Fermions vs Bosons: Low Temp Effects

In summary, particles with different spins have different statistical properties, with bosons having symmetric wave functions and fermions having antisymmetric wave functions. This is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. The differences between bosons and fermions can be seen macroscopically, with the Bose-Einstein condensate being a notable example. While it is possible for particles to transform into their opposite type, it is not clear which is more fundamental in the Universe.
  • #1
nouveau_riche
253
0
why is that at relatively low temperature bosons can occupy the same state while the fermions cannot?
and how does we macroscopically see the effects of bosons (with explanations)?

a theoretical answer is preferable
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Um - because Fermion obey the Pauli exclusion principle?
That's pretty much part of the definition of "fermion" ... which leaves: how come spin 0.5 particles also hot their quantum states?

"because that is how the Universe works" is the bottom line.
Physics does not answer "why" questions very well.

I remember there is something about the symmetry involved in spin half particles that means that they cannot share states. But it is just modelling the physics we find in the real world. You realize that Physics is an empirical science right?
 
  • #3
Simon Bridge said:
"because that is how the Universe works" is the bottom line.
Physics does not answer "why" questions very well.

You realize that Physics is an empirical science right?

let me phrase it in the way physics would like

In the early stages of universe, just after the big bang at the moment when particles start to get their properties and dimensions how it is that a particle will become a Fermion or a boson?
or is there any possibility that a fermion can become a boson?
 
  • #4
nouveau_riche said:
or is there any possibility that a fermion can become a boson?
Certainly. You can have a positron and an electron which decay into a pair of photons, and you can also have the reverse.
 
  • #5
So your question is about the beginning of the universe then?

Since we do not know the physics or the initial conditions of the universe at the earliest scales then we cannot certain how particles "gained" their statistical properties.

If we try and approximate using field theory however we can get an intuition about it. Here is my intuition about it:

1) In field theory particles live in representations of a symmetry group.

2) Depending on which representation it lives in then it will have either integer or non-integer spin.

3) For various technical reasons a field with integral (half-integral) spin will obey commutation (anti-commutation) relations.

4) the commutation relations make explicit which statistics a particle will obey (note: statistics implies the exclusion principle).

As for how many and what type of fermions and bosons were created at the early universe that has to do with the mechanisms of inflation and reheating processes.
 
  • #6
jarod765 said:
So your question is about the beginning of the universe then?

Since we do not know the physics or the initial conditions of the universe at the earliest scales then we cannot certain how particles "gained" their statistical properties.

If we try and approximate using field theory however we can get an intuition about it. Here is my intuition about it:

1) In field theory particles live in representations of a symmetry group.

2) Depending on which representation it lives in then it will have either integer or non-integer spin.

3) For various technical reasons a field with integral (half-integral) spin will obey commutation (anti-commutation) relations.

4) the commutation relations make explicit which statistics a particle will obey (note: statistics implies the exclusion principle).

As for how many and what type of fermions and bosons were created at the early universe that has to do with the mechanisms of inflation and reheating processes.

getting higgs theory into the picture, i think that higgs field has something more to do than adding the mass, there must some asymmetry before the particle could take their statistical properties but i am unable to find the event that will bring sufficient asymmetry.
 
  • #7
DaleSpam said:
Certainly. You can have a positron and an electron which decay into a pair of photons, and you can also have the reverse.

can you give me an example where matter-antimatter anhilation is not involved in producing a boson fron fermions or vice versa
and the boson produced in the process must have some physical properties instead of being an energy packet.
 
  • #8
As for what causes symmetry breaking in the standard model at least to my knowledge I don't think there is a specific mechanism that is widely accepted. In supersymmetry the runing of the higgs mass tends toward negative values in a natural way and it is believed that some higher susy theory will be involved in spontaneous symmetry.
 
