

i
Lˆ x
t
   
 Lˆ x , Hˆ  cαˆ   yˆ pˆ z  zˆpˆ y , pˆ  icˆ z pˆ y  ˆ y pˆ z  , (9.106)

Chapter 9 Page 28 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

with similar relations for two other Cartesian components. Since the right-hand side of these equations is
different from zero, the orbital momentum is generally not conserved – even for a free particle! Let us,
however, consider the following vector operator,
Spin
operator   σˆ 0̂ 
Sˆ   . (9.107a)
2  0̂ σˆ 
in Dirac’s
theory

According to Eqs. (4.105), its Cartesian components, in the z-basis, are represented by 44 matrices
0 1 0 0 0  i 0 0  1 0 0 0 
 
   
 1 0 0 i 0 0 0 
0  0 1 0 0 
Sx   Sy   , , Sz   . (9.107b)
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0  i
1 2 0 0 1 0
 
   
0 0 1 0 0 i 0 
0   0 0 0  1
    
Let us calculate the Heisenberg-picture law of time evolution of these components, for example
Sˆ x
t
   
 Sˆ x , Hˆ  c Sˆ x , ˆ x pˆ x  ˆ y pˆ y  ˆ z pˆ z  .
i (9.108)

A direct calculation of the commutators of the matrices (98) and (107) yields

Sˆ ,ˆ   0, Sˆ ,ˆ   iˆ , Sˆ ,ˆ   iˆ

x x x y z x z y , (9.109)
so that we finally get
Sˆ x
 icˆ z pˆ y  ˆ y pˆ z  ,
i (9.110)
t
with similar expressions for the other two components of the operator. Comparing this result with Eq.
(106), we see that any Cartesian component of the operator defined similarly to Eq. (5.170),

Jˆ  Lˆ  Sˆ , (9.111)
is an integral of motion,53 so that this operator may be interpreted as the one representing the total
angular momentum of the particle. Hence, the operator (107) may be interpreted as the spin operator of a
spin-½ particle (e.g., electron). As it follows from the last of Eq. (107b), in the non-relativistic limit the
columns (105) represent the eigenkets of the z-component of that operator, with eigenstates Sz = /2,
with the sign corresponding to on the arrow index. So, the Dirac theory provides a justification for spin-
½ – or, somewhat more humbly, replaces the Pauli Hamiltonian postulate (4.163) with that of a simpler
(and hence more plausible), Lorentz-invariant Hamiltonian (97).
Note, however, that this simple interpretation, fully separating a particle from its antiparticle, is
not valid for the exact solutions (103)-(104), so that generally the eigenstates of the Dirac Hamiltonian
are certain linear (coherent) superpositions of the components describing the particle and its antiparticle
– each with both directions of spin. This fact leads to several interesting effects, including the so-called
Klien paradox at the reflection of a relativistic electron from a potential barrier.54

53 It is straightforward to show that this result remains valid for a particle in any central field U(r).
54 See, e.g., A. Calogeracos and N. Dombey, Contemp. Phys. 40, 313 (1999).

Chapter 9 Page 29 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

9.7. Low-energy limit

The generalization of Dirac’s theory to the case of a (spin-½) particle with an electric charge q,
moving in a classically-described electromagnetic field, may be obtained using the same replacement
(90). As a result, Eq. (95) turns into

cαˆ   i  qA  mc ˆ  q  Hˆ  Ψ  0 ,

2
(9.112) Dirac equation
in EM field

where the Hamiltonian operator Ĥ is understood in the sense of Eq. (95), i.e. as the partial time
derivative with the multiplier i. Let us prepare this equation for a low-energy approximation by acting
on its left-hand side by a similar square bracket but with the opposite sign before the last parentheses –
also an operator! Using Eqs. (99) and (100), and the fact that the space- and time-independent
operators α̂ and β̂ commute with the spin-independent, c-number functions Ar, t  and  r, t  , as well
as with the Hamiltonian operator i/t, the result is

c αˆ   i  qA  mc   cαˆ   i  qA, q  Hˆ  q  Hˆ  Ψ  0 .
2 2 2 2 2
(9.113)

A direct calculation of the first square bracket, using Eqs. (98) and (107), yields
αˆ   i  qA 2   i  qA 2  2qSˆ    A . (9.114)
But the last vector product on the right-hand side is just the magnetic field – see, e.g., Eqs. (3.21):
B  A. (9.115)
Similarly, we may use the first of Eqs. (3.21), for the electric field,
A
E    , (9.116)
t
to simplify the commutator participating in Eq. (9.113):

αˆ   i  qA , q  Hˆ    qαˆ  Hˆ , A  iqαˆ   ,    iq At  iαˆ     iqαˆ  E . (9.117)
As a result, Eq. (113) becomes

c  i  qA  q  Hˆ   mc   2qc Sˆ  B  icqαˆ E Ψ  0 .

