Rotational Invariance: Bosons vs Fermions

relativityfan
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
hi,

is it correct to say that any particle or object that is invariant under rotation of 2 pi is a boson, whereas fermions need 4 pi?
what is the accurate statement about this?

thank you for your reply
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For fermions quantum states are also invariant with respect to 2pi rotations. But not vectors representing the states. Phase ambiguity in the relation between vectors and states is crucial here. After 2pi rotation vectors change their phase. This change can be reduced to multiplication by -1, but no more.
 
macroscopic objects are either bosons or the sum of a boson and a fermion. can we say that we only see the bosonic part since they are invariant with 2pi rotation?
 
relativityfan said:
macroscopic objects are either bosons or the sum of a boson and a fermion. can we say that we only see the bosonic part since they are invariant with 2pi rotation?

You are making a mistake here. Le me repeat: Fermion states are also invariant under 2pi rotations. The same applies to fermionic observables. For the properties of observables with respect to 2pi rotations there is no difference between Fermions and Bosons.

The difference is at the level that is not observable. It reflects itself in the values of spin, but not in the rotational invariance of states.
 
thank you for your reply, but at the level that is not observable, it seems that the conclusion is the same: macroscopic objects taken as a whole are invariant under such rotations because i do not see why the contrary could be true, what do you think?
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top