Question about the Pauli exclusion principle.

alemsalem
Messages
173
Reaction score
5
Suppose there are only two states, and that only two electrons could fit in them (spin states for example), but wouldn't these two states form a basis and so generate an infinite number of states that are linear combinations of these two, so three electrons could be in three different states.

Obviously that's wrong, but why? do they have to be in orthogonal states?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Pauli exclusion principle arises from the requirement that the wavefunction of the system be antisymmetric under the exchange of fermionic degrees of freedom. Now you may try to write down the wavefunction with three particles, but you'll find that the antisymmetry property causes such a wavefunction to vanish.
 
alemsalem said:
Suppose there are only two states, and that only two electrons could fit in them (spin states for example), but wouldn't these two states form a basis and so generate an infinite number of states that are linear combinations of these two, so three electrons could be in three different states.

Obviously that's wrong, but why? do they have to be in orthogonal states?


I think there is some confusion here. There are two states, yes, so in principle, you can form an infinite number of states through linear combinations, but those are one particle states.

For a two particle state, the only one allowed is the state where one particle is spin up and the other is spin down. There is only one state for for the combined system.

I hope that helps.
 
Should i forward a conclusion that linear combination of the spin functions of the electron cannot be done: that means ultimately there are only 2 possible spin states for an electron ! Anyone can further comment this ?
 
gerrardz said:
Should i forward a conclusion that linear combination of the spin functions of the electron cannot be done: that means ultimately there are only 2 possible spin states for an electron ! Anyone can further comment this ?

There are only two possible BASIS states for the spin states for an electron since they are spin 1/2. However, there an infinite number of spin states for an electron because you can make any number of other states by performing a linear combination of these 2 states.

I hope I got your question correct.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top