Desintegration of particle into 2 fermions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter paweld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fermions Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the properties of the wavefunction resulting from the disintegration of a spinless particle into two fermions with half-integer spin. Participants explore the implications of spin and spatial symmetry in the context of angular momentum conservation and the nature of fermionic wavefunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the spin part of the wavefunction for two fermions created from a spinless particle is always antisymmetric, suggesting that this leads to a symmetric spatial wavefunction.
  • Another participant clarifies that the assumption of zero orbital angular momentum implies a spatially symmetric state, prompting further discussion on the nature of symmetry in the wavefunction.
  • A participant expresses a desire to prove that the spatial part of the wavefunction is symmetric under particle exchange, specifically stating \(\psi(x_1,x_2) = \psi(x_2,x_1)\).
  • One participant asserts that conservation of angular momentum necessitates that the two fermions be in a spin singlet state, which is antisymmetric in spin, thereby requiring the spatial wavefunction to be symmetric.
  • Another participant seeks to generalize the result that the spin part of the wavefunction is antisymmetric for two particles with half-integer spin, proposing to prove this for all odd \(n\).
  • A later reply introduces complexity by discussing the limitations of the antisymmetry condition and the approximation methods used in dividing the wavefunction into spin and spatial parts, noting that these methods may not yield results consistent with experimental values, especially in multi-electron systems.
  • One participant raises a question about the applicability of the antisymmetric relation of electrons in non-relativistic versus relativistic quantum field theory contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of symmetry in the wavefunction, with some agreeing on the necessity of antisymmetry in spin and symmetry in spatial parts, while others introduce complexities and challenge the assumptions made. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general proof for all \(n\) and the implications of approximations used in the analysis.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about angular momentum conservation and the nature of wavefunctions, which may not hold in all contexts. The complexity of the relationship between spin and orbital angular momentum is also highlighted, indicating potential limitations in the analysis.

paweld
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
Why the spin part of wavefuncition of two particle of half-integer spin (fermions)
which was created after desintegraton of spinless particle is always
antisymmetric (let's assume that orbital angular momentum was 0
before and after desintegration). This implies that spatial part
of wavefunction is symmetric (maybe it the result of momentum
conservation?).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You "assume that orbital angular momentum was 0". This is a spatially symmetric state.
 
Thanks for replay.
I didn't mean spatially symmetric in that sense - sorry for being imprecise.
I menat symmetry of spatial part of wavefunction under exchange of particles.
I would like to prove that \psi(x_1,x_2)=\psi(x_2,x_1).
 
Conservation of angular momentum implies that you two fermions should be in the spin singlet state (S=0).

\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle-|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle\right)

This state is anti-symmetric wrt interchange of the spin-indices of the two particles. As you said, this implies (since the total wavefunction must be antisymmetric wrt interchange of all particle coordinates (i.e. spin and position) the spatial part of the wavefunction must be symmetric.
 
I would like to prove more general fact. If as a result of desintegration two particles
with spin n/2 (with odd n) are created the spin part of wavefunction is antisymmetric
(one can check that it's true by examining Clebsch-Gordon coefficients table but
I'm looking for prove for all n).
 
The actual phenomena are more complicated.

The antisymmetric means that if we use the same functions in the 2 electrons, the whole wavefunction becomes zero.
The way of dividing the wavefunction into the spin and spatial parts and using symmetric and antisymmetric relations is one of the one-electron approximations.
This way uses the hydrogen wavefunction of each energy level and correct the charge value and so on.
This is an approximation, so the result is different from the experimental value. (especially when there are many electrons).

Both the spin and orbital have "the angular momentum" which names are the same, but these angular momentums have the entirely different properties. Because the spin g-factor is 2 and the orbital g-factor is 1 (As a result, both the magnetic moments are the same (2 x 1/2 = 1 x 1).

So when we use the J (= spin + orbital angular momentum ), its g-factor becomes complex (See this thread).
And there are some cases in which any coupling methods are difficult to express the experimental spectrum lines.

(Oh, while I am writing this, I notice one thing. I heard that some people said the antisymmetric relation of the electrons appears only in the relativistic QFT. But the case you say in this thread are clearly non-relativistic. Is it OK?)
 
Last edited:
paweld said:
Thanks for replay.
I didn't mean spatially symmetric in that sense - sorry for being imprecise.
I menat symmetry of spatial part of wavefunction under exchange of particles.
I would like to prove that \psi(x_1,x_2)=\psi(x_2,x_1).
Spatially symmetric in "that sense" does mean symmetric under the interchange x1<--->x2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K