  • #9
Hi,

I think your question does not have an easy answer, the raison why bosons and fermions are different is their statistic. From this we get the fermi and bose statistic, which is related to their spin. The Pauli exclusion principle tells us that the wave function of a set of fermions must be antisymmetric and that bosons have symmetric wave functions.
The problem is that to demonstrate this amazing insight Pauli had, it is necessary to use QFT, actually there is a draft of explanation in wikipedia that I like:

According to the spin-statistics theorem, particles with integer spin occupy symmetric quantum states, and particles with half-integer spin occupy antisymmetric states; furthermore, only integer or half-integer values of spin are allowed by the principles of quantum mechanics. In relativistic quantum field theory, the Pauli principle follows from applying a rotation operator in imaginary time to particles of half-integer spin. Since, nonrelativistically, particles can have any statistics and any spin, there is no way to prove a spin-statistics theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

Then there is a second question, about how do we see this difference macroscopically and then I would say that the most spectacular effect is the Bose-Einstein condensate. Other difference are more subtle like what happens when a fermion interacts with a boson (eg the Higgs mechanism).

Finally, you ask if we can transform bosons into fermions and vice-versa, and eventually, if I understood correctly your question is which of both is more fundamental. I am not sure that there is a positive answer for that, what I think we can say is that all the experimental results show a Universe made of boson and fermions (Standard Model) and if this model is the correct one then both fermion and bosons are fundamental.

Cheers
 
  • #10
arojo said:
Hi,

I think your question does not have an easy answer, the raison why bosons and fermions are different is their statistic. From this we get the fermi and bose statistic, which is related to their spin. The Pauli exclusion principle tells us that the wave function of a set of fermions must be antisymmetric and that bosons have symmetric wave functions.
The problem is that to demonstrate this amazing insight Pauli had, it is necessary to use QFT, actually there is a draft of explanation in wikipedia that I like:



Then there is a second question, about how do we see this difference macroscopically and then I would say that the most spectacular effect is the Bose-Einstein condensate. Other difference are more subtle like what happens when a fermion interacts with a boson (eg the Higgs mechanism).

Finally, you ask if we can transform bosons into fermions and vice-versa, and eventually, if I understood correctly your question is which of both is more fundamental. I am not sure that there is a positive answer for that, what I think we can say is that all the experimental results show a Universe made of boson and fermions (Standard Model) and if this model is the correct one then both fermion and bosons are fundamental.

Cheers

i read a article when the LHC announced the foundings for higgs boson that just after the big bang the particles were shapeless, without any physical properties and then they interact with higgs field to gain mass and shape. i don't know how this shapeless particle came in the picture.
 
  • #11
nouveau_riche said:
let me phrase it in the way physics would like

In the early stages of universe, just after the big bang at the moment when particles start to get their properties and dimensions how it is that a particle will become a Fermion or a boson?
That is a good question which nobody knows the answer to. There are some guesses ... the area is work in progress.

We can speculate of course - but that would not be allowed in the forums.
Basically that is just how the Universe is.

I think we missed one:
how do we macroscopically see the effects of bosons
Whole atoms can behave like bosons ... see liquid He II for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity

At higher temperatures you can observe the different effects of Bosons and Fermions statistically. Very macroscopically, you need only look to neutron (boson) stars vs White dwarf (fermion) stars.

So did you have a particular effect in mind?

Is there a specific aim to these questions or are you just curious?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Simon Bridge said:
That is a good question which nobody knows the answer to. There are some guesses ... the area is work in progress.

We can speculate of course - but that would not be allowed in the forums.
Basically that is just how the Universe is.

I think we missed one:
Whole atoms can behave like bosons ... see liquid He II for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity

At higher temperatures you can observe the different effects of Bosons and Fermions statistically. Very macroscopically, you need only look to neutron (boson) stars vs White dwarf (fermion) stars.

So did you have a particular effect in mind?