2 2 2 2 2 2
(9.118)

So far, this is an exact result, equivalent to Eq. (112), but it is more convenient for an analysis of
the low-energy limit, in which not only the energy offset E – mc2 (which is just the energy used in the
non-relativistic mechanics), but also the electrostatic energy of the particle, q, are much smaller than
the rest energy mc2. In this limit, the second and third terms of Eq. (118) almost cancel, and introducing
the offset Hamiltonian
~ˆ
H  Hˆ  mc 2 Iˆ . (9.119)
we may approximate their difference, up to the first non-zero term, as

qIˆ  Hˆ   mc  Iˆ   q Iˆ  mc Iˆ  H~ˆ   mc  Iˆ  2mc

2
~ˆ
 H  q Iˆ  .
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(9.120)
 
2
As a result, after the division of all terms by 2mc , Eq. (118) may be approximated as

Chapter 9 Page 30 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

 1
Low-
energy
~ˆ
HΨ    i  qA 2  q  q Sˆ  B  iq αˆ  E  Ψ . (9.121)
Hamiltonian  2m m 2mc 
Let us discuss this important result. The first two terms in the square brackets give the non-
relativistic Hamiltonian (3.26), which was extensively used in Chapter 3 for the discussion of charged
particle motion. Note again that the contribution of the vector potential A into that Hamiltonian is
essentially relativistic, in the following sense: when used for the description of magnetic interaction of
two charged particles, due to their orbital motion with speed v << c, the magnetic interaction is a factor
of (v/c)2 smaller than the electrostatic interaction of the particles.55 The reason why we did discuss the
effects of A in Chapter 3 was that is was used there to describe external magnetic fields, keeping our
analysis valid even for the cases when that field is strong because of being produced by relativistic
effects – such as aligned spins of a permanent magnet.
The next, third term in the square brackets of Eq. (121) should be also familiar to the reader: this
is the Pauli Hamiltonian – see Eqs. (4.3), (4.5), and (4.163). When justifying this form of interaction in
Chapter 4, I referred mostly to the results of Stern-Gerlach-type experiments, but it is extremely
pleasing that this result56 follows from such a fundamental relativistic treatment as Dirac's theory. As we
already know from the discussion of the Zeeman effect in Sec. 6.4, the magnetic field effects on the
orbital motion of an electron (described by the orbital angular momentum L) and its spin S are of the
same order, though quantitatively different.
Finally, the last term in the square brackets of Eq. (121) is also not quite new for us: in
particular, it describes the spin-orbit interaction. Indeed, in the case of a classical, spherical-symmetric
electric field E corresponding to the potential  (r) = U(r)/q, this term may be reduced to Eq. (6.56):
Spin-orbit 1 ˆ ˆ 1 dU q ˆ ˆ1
coupling Hˆ so  2 2
SL  SL E . (9.122)
2m c r dr 2m 2 c 2 r
The proof of this correspondence requires a bit of additional work.57 Indeed, in Eq. (121), the term
responsible for the spin-orbit interaction acts on 4-component wavefunctions, while the Hamiltonian
(122) is supposed to act on non-relativistic state vectors with an account of spin, whose coordinate
representation may be given by 2-component spinors:58

55 This difference may be traced by classical means – see, e.g., EM Sec. 5.1.
56 Note that in this result, the g-factor of the particle is still equal to exactly 2 – see Eq. (4.115) and its discussion
in Sec. 4.4. In order to describe the small deviation of ge from 2, the electromagnetic field should be quantized
(just as this was discussed in Secs. 1-4 of this chapter), and its potentials A and , participating in Eq. (121),
should be treated as operators – rather than as c-number functions as was assumed above.
57 The only facts immediately evident from Eq. (121) are that the term we are discussing is proportional to the
electric field, as required by Eq. (122), and that it is of the proper order of magnitude. Indeed, Eqs. (101)-(102)
imply that in the Dirac theory, cα̂ plays the role of the velocity operator, so that the expectation values of the term
are of the order of qvE/2mc2. Since the expectation values of the operators participating in the Hamiltonian (122)
scale as S ~ /2 and L ~ mvr, the spin-orbit interaction energy has the same order of magnitude.
58 In this course, the notion of spinor (popular in some textbooks) was not used much; it was introduced earlier

only for two-particle states – see Eq. (8.13). For a single particle, such definition is reduced to (r)s, whose
representation in a particular spin-½ basis is the column (123). Note that such spinors may be used as a basis for
an expansion of the spin-orbitals j(r) defined by Eq. (8.125), where the index j is used for numbering both the
spin’s orientation (i.e. the particular component of the spinor's column) and the orbital eigenfunction.

