I Three Plus Anti-symmetric Particles

JohnH
Messages
63
Reaction score
6
So I understand that fermions are anti-symmetric under exchange, but in the contexts I've seen this explained they were always talking about two particles, or at least two wavefunctions. I'm curious how this works when there are three or more particles. Is any two given pairs of those 3+ particles anti-symmetric under exchange or is it more systematic? Or is it that there's essentially one wavefunction for all the particles (quanta of energy) in one spin and another wavefunction for all the quanta of energy in the other spin such that it's just those two wavefunctions that are anti-symmetric under exchange?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
JohnH said:
So I understand that fermions are anti-symmetric under exchange, but in the contexts I've seen this explained they were always talking about two particles, or at least two wavefunctions. I'm curious how this works when there are three or more particles.
The wave function for three electrons is covered here:

https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/752.mf1i.spring03/IdenticalParticlesRevisited.htm

The total wavefunction must reverse sign under the exchange of any two particles.
JohnH said:
Is any two given pairs of those 3+ particles anti-symmetric under exchange or is it more systematic? Or is it that there's essentially one wavefunction for all the particles (quanta of energy) in one spin and another wavefunction for all the quanta of energy in the other spin such that it's just those two wavefunctions that are anti-symmetric under exchange?
I can't make any sense of this part of your question.
 
  • Like
Likes JohnH and topsquark
PeroK said:
I can't make any sense of this part of your question.
Yeah, just trying to answer my own question last minute. Probably better off waiting for an answer. Anyway, thank you for it.
 
The wave functions of indistinguishable fermions must be antisymmetric under exchange of any pair of arguments, ##(\vec{x}_j,\sigma_j##, where ##\vec{x}_j## is the postition and ##\sigma_j## the spin-##z##-component (##\sigma_j\in \{-s,-s+1,\ldots,s-1,s \}##, where ##s## is a half-integer positive number, ##s \in \{1/2,3/2,\ldots \}##), i.e., if ##\psi(t,\vec{x}_1,\sigma_1;\vec{x}_2,\sigma_2;\ldots; \vec{x}_N,\sigma_N)## is an ##N##-particle fermionic wave function, then it's antisymmetric by exchanging any pair ##(\vec{x}_i,\sigma_i)## and ##(\vec{x}_j,\sigma_j)##.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top