Is there a specific aim to these questions or are you just curious?


i am not sure but i think the expansion of the universe and the higgs field have something in common to create asymmetries that could explain the action
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
nouveau_riche said:
i read a article when the LHC announced the foundings for higgs boson that just after the big bang the particles were shapeless, without any physical properties and then they interact with higgs field to gain mass and shape. i don't know how this shapeless particle came in the picture.

Actually I am not a supporter of the High Energy Physics (HEP) but when comment results we have to be a little bit more objective and to comment the technicalities of the problem we should be more formal about the physics and mathematics behind it.
I am not going to explain in full detail how it works the Higgs mechanism, for that a short comment will not be enough, instead of that you can find a large literature of excellent quality on the web (arxiv is a good site and for free).

My point about mentioning the higgs mechanism, is the fact that as in superconductivity or superfluidity, the interaction with boson is essential. I am pointing this out because you were asking which are the difference between both. It does not matter if the higgs boson exists or not to make this point, the fact that many fermions can interact with boson all of them in the same state is the essential. Which if you look in detail gives some linear dependence that allow the this phenomena to happen.

Cheers
 
  • #14
nouveau_riche said:
can you give me an example where matter-antimatter anhilation is not involved in producing a boson fron fermions
Certainly, emission of photons from an atom returning to the ground state from an excited state is an example of producing a boson from fermions without any anhilation.

nouveau_riche said:
and the boson produced in the process must have some physical properties instead of being an energy packet.
The bosons produced must always conserve all conserved quantities, not just energy. For example, spin must also be conserved.
 
  • #15
DaleSpam said:
Certainly, emission of photons from an atom returning to the ground state from an excited state is an example of producing a boson from fermions without any anhilation.

The bosons produced must always conserve all conserved quantities, not just energy. For example, spin must also be conserved.

can a boson have charge?
 
  • #16
DaleSpam said:
Certainly, emission of photons from an atom returning to the ground state from an excited state is an example of producing a boson from fermions without any anhilation.

the example you are giving me doesn't transform a fermion into a boson it instead produces a boson from its energy.
 
  • #17
nouveau_riche said:
can a boson have charge?

W+ and W-, for example.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
nouveau_riche said:
...the boson produced in the process must have some physical properties instead of being an energy packet.

A photon produced in annihilation is not just a packet of energy. Photon is a full-fledged particle with physical properties (like the spin, momentum). There is no reason to treat photons as inferior to other particles.
 
  • #19
nouveau_riche said:
the example you are giving me doesn't transform a fermion into a boson it instead produces a boson from its energy.
Ah, I misunderstood, to me "transform" doesn't mean the same as "produce".

As far as I am aware there is no particle reaction which has as inputs only fermions and as outputs only bosons other than matter-antimatter annihilation. However, I am not a particle physicist, so there may be some of which I am not aware.
 
  • #20
jtbell said:
W+ and W-, for example.

so i would come at the same question again...
an example where a fermion can transform into boson giving him charge, momentum and energy?
 
  • #21
Why don't matter-antimatter anhilation reactions count?
 
  • #22
DaleSpam said:
Why don't matter-antimatter anhilation reactions count?

because i want to see a process where a fermion can modulate its intrinsic physical property that not just involves energy/momentum conservation but its field behavior
 
  • #23
But the statistics an elementary or composite particle obeys is intimately connected to the intrinsic spin of the particle, as given by the Spin-Statistics Theorem.

So if you want to change a fermion into a boson, you would have to change its spin, thus making it a new particle.

There is a kind of a "loophole" with composite particles. Take He-4, for example. It has 2 protons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. All of these are fermions. But, when paired, they have integer spin, thus making the nucleus, and the atom of this isotope a boson. In fact, He-4 is the first substance that exhibited superfluid transition.
 
  • #24
Dickfore said:
But the statistics an elementary or composite particle obeys is intimately connected to the intrinsic spin of the particle, as given by the Spin-Statistics Theorem.

So if you want to change a fermion into a boson, you would have to change its spin, thus making it a new particle.

