Energy of two fermions in a three-dimensional box

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the energy of two fermions in a three-dimensional rectangular box, specifically addressing their interactions under different spin configurations. For fermions with anti-parallel spins, the first-order perturbation theory is applied to derive the energy correction using the Hamiltonian H=H0+H', where H' represents the interaction potential Aδ(𝑟1−𝑟2). The case of parallel spins is deemed impossible due to the Pauli exclusion principle, confirming that fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, particularly the Pauli exclusion principle
  • Familiarity with perturbation theory in quantum systems
  • Knowledge of wave functions and normalization in quantum mechanics
  • Experience with Hamiltonians and their applications in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the first-order energy correction in quantum perturbation theory
  • Learn about the properties of fermionic wave functions and their implications on particle interactions
  • Explore the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle in multi-particle quantum systems
  • Investigate the mathematical formulation of delta function potentials in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those studying multi-particle systems, fermionic statistics, and perturbation theory applications.

Skrien
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two particles of mass m are placed in a rectangular box with sides a>b>c (note 3D-box). The particles interact with each other with a potential V=A\delta(\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2) and are in their ground state (1s). Use first order perturbation theory to find the systems energy in two cases:

<br /> \begin{cases}<br /> a ) \text{ The particles are fermions with anti-parallel spins}\\<br /> b) \text{ The particles are fermions with parallel spins}<br /> \end{cases}<br />

Homework Equations


I'm having trouble finding the explicit spin wave-function, what is the total wave function for my two particle system? I need an explicit expression for which I can perform the integral, I have only found implicit expression such as &#039;&#039;\chi(s_1,s_2)&#039;&#039;. What is this function in my case?

The Attempt at a Solution


So far I've concluded that the state in b) is impossible because of the Pauli exclusion principle. In a) I have written down the hamiltonian as
<br /> H=H_0+H&#039;=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_1}\nabla_1^2-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_2}\nabla_2^2+A\delta(\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2).<br />
where H' is the interacting potential which is considered the perturbation. The first order correction to the energy is
E_{n_1n_2}^{(1)}=&lt;\psi_{n_1n_2}|H&#039;|\psi_{n_1n_2}&gt;

The wave-function for one particle in a box without consideration to spin is quite straight forward, however, I can't seem to grasp the concept of spin-wave function.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Skrien said:
I'm having trouble finding the explicit spin wave-function, what is the total wave function for my two particle system? I need an explicit expression for which I can perform the integral, I have only found implicit expression such as &#039;&#039;\chi(s_1,s_2)&#039;&#039;. What is this function in my case?
The integral over the spin components is trivial, as it is not a function of r1 or r2. The only thing that will be important is that it is normalized and (hint) its symmetry.

Skrien said:
So far I've concluded that the state in b) is impossible because of the Pauli exclusion principle.
My reading of the problem is that the particles are in the ground state internally, but not necessarily in the ground state of the box (because the designation 1s has nothing to do with the box). I would find an appropriate spatial wave function where the Pauli principle is obeyed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K