Entanglement and the Pauli exclusion principle

lotm
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

I have what I think (hope) is a relatively quick pair of questions regarding entanglement of fermions and bosons. First, am I right in saying that if two fermions are in the same position-state, they will necessarily be entangled? My reasoning here is just that if their position-state is the same, then some other aspect of their states (e.g. their spin) must be different (by the Pauli exclusion principle) - i.e. that that aspect of their states will be anti-correlated.

Second, is there any such connection in the case of bosons? Obviously, the PEP doesn't apply; so I'm inclined to think that a pair of bosons could share a position-state and yet not be entangled. Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Entanglement is not due to the exclusion principle but due to symmetrization for bosons (and antisymmetrization for fermions). That means that whenever we have a system consisting of two bosons (two fermions) the quantum state reads

|a,b\rangle = |a\rangle_1 \otimes |b\rangle_2 \pm |b\rangle_1 \otimes |a\rangle_2

with + for bosons (- for fermions)

'1' and '2' are 'labels' for the two particles. 'a' and 'b' represent all position or momentum space information, quantum numbers etc. Position space and spin are two specific examples. This entangled state simply says that it does not makes sense to say that "particle 1 is in state a and particle 2 is in state b". QM tells us that thet correct description is "there are two particles, one is in state a and the other one is in state b". So strictly speaking labelling particles is nonsense.

And indeed one can formulate QM in a way where one does not refer to these labels.

btw.: the PEP follows trivially for fermions with a = b:

|a,a\rangle = |a\rangle_1 \otimes |a\rangle_2 \pm |a\rangle_1 \otimes |a\rangle_2 = 0

which means that this state does not exist (by construction i.e. antisymmetrization).
 
lotm said:
Hey all,

I have what I think (hope) is a relatively quick pair of questions regarding entanglement of fermions and bosons. First, am I right in saying that if two fermions are in the same position-state, they will necessarily be entangled? My reasoning here is just that if their position-state is the same, then some other aspect of their states (e.g. their spin) must be different (by the Pauli exclusion principle) - i.e. that that aspect of their states will be anti-correlated.

Second, is there any such connection in the case of bosons? Obviously, the PEP doesn't apply; so I'm inclined to think that a pair of bosons could share a position-state and yet not be entangled. Is this right?
No.
1) The total wave function may not be stationary.
-The entangled states are stationary states of the many-body Hamiltonian. However, the total wave function does not have to be a stationary state. The total wave function may be rapidly varying in time.
2) There could be many other degrees of freedom other than position or linear momentum (which are conjugate properties).
-There could be spin, energy, total angular momentum, isospin, etc.
3) The ground state of a system of fermions has to be entangled.
-You are probably thinking of the special case of the ground state (i.e., lowest possible energy) of a system of system of fermions.
-The proof of this is along the general lines of what you are describing.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top