Suppose we want to construct a wave function for 2 free (relativistic) fermions. As we are dealing with fermions the total wave function has to be antisymmetric under interchange of the coordinates,Suppose we want to construct a wave function for 2 free (relativistic) fermions.

pighead73283r 2022-11-05 Answered
Suppose we want to construct a wave function for 2 free (relativistic) fermions. As we are dealing with fermions the total wave function has to be antisymmetric under interchange of the coordinates,Suppose we want to construct a wave function for 2 free (relativistic) fermions. As we are dealing with fermions the total wave function has to be antisymmetric under interchange of the coordinates,
Ψ ( x 1 , x 2 ) = Ψ ( x 2 , x 1 )
If we assume that we can factorize the wave function in terms of single particle wave functions we can write
Ψ ( x 1 , x 2 ) = ψ 1 ( x 1 ) ψ 2 ( x 2 ) ψ 1 ( x 1 ) ψ 2 ( x 2 )
which fulfills the anti-symmetry requirement. The plane wave single particle states are given by,
ψ k , m s ( x ) = u k , m s ( s ) ϕ ( k r )
So expect the total wavefunction to be
Ψ ( x 1 , x 2 ) = u k 1 , m s 1 ( s 1 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 1 ) u k 2 , m s 2 ( s 2 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 2 ) u k 1 , m s 1 ( s 2 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 2 ) u k 2 , m s 2 ( s 1 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 1 ) = u k 1 , m s 1 ( s 1 ) u k 2 , m s 2 ( s 2 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 1 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 2 ) u k 1 , m s 1 ( s 2 ) u k 2 , m s 2 ( s 1 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 2 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 1 )
However
u ( k 1 , m s 1 ) u ( k 2 , m s 2 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 1 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 2 ) u ( k 2 , m s 2 ) u ( k 1 , m s 1 ) ϕ ( k 1 r 2 ) ϕ ( k 2 r 1 )
If I'm not mistaking one cannot freely change the order of the Dirac spinors u ( k 1 , m s 1 ) u ( k 2 , m s 2 ) u ( k 2 , m s 2 ) u ( k 1 , m s 1 ) so these expressions seem to be uncompatible. What would the correct expression look like?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

ustalovatfog
Answered 2022-11-06 Author has 11 answers
Your formalism is not correct. Momentum space and polarization space are independent. You have to use tensorial products. For instance, for a one-particle state, you have:
ψ ( k 1 , s 1 ) = ϕ ( k 1 ) χ ( s 1 )
In this formalism, do not use dirac spinors. If you are talking about electrons, you have 2 possible polarizations, so use simply states χ ( s 1 ) = | 0 > 1 or χ ( s 1 ) = | 1 > 1
For a 2-particle state, momentum state and spin-state of one particle are independent of the states of the other particle, so there is an other tensorial product here.
For instance, an example of an antisymmetric global state could be :
( ψ 1 ( k 1 ) ψ 2 ( k 2 ) + ψ 2 ( k 1 ) ψ 1 ( k 2 ) ) ( | 0 > 1 | 1 > 2 | 1 > 1 | 0 > 2 )
Another example:
( ψ 1 ( k 1 ) ψ 2 ( k 2 ) | 0 > 1 | 1 > 2 ψ 2 ( k 1 ) ψ 1 ( k 2 ) ) | 1 > 1 | 0 > 2 )
Note, that here, the tensorial products into each of the space (momentum space or spin space) are implicit, that is | 0 > 1 | 1 > 2 = | 0 > 1 | 1 > 2
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-04-06
If you have 2 flashlights, one facing North and one facing South, how fast are the photons (or lightbeams) from both flashlights moving away from one another?
Just adding speeds would yield 2C, but that's not possible as far as I know.
The reference frame here would be the place where the flashlights are and/or .The beams relative to one another.
asked 2022-08-31
From atomic transitions to clockwork gears. So, does this property/constraint makes every clock available to use inherently susceptible to effects of relativistic motion?
For example, if you travel at 99% of speed of light with a clock, then there'd be some particle in the clock whose motion, w.r.t you, is also in the same direction, and when added up, it'll surpass 100%.
For above situation to be avoided, every particle that makes up the clock will have to be:
1. Stationary w.r.t observer, but if this happens, the (frozen) clock can't tell time to the observer.
2. Move in a direction other than that of observer's motion, If this happens, clock can't travel with observer.
asked 2022-10-08
What does a rotating hoop, with each point moving at a velocity close to the speed of light, appear like with respect from a stationary observers perspective. For example how does the shape of the hoop change?
asked 2022-07-16
Why do we say that irreducible representation of Poincare group represents the one-particle state?
Only because
1. Rep is unitary, so saves positive-definite norm (for possibility density),
2. Casimir operators of the group have eigenvalues m 2 and m 2 s ( s + 1 ), so characterizes mass and spin, and
3. It is the representation of the global group of relativistic symmetry,
yes?
asked 2022-08-12
The argument is often given that the early attempts of constructing a relativistic theory of quantum mechanics must not have gotten everything right because they led to the necessity of negative energy states. What's so wrong with that? Why can't we have negative energy states?
asked 2022-07-31

At one poinn a pipeline the water's spced is 3.00 ms and the gange pressure is

Sx l0 Pa. Find the gauge peessure al a seoond point in the line, 11.0 m bower thas

the first, if the pipe dianeter at the seccond point is twice that at the first.

asked 2022-08-12
On Einstein original paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", on section 2 of the first part (Kinematics), the following thought experiment is described: a rod is imparted constant speed v in the direction of the x x axis (growing x). At both ends of the rod, A and B, there is a clock, both clocks are synchronous in the stationary system. Then, a ray of light is sent from A at time t A , which is reflected at B at time t B , and arrives at A at time t A . It is then stated that "taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light", we get:
t B t A = r A B c v and  t A t B = r A B c + v
where r A B is the length of the moving rod, measured in the stationary system. Now, if besides the rod's length, both time intervals refer to time in the stationary system, so must speed. Given the previous assumption of its constancy, why are terms like c + v and c v in the above equations?

New questions