The smallest wave packet in the lowest Landau level exists, and is a Gaussian wave packet. This turns out to be related to the coherent state of the harmonic oscillator.
Exercise 12.5 from Modern Condensed Matter Physics (Girvin and Yang, 2019) asks to construct a Gaussian wave packet in the lowest Landau level in the Landau gauge, such that it is localized as closely as possible around some point R:=(Rx,Ry).
Actually, we can prove that the smallest wave packet is a Gaussian wave packet. Here is the derivation.
The problem
First, for readers who are not familiar with the Landau levels, here is a brief introduction. For an electron confined in the xy plane under a magnetic field B=Bz^, its Hamiltonian is H=2me1(px2+(py−ceBx)2) under the Landau gauge A=Bxy^. Its eigenstates in the position representation are
ψnk(x,y)=eikyHn(lx−kl)e−(x−kl2)2/2l2 labeled by n∈N and k∈R, where Hn is the Hermite polynomial of degree n and
l:=ℏc/eB. States with the same n are degenerate in energy (En=(n+1/2)ℏeB/mec) and make up the nth Landau level. The Landau level with n=0 is called the lowest Landau level.
The problem, now, is this optimization problem: akminst⟨Ψx2+y2Ψ⟩⟨Ψ∣Ψ⟩=1,⟨Ψ∣x∣Ψ⟩=Rx,⟨Ψ∣y∣Ψ⟩=Ry (optimizing ⟨x2+y2⟩ is equivalent to optimizing σx2+σy2 because ⟨x⟩ and ⟨y⟩ are both fixed), where ∣Ψ⟩ is defined as the state whose position representation is
Ψ(x,y)=∫dkakeikye−(x−kl2)2/2l2.
The solution
Consider the moment-generating functionM(u,v):=⟨Ψeux+vyΨ⟩=∬dxdyeux+vy∫dkak∗e−ikye−2l21(x−kl2)2∫dk′ak′eik′ye−2l21(x−k′l2)2=∬dkdk′ak∗ak′∫dxeux−2l21(x−kl2)2−2l21(x−k′l2)22πδ(k′−k−iv)∫dyexp(vy+i(k′−k)y)=2π∫dkak∗ak+ivlπexp(41l2(4ku+u2+2iuv+v2))∫dxexp(ux−2l21(x−kl2)2−2l21(x−(k+iv)l2)2)=2π3/2lexp(41l2(u2+2iuv+v2))∫dkak∗ak+ivekl2u=2π3/2l∫dkak∗(ak+kl2aku+iak′v+41l2(1+2k2l2)aku2+41(l2ak−2ak′′)v2+2il2(ak+2kak′)uv+⋯),
where ak′:=dak/dk and ak′′:=d2ak/dk2. On the other hand, we have M(u,v)=⟨Ψ1+ux+uy+21u2x2+21v2y2+uvxy+⋯Ψ⟩. Compare the expansion coefficients, and we have ⟨Ψ∣Ψ⟩⟨Ψ∣x∣Ψ⟩⟨Ψ∣y∣Ψ⟩⟨Ψx2Ψ⟩⟨Ψy2Ψ⟩=2π3/2l∫dkak∗ak,=2π3/2l3∫dkak∗kak,=2iπ3/2l∫dkak∗ak′,=21π3/2l3∫dkak∗(1+2k2l2)ak,=21π3/2l∫dkak∗(l2−2ak′′)ak.
Define φ(k):=ak2π3/2l. Define fictitious position and momentum operators acting on φ as Ξφ:k↦kφ(k),Πφ:k↦−iφ′(k). Using the constraints of the original optimization problem and abusing the bra–ket notation on φ, we have ⟨φ∣φ⟩=1,⟨φ∣Ξ∣φ⟩=l2Rx,⟨φ∣Π∣φ⟩=−Ry. The objective function then becomes ⟨Ψx2+y2Ψ⟩=21l2+⟨φ∣H∣φ⟩, where H:=Π2/2+l4Ξ2/2 is a fictitious Hamiltonian, which is the Hamiltonian of a harmonic oscillator with mass 1 and angular frequency ω:=l2.
The optimization problem can now be re-stated in terms of ∣φ⟩ as ∣φ⟩minst⟨φ∣H∣φ⟩⟨φ∣φ⟩=1,⟨φ∣Ξ∣φ⟩=Rx/ω,⟨φ∣Π∣φ⟩=−Ry. Physically, this means that we want to find the state of a harmonic oscillator with the given expectation values of position and momentum and the lowest energy. To find it, we can use Hisenberg’s uncertainty principle: ⟨H⟩=21⟨Π2⟩+21ω2⟨Ξ2⟩=21(⟨Π⟩2+σΠ2)+21ω2(⟨Ξ2⟩+σΞ2)=21σΠ2+21ω2σΞ2+21Ry2+21Rx2≥ωσΠσΞ+21R2≥21ω+21R2.
The equality in the first “≥” is achieved when σΠ=ωσΞ, and that in the second “≥” is achieved when the uncertainty principle is saturated. As we know from quantum mechanics, the coherent state of a harmonic oscillator satisfies both conditions. The wavefunction of this state is φ(k)=(πω)1/4exp(−21ω(k−ωRx)2−iRyk). Express the final result in terms of ak:
ak=2π1e−ikRye−2l21(Rx−kl2)2. We may work out the integral to get the wave function of the wave packet: Ψ(x,y)=2πl1exp(−4l21((x−Rx)2+(y−Ry)2−2i(x+Rx)(y−Ry))). This is a Gaussian wave packet centered at R with covariance matrix
Diag(l2,l2).
Further problems
The optimal wave packet is indeed Gaussian. This makes me curious about whether this is a coincidence or not.
Another thing worth noting is that this result is actually the Dirac delta wave function peaking at R projected into the lowest Landau level. This was actually my first idea to solve the problem. I was like: well, isn’t the Dirac delta the smallest possible wave packet by all means? If the basis is complete, I can surely combine them into a Dirac delta, and it would be very easy to work out ak in this case. Then, I was like: nah, merely a single Landau level is not complete, so I cannot do that anyway. I then did not even bother to proceed with this approach and went on to trying other methods. It turns out that this approach is actually correct—at least it gives the same result as the correct approach.