How we differentiate between bosons and fermions?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The differentiation between bosons and fermions is primarily based on their spin characteristics: fermions possess half-integer spins and adhere to the Pauli exclusion principle, while bosons have integer spins. The Stern–Gerlach experiment serves as a prominent method for distinguishing these particles. Additionally, particle decay analysis provides insights into their classification, where fermion decays yield an odd number of fermions and boson decays result in an even number. The discussion also references the concept of para-statistics introduced by H.S. Green in 1953, which offers an alternative framework for particle classification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and particle physics
  • Familiarity with the Pauli exclusion principle
  • Knowledge of spin and parity in quantum particles
  • Basic concepts of particle decay and collision analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Stern–Gerlach experiment and its implications in quantum mechanics
  • Study the principles of particle decay and angular analysis of decay products
  • Explore the concept of para-statistics as proposed by H.S. Green
  • Investigate the role of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in particle classification
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and researchers in particle physics who seek to understand the fundamental differences between bosons and fermions.

MAKK
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
if we have two particle then how we differentiate between boson and fermion ,any experiment that differentiate them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fermions have half-integer spins (they follow the Pauli exclusion principle), whereas bosons always have integer spins.
 
PWiz said:
Fermions have half-integer spins (they follow the Pauli exclusion principle), whereas bosons always have integer spins.
i knw but wht exp that differentiate them??
 
There's more than one possibility, but the most famous example would be the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Here's a more detailed description.

Another way (as you would do in particle physics collisions) would to look at the decay of the particle. The spin and parity will affect the various decay probabilities.
 
Decay probabilities are rarely used, they depend on too many other things. Just the possibility of a decay channel is sufficient to classify the particle. Finding its actual spin value is then done by angular analysis of the decay products.

In case we suddenly forget all spin values:
Electrons have to be fermions, otherwise all electrons in atoms would occupy the lowest energy state and there would be no chemistry.
Protons and neutrons have to be fermions, otherwise the nuclide chart would look completely different (e. g. more stable large elements).
The decay of a fermion always leads to an odd number of fermions, the decay of a boson always leads to an even number.
In beta decays, neutrons decay to proton+electron+neutrino, therefore the neutrino has to be a fermion. It also follows that the W has to be a boson.
Electron+positron, both fermions, can annihilate to two and three photons, therefore the photon has to be a boson.
Quarks can radiate gluons, which looks like "quark -> quark+gluon", therefore the gluon has to be a boson. The same is true for Z, W, photons and Higgs.
Three valence quarks make up a proton or neutron, therefore quarks have to be fermions.
The Higgs can decay to two photons, therefore it has to be a boson.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Imager
I read in I think it was Rudolf Haag's Local Quantum Physics, that there was a paper by someone that suggested a different sorting of particles, instead of bosons and fermions.

Yeah, it's on page 35, instead of Bose-Fermi statistics there has been suggested a para-statistics which have been suggested by H.S Green in his paper from 1953 called "A generalized method of field quantization ".(http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.90.270 ).

The boson/fermion distinction is deduced from this generalized method, I am not sure if this paper is legitimate, since we'd be learning it in university graduate or undergraduate courses if it were.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MathematicalPhysicist said:
I am not sure if this paper is legitimate
Parastatistics is a perfectly respectable concept. It can also account for the substructure of mesons and baryons but was later displaced by QCD which gave a more powerful machinery to work with.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
892
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K