Fermi Distribution: Explaining QM POV w/ Wave Functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution Fermi
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Fermi distribution from a quantum mechanics (QM) perspective, emphasizing the need to start with the antisymmetrization requirement of wave functions for fermions. The participant critiques the traditional approach that assumes each electron occupies a distinct energy eigenstate, arguing that this oversimplifies the complexities of quantum states. They highlight the inadequacy of the mean field approach, particularly in systems like superconductors, where interactions lead to ground states that deviate from expected configurations. The conversation underscores the importance of understanding the underlying wave functions rather than relying solely on combinatorial methods.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of wave functions and antisymmetrization
  • Fermi-Dirac statistics
  • Mean field theory in many-body physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the antisymmetrization of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore Fermi-Dirac statistics and its implications in quantum systems
  • Investigate the mean field theory and its limitations in many-body systems
  • Research the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of superconductivity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundations of quantum statistics and the behavior of fermionic systems, particularly in the context of superconductivity.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
I have posted questions similar to this over the past week, but I have never had a satisfactory answer.
It is about the fermi distribution. From hyperphysics: "We picture all the levels up to the Fermi energy as filled, but no particle has a greater energy. This is entirely consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle where each quantum state can have one but only one particle."
First of all this picture has got to be wrong. In QM there is no such thing as this or that particle, though I guess it is understandable that you picture the fermi distribution as a lot distinct particles occupying the different energystates up to the fermi energy.
I however, want to understand the fermi distribution from a QM point of view. It's all got to start with the wave functions antisymmetrization requirement for fermions (after all the pauli principle is derived from this).
However, it just seems that all the derivations of the Fermi distribution that I have seen this is not the starting point but rather use the same idea as the quote above. That is: Instead of starting from the wave functions they will say something like this: Suppose we have n particles. For each energy eigenstate only one electron can occupy it due to the Pauli principle (spin is neglected here).
But this is QM! A particle does not necessarily have to be in an energy eigenstate. Let's label the first two energy-eigen states by e1 and e2. Then the wave functions:
ae1 + be2, ce1 + de2, fe1+ge2 ... are all allowed.
So how on Earth can it be the right approach to simply start with the general idea that each electron can only occupy one eigenstate and work the combinatorics from there (noone would know if God has distributed the electrons among eigenstates or among linear combinations of eigenstates)..
This annoys me so much. Please try to explain what I am thinking wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the main reason behind this is the mean field approach: You assume that the interaction of the particles can be taken into account via an effective potential which is more or less the same for each particle, especially in the limit of infinite system size. So you expect to find the ground state of the many electron system to be composed of one electron states where the lowest states are filled up consistent with the Pauli principle.
You are right that this does not always work. For example in superconductors an infinitely weak attractive attraction of the electrons is enough to produce a ground state which can be shown to be orthogonal to the mean field ground state. That's why it took so long to find a microscopic explanation for superconductivity and BCS getting the nobel prize.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K