Pauli's exclusion principle and cooper pairs

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) and its implications for Cooper pairs in superconductivity. It is established that while PEP states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, Cooper pairs consist of two electrons that are bound together but do not occupy the same state due to their opposite spins. The fundamental principle underlying this phenomenon is the antisymmetry of the wavefunction for fermions, which is a consequence of quantum mechanics (QM). The conversation also touches on the existence of P-wave superconductors, such as strontium ruthenates, which exhibit spin-triplet pairing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP)
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics (QM)
  • Familiarity with fermions and bosons
  • Concept of wavefunction symmetry in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Cooper pairs and their role in superconductivity
  • Explore the concept of wavefunction antisymmetry in fermionic systems
  • Investigate P-wave superconductors and their characteristics
  • Study the implications of spin states in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and researchers in superconductivity who seek to understand the nuances of fermionic behavior and Cooper pair formation.

noblegas
Messages
266
Reaction score
0
Pauli exclusion principles states and I paraphrase; No two fermions can occupy the same state; That being said, how can cooper pairs exist? Cooper pairs are when two fermions(electrons in this case) bound together ; If they are bound together, then they must occupy the same state;
 
Physics news on Phys.org
noblegas said:
If they are bound together, then they must occupy the same state;

That's your problem. They can be bound together without being in the same state. Atoms have electrons bound together (with a nucleus), and they are not in the same state.

Also, anticipating your next question, it's important to recognize that the PEP is a consequence of QM, not a fundamental principle. The fundamental principle is that for a collection of fermions, the wavefunction is antisymmetric under exchange of particles.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
That's your problem. They can be bound together without being in the same state. Atoms have electrons bound together (with a nucleus), and they are not in the same state.

Also, anticipating your next question, it's important to recognize that the PEP is a consequence of QM, not a fundamental principle. The fundamental principle is that for a collection of fermions, the wavefunction is antisymmetric under exchange of particles.

you mean its not fundamental since it really applies only to fermions and not bosons; I don't quite understand how two electrons can be bound and not occupied the same state; They could occupy more than one states?
 
By "not fundamental" I mean it's a derived property of something that is more fundamental. The fundamental property is the wavefunction symmetry.

As far as binding - the Earth has zillions of electrons gravitationally bound to it. Do you think they are all in the same state?
 
noblegas said:
If they are bound together, then they must occupy the same state;

What's your reasoning behind that statement? Or at least where did you see it? With context we should be able to show you why that is not true for Cooper pairs.
 
The electrons in a Cooper pair have opposite spins (+1/2 and -1/2), that alone should be enough to convince you that they are not in the same state.
 
Is that true? Are there P-wave superconductors? (In analogy with 3He superfluidity) I'm not arguing that Cooper pairs are in the same state - just that this might not be the best example.
 
I believe strontium ruthenates are thought to have spin-triplet pairing.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K