Pauli principle

  • Thread starter Tsunami
  • Start date
92
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

I only have applied courses of quantum physics, so in my text book fundamentals are only briefly mentioned.

In my text book the following is said of the Pauli principle:

Atkins&Friedman said:
The principle should be regarded as one more fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics in addition to those presented in Chapter 1. However, it does have a deeper basis, for it can be rationalized to some extent by using relativistic arguments and the requirement that the total energy of the universe be positive.
I was wondering if someone can tip the veil of these arguments a little bit. Obviously, spin has a lot to do with it. I was wondering if, with similar arguments, it is possible to explain why photon emission is a common occurence in energy exchange. I mean, what makes photons so special; the fact that they have spin 1?
I was wondering whether people are getting any further in making something similar to Mendelejew's table, but for subatomic particles : that is, to show how behavior can be derived based on the number of types of fermions, bosons, etc. in a system.

I haven't had any subatomic physics yet, so please don't overquark me with your input. Thanks.
 

Answers and Replies

508
0
I think what you're basically talking about is the "spin-statistics-theorem". I think it says that fermions obey the Pauli principle, while bosons do not.
 
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,965
536
I think what you're basically talking about is the "spin-statistics-theorem". I think it says that fermions obey the Pauli principle, while bosons do not.
Before making such claims, you should document yourself. So make a search about the "spin-statistics theorem" and see what it really says.
 
The principle should be regarded as one more fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics in addition to those presented in Chapter 1. However, it does have a deeper basis, for it can be rationalized to some extent by using relativistic arguments and the requirement that the total energy of the universe be positive.
what i have seen in textbooks is the following: they start with the Dirac lagrangian and then express the Hamiltonian in terms of this and the field. The Hamiltonian is then rewritten such that formal operators pop out (similar to the solution for the quantum harmonic oscillator), in particular a "d" operator. If this "d" operator is not anti-commutative, then particles with negative energy could be created - this is rejected on physical grounds. therefore, the anti-commutation property (which is really just another way of writing the pauli principle) is a direct consequence of applying special relativity to a quantized field.
 

Related Threads for: Pauli principle

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
654
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
543
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top