How Do Fermi and Bose Statistics Explain Particle Behavior in Quantum Mechanics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fermi Statistics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Fermi and Bose statistics in the context of particle behavior in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on composite particles formed from fermions and the implications for wave functions. Participants explore the mathematical representations and conceptual understanding of these statistics, including the nature of approximation wave functions and the behavior of fermionic and bosonic systems.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that particles of kind B, formed from two fermions of kind F, satisfy Bose statistics, leading to questions about the nature of the wave function for such systems.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the definition and implications of an "approximation wave function" in the context of composite particles.
  • One participant presents a mathematical expression for the four-fermion wave function and discusses the necessity of antisymmetry in fermionic systems.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of wave function sign changes when exchanging particles and the implications for bosonic and fermionic wave functions.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationship between the Fermi-Dirac distribution and the behavior of electrons in doped semiconductors, particularly regarding probabilities in conduction and valence bands.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition or implications of the "approximation wave function," and multiple competing views on the interpretation of particle statistics and wave functions remain. The discussion on the Fermi-Dirac distribution also highlights differing understandings of probability distributions in semiconductor physics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the term "approximation wave function" and the potential for misunderstandings regarding the interactions between fermions and bosons in composite systems. Additionally, the discussion on the Fermi-Dirac distribution raises questions about the interpretation of probabilities that are not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and solid-state physics, particularly in understanding the behavior of composite particles and the implications of particle statistics.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
Suppose we have particles of kind B, that consist of two fermions of kind F. Now the particles B satisfy the Bose statistics. But what precisely does this mean? If we have four F particles, the system is described by a wave function

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)[/tex]

Suppose the particles 1 and 2 are bounded and form one particle B, and 3 and 4 are bounded too. Then it should be possible to approximate this system as a two particle system

[tex] \approx \psi'(x_{12}, x_{34})[/tex]

where [itex]x_{12}[/itex] and [itex]x_{34}[/itex] are some kind of approximate coordinates for the particles B.

How can these ideas made more rigor? We have

[tex] \psi(x_{\sigma(1)}, x_{\sigma(2)}, x_{\sigma(3)}, x_{\sigma(4)}) = \varepsilon(\sigma) \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4),[/tex]

and we want to prove

[tex] \psi'(x_{12}, x_{34}) = \psi'(x_{34}, x_{12}).[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One could try to prove that just by

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = \psi(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2).[/tex]

but there's still something I don't like this. What precisely is that "approximation wave function"? I haven't seen any definitions for such things anywhere.

What would

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = -\psi(x_2,x_1,x_3,x_4)[/tex]

mean? The particle [itex]x_{12}[/itex] doesn't move anywhere, but the wave function changes sign. So we could also continue

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = \psi(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2) = -\psi(x_3,x_4,x_2,x_1)<br /> \quad\underset{\textrm{maybe}}{\implies}\quad \psi'(x_{12},x_{34}) = -\psi'(x_{34},x_{12})[/tex]

and the confusion continues.
 
Last edited:
jostpuur said:
One could try to prove that just by

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = \psi(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2).[/tex]

but there's still something I don't like this. What precisely is that "approximation wave function"? I haven't seen any definitions for such things anywhere.

I am unfamiliar with this term "approximation wavefunction" - can you tell me where you saw it? In the limit that you have four fermions, both pair of them forming bound states that do not interact, it is exactly true that the 4-fermion wavefunction factorizes into a product of 2 wavefunctions

[tex] \Psi_F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = \psi_F(x_1,x_2)\psi_F(x_3,x_4)-\psi_F(x_1,x_3)\psi_F(x_2,x_4)+\psi_F(x_1,x_4)\psi_F(x_2,x_3)[/tex]

Note at this stage, everything's still fermionic, and you need all of these terms with the signs to be sure to maintain the antisymmetry with all particles. As I say, as long as there are no 3-or-more-body interactions between the fermions, this is an exact equation. If you cannot entirely ignore such interactions, then there are corrections to this result. Maybe that's what you mean by "approximate".
What would

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = -\psi(x_2,x_1,x_3,x_4)[/tex]

mean? The particle [itex]x_{12}[/itex] doesn't move anywhere, but the wave function changes sign. So we could also continue

[tex] \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = \psi(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2) = -\psi(x_3,x_4,x_2,x_1)<br /> \quad\underset{\textrm{maybe}}{\implies}\quad \psi'(x_{12},x_{34}) = -\psi'(x_{34},x_{12})[/tex]

and the confusion continues.

I don't think it means anything! You have to be very careful about what it is you are exchanging. For example, if you are exchanging two of the fermions (in or out of the bound state) then you must use the fermionic wavefunction. However, if you are exchanging two bosons (PAIRS of fermions) you can either use the bosonic wavefunction, OR you can still use the fermionic wavefunction - both give you the same answer. But if you exchange two fermions inside a boson, then you are exchanging two fermions and must use the fermion wavefunction. It is incorrect to talk about bosons in that case.

I always get a headache keeping track of this stuff! ;-)
 
blechman said:
I am unfamiliar with this term "approximation wavefunction" - can you tell me where you saw it?

I haven't seen it anywhere. But surely there must be some kind of approximation wave function. Everybody talks that pairs of fermions can form bosonic particles, and it wouldn't make sense unless there was some wave function for the new bosonic particles.
 
The only thing I can think of is that you must ignore the substructure of composite bosons made of fermions if you want to write down a bosonic wavefunction, and that is an approximation. I see this point was mentioned in the thread "bosonic atoms"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=190325
 
I have a naive question about Fermi Dirac distribution. In solid state electronics we learned that doping an intrinsic semiconductor with n type material shifts the fermi level close to conduction band increasing probability of finding an electron in conduction band. But at the same time from Fermi Dirac distribution, the probability of finding electron in valence band is also increasing. How can both of them possible at the same time, given sum of probability finding electron in conduction band and valence band is 1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 309 ·
11
Replies
309
Views
17K