There is a kind of a "loophole" with composite particles. Take He-4, for example. It has 2 protons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons. All of these are fermions. But, when paired, they have integer spin, thus making the nucleus, and the atom of this isotope a boson. In fact, He-4 is the first substance that exhibited superfluid transition.

it is not just the pairing, they have to be cooled so as to make them superfluid
 
  • #25
Of course. However, being a boson is a necessary condition. He-3, when cooled to the same conditions does not become superfluid.
 
  • #26
nouveau_riche said:
because i want to see a process where a fermion can modulate its intrinsic physical property that not just involves energy/momentum conservation but its field behavior
What do you mean by field behavior?
 
  • #27
DaleSpam said:
What do you mean by field behavior?

is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?
 
  • #28
DaleSpam said:
What do you mean by field behavior?

nouveau_riche said:
is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?

Why do you answer questions with questions?
 
  • #29
Dickfore said:
Why do you answer questions with questions?

i haven't answer the question yet but i need the answer before i can answer else you will be standing upright with your point
 
  • #30
nouveau_riche said:
is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?
Yes. More specifically, the forces of the standard model are described by gauge fields, and the quanta of those gauge fields are the gauge bosons. Each gauge field's gauge bosons are the carriers of the respective forces. Note that there are other non-gauge bosons which are not excitations of any of the gauge fields and therefore are not carriers of any of the corresponding forces.
 
  • #31
nouveau_riche said:
why is that at relatively low temperature bosons can occupy the same state while the fermions cannot?
and how does we macroscopically see the effects of bosons (with explanations)?

a theoretical answer is preferable

By definition fermion fields creation and destruction operators satisfies

[itex]
\{a_\alpha^\dagger, a_\beta^\dagger\}= 0\; , \\
\{a_\alpha,a_\beta\}= 0\; ,\\
\{a_\alpha^\dagger, a_\beta\}= \delta_{\alpha,\beta} \; ,
[/itex]

while boson fields creation and destruction operators satisfies

[itex]
\left[a_\alpha^\dagger, a_\beta^\dagger\right]= 0\; ,\\
\left[a_\alpha,a_\beta\right]= 0\; ,\\
\left[ a_\alpha^\dagger, a_\beta\right]= \delta_{\alpha,\beta}\; .
[/itex]

These (anti-)commutation rules implies that two fermions can't be in the same state ([itex]a_\alpha^\dagger a_\alpha^\dagger= 0[/itex]) while two bosons can ([itex]a_\alpha^\dagger a_\alpha^\dagger \neq 0[/itex]).

It can be shown that either a particle is a boson or it's a fermion, there isn't a third option.

Furthermore the Spin-Statistic theorem states that a particle with integer spin has to be a boson, while a semi-odd spin particle has to be a fermion.

Macroscopically a system of bosons can show superfluidity, while maybe the most known examples of the Fermi statistic are neutron stars.

Simon Bridge said:
[...] Very macroscopically, you need only look to neutron (boson) stars vs White dwarf (fermion) stars.[...]

Neutrons are fermions!

nouveau_riche said:
getting higgs theory into the picture, i think that higgs field has something more to do than adding the mass, there must some asymmetry before the particle could take their statistical properties but i am unable to find the event that will bring sufficient asymmetry.

There's really no need to invoke the Higgs field to explain how particles gains their statistical properties.
Actually your sentence sounds as a non-sense, as the Higgs is a boson (spin zero) and so statistics is needed to describe even the Higgs field.
Note that Fermi and Bose statistics reflects symmetries, not asymmetries.

nouveau_riche said:
can you give me an example where matter-antimatter anhilation is not involved in producing a boson fron fermions or vice versa
and the boson produced in the process must have some physical properties instead of being an energy packet.

