Graduate Multi-particle state, wave-function with fewer zeros interpretation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between the number of zeros in many-particle wave functions and particle density in quantum systems. The Moore-Read wavefunction has fewer zeros compared to the Laughlin wavefunction, indicating a higher density of particles. Each zero in a fermionic wave function represents a restriction where two particles cannot occupy the same position, so fewer zeros suggest fewer such restrictions. Consequently, with a fixed volume, a lower number of zeros correlates with a higher packing density of particles. This understanding clarifies the connection between wave function characteristics and particle arrangement in quantum systems.
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
Hi , reading some notes on quantum hall effect, a comparison between Moore-Read wavefunction and Laughlin wavefunction is ' the moore-read state has fewer zeros suggesting the particles are more densely packed'

Just confused with understanding why fewer zeros means the particles are more densely packed- all I can think to do this, amplitude of the wave=function gives the probability (once integrating over spatial coordinates) the probability of finding particles within a region,so if there's less zeros, this will be larger? or is this reasoning totally off?

many thanks

(David Tong notes http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qhe/four.pdf, page 117)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Those are zeros in a many-particle fermionic wave function. Each zero indicates that a pair of particles cannot be on the same position. If there are many zeros, it indicates that there are many such pairs and hence that there are many particles. If the volume is fixed, then more particles means larger density of packing.

@binbagsss sorry for responding after such a long time, I have seen it now because it was suggested as an unanswered thread.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
970
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
75
Views
14K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K