Chapter 9 Page 31 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

 
     . (9.123)
  
The simplest way to prove the equivalence of these two expressions is not to use Eq. (121)
directly, but to return to the Dirac equation (112), for the particular case of motion in a static electric
field but no magnetic field, when Dirac’s Hamiltonian is reduced to

Hˆ  cαˆ  pˆ  ˆ mc 2  U r , with U  q . (9.124)

Since this Hamiltonian is time-independent, we may look for its 4-component eigenfunctions in the form
 r   E 
Ψr, t      exp  i t  , (9.125)
 r
      
where each of  is a 2-component column of the type (123), representing two spin states of the particle
(index +) and its antiparticle (index –). Plugging Eq. (125) into Eq. (95) with the Hamiltonian (124),
and using Eq. (98a), we get the following system of two linear equations:

E  mc 2

 U r     cσˆ  pˆ    0, E  mc 2

 U r     cσˆ  pˆ    0. (9.126)
Expressing - from the latter equation, and plugging the result into the former one, we get the following
single equation for the particle’s spinor:
 1 
 E  mc  U r   c σˆ  pˆ σˆ  pˆ    0 .
2 2
(9.127)
 E  mc  U r 
2

So far, this is an exact equation for eigenstates and eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (124), but it
may be substantially simplified in the low-energy limit when both the potential energy59 and the non-
relativistic eigenenergy
~
E  E  mc 2 (9.128)
are much lower than mc2. Indeed, in this case, the expression in the denominator of the last term in the
brackets of Eq. (127) is close to 2mc2. Since 2 = 1, with that replacement, Eq. (127) is reduced to the
non-relativistic Schrödinger equation, similar for both spin components of +, and hence giving spin-
degenerate energy levels. To recover small relativistic and spin-orbit effects, we need a slightly more
accurate approximation:
~ 1 ~
1 1 1  E  U r   1  E  U r  
 ~  1    1   , (9.129)
E  mc 2  U r  2mc 2  E  U r  2mc 2  2mc 2  2mc 2  2mc 2 
in which Eq. (127) is reduced to
~
~ pˆ 2  E  U r  
 E  U r    σˆ  pˆ ˆ
σ  ˆ
p   0 . (9.130)
 2m 2mc 2 2  
As Eqs. (5.34) shows, the operators of the momentum and of a function of coordinates commute as

pˆ ,U r   iU , (9.131)

59 Strictly speaking, this requirement is imposed on the expectation values of U(r) in the eigenstates to be found.

Chapter 9 Page 32 of 36
 Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

so that the last term in the square brackets of Eq. (130) may be rewritten as
~ ~
E  U r  E  U r  2 i
σˆ  pˆ ˆ
σ  ˆ
p  pˆ  σˆ  U σˆ  pˆ  . (9.132)
2mc  2
2mc  2
2mc 2
Since in the low-energy limit, both terms on the right-hand side of this relation are much smaller
than the three leading terms of Eq. (130), we may replace the first term’s numerator with its non-
relativistic approximation pˆ 2 / 2m . With this replacement, the term coincides with the first relativistic
correction to the kinetic energy operator – see Eq. (6.47). The second term, proportional to the electric
field E = – = –U/q, may be transformed further on, using a readily verifiable identity

σˆ  U σˆ  pˆ   U   pˆ  iσˆ  U   pˆ . (9.133)

Of the two terms on the right-hand side of this relation, only the second one depends on spin,60 giving
the following spin-orbital interaction contribution to the Hamiltonian,
 q ˆ
Hˆ so  σˆ  U   pˆ   S     pˆ  . (9.134)
2mc  2
2m 2 c 2
For a central potential (r), its gradient has only the radial component:  = (d/dr)r/r = –Er/r, and with
the angular momentum definition (5.147), Eq. (134) is (finally!) reduced to Eq. (122).
As was shown in Sec. 6.3, the perturbative treatment of Eq. (122), together with the kinetic-
relativistic correction (6.47), in the hydrogen-like atom/ion problem, leads to the fine structure of each
Bohr level En, given by Eq. (6.60):
2E  4n 
ΔE fine   n2  3  . (9.135)
mc  j  ½ 
This result receives a confirmation from the surprising fact that for the hydrogen-like atom/ion problem,
the Dirac equation may be solved exactly – without any assumptions. I would not have time/space to
reproduce the solution,61 and will only list the final result for the energy spectrum:
1 / 2
 Z 2 2 
H-like atom: E  
 1 
 2 
. (9.136)
 