All bosons has physical properties.
However, a process you may like is

[itex]e^- \;\bar{\nu}_e \rightarrow W^- \; ,[/itex]

where [itex]e^-[/itex] and [itex]\bar{\nu}_e[/itex] are fermions and [itex]W^-[/itex] is a boson.

nouveau_riche said:
is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?

No it's not necessary.
In the standard model there is exactly one boson that is not a gauge boson and so doesn't carry a force: the Higgs boson.

I hope this could help a bit. :smile:

Ilm
 
  • #32
nouveau_riche said:
is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?

Two bosons can scatter of each other thanks to intermediate fermions. That is the case of photon-photon scattering which happens due to interaction via the virtual electron-positron pair. However I am not sure if this is what you asked for.
 
  • #33
nouveau_riche said:
is it necessary that the bosons will always play the role of force carrier?
No. It is the other way around: in the standard model, the gauge fields give rise to force carriers which are bosons.
Not all interactions need be mediated by bosons.
Not all spin 0 objects are force carriers.

Now please answer the question posed by dalespam: "what do you mean by field behaviour?"

We cannot help you if you will not answer questions.
 
  • #34
Simon Bridge said:
No. It is the other way around: in the standard model, the gauge fields give rise to force carriers which are bosons.
Not all interactions need be mediated by bosons.
Not all spin 0 objects are force carriers.

Now please answer the question posed by dalespam: "what do you mean by field behaviour?"

We cannot help you if you will not answer questions.

what i meant to say was that if a fermion is changing into a boson that is a carrier of force, the field generating fermion has itself transformed into the carrier under some conditions, this could help to figure the fermion-boson relationship.
 
  • #35
nouveau_riche said:
what i meant to say was that if a fermion is changing into a boson that is a carrier of force, the field generating fermion has itself transformed into the carrier under some conditions, this could help to figure the fermion-boson relationship.

I think it may be worth to remark that the bosonic or fermionic nature of a field is a symmetry property of that field. A field would have such a symmetry even if it was the only field of your theory, it doesn't depend on the other fields and in particular it doesn't depend on the interaction with other particles.

So I think you should change a bit your perspective on this topic, maybe trying to formulate different kind of questions to better understand bosons and fermions.

Ilm
 

1. What is the difference between fermions and bosons?

Fermions and bosons are two types of elementary particles that make up the building blocks of matter. The main difference between them is their intrinsic spin, which is a fundamental property of particles. Fermions have half-integer spin (1/2, 3/2, etc.) while bosons have integer spin (0, 1, 2, etc.).

2. How do fermions and bosons behave at low temperatures?

At low temperatures, fermions and bosons exhibit different behaviors due to their intrinsic spin. Fermions follow the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. This leads to fermions having a lower energy state and forming a Fermi sea. On the other hand, bosons do not follow this principle and can occupy the same quantum state, leading to a Bose-Einstein condensate at low temperatures.

3. What are the effects of low temperatures on fermions and bosons?

At low temperatures, fermions and bosons exhibit unique effects. For fermions, the Fermi sea becomes more tightly packed, and they become more difficult to excite. This leads to properties such as electrical resistance and thermal conductivity decreasing. For bosons, the Bose-Einstein condensate becomes more pronounced, and they can exhibit superfluidity, where they flow without any resistance.

4. How do fermions and bosons interact at low temperatures?

Fermions and bosons can interact with each other at low temperatures through various processes such as scattering and pairing. For example, fermions can form Cooper pairs at low temperatures, leading to superconductivity. Bosons can also interact with each other through collisions, leading to the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate.

5. What are some real-world applications of fermions and bosons at low temperatures?

The behavior of fermions and bosons at low temperatures has several real-world applications. For example, superconductors, which are materials that can conduct electricity without any resistance, are based on the pairing of fermions. Bose-Einstein condensates have also been used in applications such as atomic clocks and quantum computing. Understanding the properties and interactions of fermions and bosons at low temperatures is essential in advancing these technologies.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
766
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
774
Back
Top