Clearly integral particle number is an experimental fact. But within quantum(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); theory, does integral particle number follow as a mathematical necessity? or is it itself an additional assumption?

In QM it is built into the mathematical infrastructure: the basic entity is the wave function and the number of position variables must be an integer. If [tex]\psi(x_1)[/tex] is a wave-function for one particle and [tex]\psi(x_1,x_2)[/tex] is a wave function for two particles, there simply is no way to write down a wave-function for 3/2 particles.

But in QFT we apply a raising (creation) operator [tex]a^\dag (p)[/tex] to the vacuum state [tex]|0\rangle[/tex] to get multi-particle states. So for example [tex]a^\dag (p_1)^4 a^\dag (p_2)^3|0\rangle[/tex] gives a state of 4 particles with momentum p_1 and 3 with momentum p_2.

Is there any mathematical or theoretical reason why we cannot consider non-integer powers of the creation operator?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is intregral particle number a theoretical assumption?

Loading...

Similar Threads - intregral particle number | Date |
---|---|

I For a particle on a sphere, is zero energy possible? | Saturday at 12:56 PM |

I One particle and two slits | Saturday at 12:00 AM |

I Virtual particles in Feynman diagrams | Friday at 8:55 AM |

I Why is there an arrow mediating a process in a Feynman diagram? | Thursday at 2:14 PM |

I Complex numbers of QM | Feb 14, 2018 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**