Pauli Exclusion across the three Generations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TestTubeGames
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pauli
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Pauli Exclusion Principle and its implications for fermions across different generations, specifically examining whether different types of fermions, such as electrons and muons, can occupy the same quantum state. The scope includes theoretical considerations and quantum mechanics concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that fermions cannot occupy the same state, while bosons can, and questions whether muons and electrons could share all four quantum numbers if their orbital energies were identical.
  • Another participant asserts that particles of different flavors can occupy the same state since they are not identical, thus allowing for muon and electron orbitals to coexist in an atom.
  • A participant inquires about the familiarity with fermionic creation and annihilation operators, suggesting a deeper exploration of the mathematical framework behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
  • One participant expresses appreciation for the clarification regarding the operators and reflects on the oversimplified adages about fermions and bosons, acknowledging the complexity of the topic.
  • A later reply provides a mathematical explanation using creation and annihilation operators to illustrate why the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies only to identical particles, reinforcing that different particles can occupy the same state.
  • Another participant expresses enjoyment of the clarity provided by the mathematical approach in quantum mechanics, contrasting it with intuitive misconceptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies only to identical fermions, allowing different types of fermions to occupy the same state. However, the discussion includes varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the implications of this principle.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions of particle identity and flavor, as well as the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, which may not be fully resolved in terms of intuitive understanding.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum mechanics, particle physics, and the foundational principles governing fermions and bosons may find this discussion relevant.

TestTubeGames
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Fermions are well known for NOT being able to exist in the same state, whereas bosons can. Hence why once an S orbital in an atom has two electrons (with opposite spins), that's it.

But I've only ever seen this discussed for a single type of particle at a time. For instance, could a muon and an electron exist in the same state? Now, I realize this is a bit hand-wavy, since the orbital energies of a muon would (I suppose) be different than an electron... but imagine they weren't. Would there be any restriction to a muon and electron in an atom sharing all 4 quantum numbers?

This would mean that so long as you had a bunch of different types of fermions (muons, taus...) they could 'overlap' like bosons. This seems strange to me. Or am I missing something?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope, no problem at all with particles of different flavour occupying the "same" state because as you say, they are different particles, and so they are NOT in the same state. The exclusion principle is only concerned with identical particles, and being of different flavours means two particles are not identical. So yes, in principle you could have a whole set of muon orbitals sitting alongside your electron orbitals in some atom, even if muons and electrons had the same masses and muons were stable.
 
Are you familiar with fermionic creation and annihilation operators?
 
Thanks to both of you for clearing my head about this issue. I am familiar with the operators you speak of, and from a QM perspective it seems pretty clear. (You can swap two electrons and take into account what happens to the wave function, but not two distinct particles).

I was doubting myself, though, because that flies in the face of those common (and oversimplified) adages. 'Fermions hate being together,' 'bosons can share a room, but fermions don't wanna' ...

Of course, you can't expect total accuracy in such explanations, but I guess some part of my instinct was still based on those anthropomorphized particles I learned about as a kid.

Thanks for setting me straight!
 
I asked for the creation and annihilation operators b/c of the following reason: you can create single-fermion states |S> using an operator

|S\rangle = a^\dagger_S|0\rangle

where S means an index S = {momentum, spin, ...} with all other quantum numbers such as flavor and color.

Now using these operators you can also create two-fermion states |SS'> for S≠S'

|SS^\prime\rangle = a^\dagger_S\,a^\dagger_{S^\prime}|0\rangle

But for S=S' you get

\left(a^\dagger_S\right)^2=0

which explains algenbraically why you can't create a two-fermion state with two identical particles S=S'. But b/c this holds only for S=S' the Pauli principle does not apply for different particles, i.e. S≠S', i.e. for an electron and a myon with identical momentum and spin.
 
Thanks for the clear proof, Tom. That's one thing I've always enjoyed about Quantum Mechanics. In a topic where your intuition can so easily run you astray, the math is surprisingly clear.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K