eigenenergies
mc 2  n  ( j  ½ ) 2  Z 2 2
1/ 2
  j  ½  

Here n = 1, 2, … is the same principal quantum number as in Bohr’s theory, while j is the quantum
number specifying the eigenvalues (5.175) of J2, in our case of a spin-½ particle taking half-integer
values: j = l  ½ = 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, … – see Eq. (5.189). This is natural, because due to the spin-orbit
interaction, the orbital momentum and spin are not conserved, while their vector sum, J = L + S, is – at
least in the absence of an external field. Each energy level (136) is doubly-degenerate, with two
eigenstates representing two directions of the spin. (In the low-energy limit, we may say: corresponding
to two values of l = j  ½, at fixed j.)

60The first term gives a small spin-independent energy shift, which is very difficult to verify experimentally.
61Good descriptions of the solution are available in many textbooks (the older the better :-) – see, e.g., Sec. 53 in
L. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill (1968).

Chapter 9 Page 33 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

Speaking of that limit (when E – mc2 ~ EH << mc2): since according to Eq. (1.13) for EH, the
square of the fine-structure constant   e2/40c may be represented as the ratio EH/mc2, we may
follow this limit expanding Eq. (136) into the Taylor series in (Z)2 << 1. The result,
 Z 2 2 Z 4 4  n 3 
E  mc 2 1     , (9.137)
 2n 2 2n 4  j  ½ 4 
has the same structure, and allows the same interpretation as Eq. (92), but with the last term coinciding
with Eq. (6.60) – and with experimental results. Historically, this correct description of the fine structure
of the atomic levels provided the decisive proof of Dirac’s theory.
However, even such an impressive theory does not have too many direct applications. The main
reason for that was already discussed in brief in the end of Sec. 5: due to the possibility of creation and
annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs by an energy influx higher than 2mc2, the number of particles
participating in high-energy interactions is not fixed. An adequate general description of such situations
is given by the quantum field theory, in which the particle’s wavefunction is treated as a field to be
quantized, using so-called field operators  ˆ r, t  – very much similar to the electromagnetic field
operators (16). The Dirac equation follows from such theory in the single-particle approximation.
As was mentioned above on several occasions, the quantum field theory is well beyond the
time/space limits of this course, and I have to stop here, referring the interested reader to one of several
excellent textbooks on this discipline.62 However, I would strongly encourage the students going in this
direction to start by playing with the field operators on their own, taking clues from Eqs. (16), but
replacing the creation/annihilations operators aˆ †j and aˆ j of the electromagnetic field oscillators with
those of the general second quantization formalism outlined in Sec. 8.3.

9.8. Exercise problems

9.1. Prove the Casimir formula, given by Eq. (23), by calculating the net force F = PA exerted by
the electromagnetic field, in its ground state, on two perfectly conducting parallel plates of area A,
separated by a vacuum gap of width t << A1/2.
Hint: Calculate the field energy in the gap volume with and without the account of the plate
effect, and then apply the Euler-Maclaurin formula63 to the difference between these two results.

9.2. Electromagnetic radiation by some single-mode quantum sources may have such a high
degree of coherence that it is possible to observe the interference of waves from two independent
sources with virtually the same frequency, incident on one detector.
(i) Generalize Eq. (29) to this case.

62 For a gradual introduction see, e.g., either L. Brown, Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge U. Press (1994) or R.
Klauber, Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory, Sandtrove (2013). On the other hand, M. Srednicki, Quantum
Field Theory, Cambridge U. Press (2007) and A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, 2nd ed., Princeton
(2010), among others, offer steeper learning curves.
63 See, e.g., MA Eq. (2.12a).

Chapter 9 Page 34 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

(ii) Use this generalized expression to show that incident waves in different Fock states do not
create an interference pattern.

9.3. Calculate the zero-delay value g(2)(0) of the second-order correlation function of a single-
mode electromagnetic field in the so-called Schrödinger-cat state:64 a coherent superposition of two
Glauber states, with equal but sign-opposite parameters , and a certain phase shift between them.

9.4. Calculate the zero-delay value g(2)(0) of the second-order correlation function of a single-
mode electromagnetic field in the squeezed ground state  defined by Eq. (5.142).

