Understanding Single Particle States in Quantum Mechanics

Click For Summary
In quantum mechanics, a collection of electrons can be treated as occupying single particle states when electron-electron interactions are negligible. In such cases, the system can be described using a state vector that represents the entire ensemble, allowing for the Hamiltonian to be expressed as a sum of individual particle contributions. However, when interactions are significant, one must account for these in the Hamiltonian, complicating the treatment of the system. The Pauli exclusion principle also plays a crucial role, as it prevents identical fermions from occupying the same state, meaning they cannot be treated completely independently. Overall, the treatment of electrons as single particles versus a multi-particle system depends on the interaction strength and the need to respect quantum statistical principles.
broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was just reading up on some QM, and I was wondering this: under what circumstances can you treat a bunch of electrons as occupying "single particle states", and when do you have to use one wavefunction depending on all the coordinates, psi(r1, r2, r3, ...)? Hope you know what I mean...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One state vector would describe the whole system if all particles were identical. The position eigenstate for the whole system of N particles is then |\vec{x}\rangle =|\vec{x}_n\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes |\vec{x}_1\rangle (corresponding to the position operator Q=Q_n\otimes\cdots\otimes Q_1) and the wave-function \langle\vec{x}|\psi\rangle =\psi (\vec{x}_n\cdots\vec{x}_1), as you said. The intepretation of a state vector/operator is that it describes an ensemble of similarly prepared systems, not necessarilly a single particle.

The Schrödinger equation is still the same for the whole system, H|\psi (t)\rangle =i\hbar\tfrac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi (t)\rangle. The only difference is that in, for example, coordinate representation the Hamiltonian gives the energy of the whole system and becomes for, non-relativistic, non-interacting particles (as Gokul pointed out below [thanks, I didn't realize that for some reason])

H=\sum_{i=1}^N\left[\frac{-\hbar^2\nabla_i^2}{2M_i}+V_i(\vec{x})\right]

Edit: But yeah, the non-interacting system can be treated individually, but generally one should treat the system as a whole, using a state vector to describe the whole ensemble.
 
Last edited:
I think the question is: Under what conditions can a beam of electrons be treated like an esemble of single electrons versus having to treat them as (one instance of) a multi-particle system? As long as the electron-electron interaction can be ignored, you can treat the beam as being a collection of independent particles.
 
Perturbation said:
The only difference is that in, for example, coordinate representation the Hamiltonian gives the energy of the whole system and becomes

H=\sum_{i=1}^N\left[\frac{-\hbar^2\nabla_i^2}{2M_i}+V_i(\vec{x})\right]

In general, the Hamiltonian will also have terms like Vi,j - the interaction terms between particles. In the absence of these terms we can solve the single-particle SE to find the single-particle eigenstates and construct the multiparticle state as the product of single particle states. The interaction terms prevent us from being able to do this, and we may have to resort to either a clever approximation (for weak interactions) or a more clever guess of the many-body wavenfunction (for strong interactions).
 
Last edited:
I see. Thanks.

Oh, just one more thing: how do you construct the state vector for the whole system from the individual single particle states? Is it like a tensor product (I'm unsure of the mathematics here.)
 
And yet another thing: even though the electrons doesn't interact, they still have to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, right? So we can't consider them independently after all, or...?
 
You would write the multi-particle state-vector as a tensor product of the individual state vectors.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K