9.5. Calculate the rate of spontaneous photon emission (into unrestricted free space) by a
hydrogen atom, initially in the 2p state (n = 2, l = 1) with m = 0. Would the result be different for m = 
1? for the 2s state (n = 2, l = 0, m = 0)? Discuss the relation between these quantum-mechanical results
and those given by the classical theory of radiation for the simplest classical model of the atom.

9.6. An electron has been placed on the lowest excited level of a spherically-symmetric,
quadratic potential well U(r) = me2r2/2. Calculate the rate of its relaxation to the ground state, with the
emission of a photon (into unrestricted free space). Compare the rate with that for a similar transition of
the hydrogen atom, for the case when the radiation frequencies of these two systems are equal.

9.7. Derive an analog of Eq. (53) for the spontaneous photon emission into the free space, due to
a change of the magnetic dipole moment m of a small-size system.

9.8. A spin-½ particle, with a gyromagnetic ratio , is in its orbital ground state in dc magnetic
field B0. Calculate the rate of its spontaneous transition from the higher to the lower energy level, with
the emission of a photon into the free space. Evaluate this rate for in an electron in a field of 10 T, and
discuss the implications of this result for laboratory experiments with electron spins.

9.9. Calculate the rate of spontaneous transitions between the two sublevels of the ground state
of a hydrogen atom, formed as a result of its hyperfine splitting. Discuss the implications of the result
for the width of the 21-cm spectral line of hydrogen.

9.10. Find the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (78), and
discuss their behavior near the resonance point  = .

9.11. Analyze the Purcell effect, mentioned in Secs. 3 and 4, quantitatively; in particular,
calculate the so-called Purcell factor FP defined as the ratio of the rate s of atom’s spontaneous
emission into a resonant cavity tuned exactly to the quantum transition frequency, to that into the free
space.

9.12. Prove that the Klein-Gordon equation (84) may be rewritten in the form similar to the non-
relativistic Schrödinger equation (1.25), but for a two-component wavefunction, with the Hamiltonian
represented (in the usual z-basis) by the following 22-matrix:

64 Its name stems from the well-known Schrödinger cat paradox, which is (very briefly) discussed in Sec. 10.1.

Chapter 9 Page 35 of 36
Essential Graduate Physics QM: Quantum Mechanics

2 2
H  σ z  iσ y    mc 2 σ z .
2m
Use your solution to discuss the physical meaning of the wavefunction’s components.

9.13. Calculate and discuss the energy spectrum of a relativistic, spinless, charged particle placed
into an external uniform, time-independent magnetic field B. Use the result to formulate the condition
of validity of the non-relativistic theory in this situation.

9.14. Prove Eq. (91) for the energy spectrum of a hydrogen-like atom/ion, starting from the
relativistic Schrödinger equation.
Hint: A mathematical analysis of Eq. (3.193) shows that its eigenvalues are given by Eq. (3.201),
n = –1/2n2, with n = l + 1 + nr, where nr = 0, 1, 2,…, even if the parameter l is not integer.

9.15. Derive a general expression for the differential cross-section of elastic scattering of a
spinless relativistic particle by a static potential U(r), in the Born approximation, and formulate the
conditions of its validity. Use these results to calculate the differential cross-section of scattering of a
particle with the electric charge –e by the Coulomb electrostatic potential (r) = Ze/40r.

9.16. Starting from Eqs. (95)-(98), prove that the probability density w given by Eq. (101) and
the probability current density j defined by Eq. (102) do indeed satisfy the continuity equation (1.52):
w/t + j = 0.

9.17. Calculate the commutator of the operator L̂2 and Dirac’s Hamiltonian of a free particle.
Compare the result with that for the non-relativistic Hamiltonian, and interpret the difference.

9.18. Calculate commutators of the operators Ŝ 2 and Ĵ 2 with Dirac’s Hamiltonian (97), and give
an interpretation of the results.

9.19. In the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics, derive an equation describing the time
evolution of free electron’s velocity in the Dirac theory. Solve the equation for the simplest state, with
definite energy and momentum, and discuss the solution.

9.20. Calculate the eigenstates and eigenenergies of a relativistic spin-½ particle with charge q,
placed into a uniform, time-independent external magnetic field B. Compare the calculated energy
spectrum with those following from the non-relativistic theory and the relativistic Schrödinger equation.

9.21.* Following the discussion at the very end of Section 7, introduce quantum field operators
ˆ that would be related to the usual wavefunctions  just as the electromagnetic field operators (16)
are related to the classical electromagnetic fields, and explore basic properties of these operators. (For
this preliminary study, consider the fixed-time situation.)

Chapter 9 Page 36 of 36