Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,873 answers , 20,701 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Does Fermi-Dirac Statistics explain anti-particles?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
55 views

I wondered whether the Fermi-Dirac Statistics describes the anti-fermion particles. Does it include the anti-particles?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user user44629
asked Apr 29, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user44629 (40 points) [ no revision ]
Particles and their anti-particles both should have the same statistics -- so both bosonic or both fermionic. Bosonic examples: $\pi^{\pm}$ or $W^{\pm}$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva

1 Answer

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Antiparticles naturally arise when studying the Dirac equation within quantum field theory. Recall that we may expand a Dirac spinor field as a plane wave, namely,

$$\psi= \sum_{s=1}^2 \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{p}}} \left[ b^s_p u^s(p)e^{ipx}+c^{s\dagger}_p v^s(p)e^{-ipx}\right]$$

and similarly for the conjugate field. Notice the appearance of two distinct creation and annihilation operators; these give rise to the electron and positron, the antiparticle.


The Dirac spinor transforms under a representation of the double cover of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ which is a reducible representation. Hence we may propose a decomposition or ansatz,

$$\psi=u(p)e^{-ipx}$$

where $u(p)$ is a four-component Dirac spinor which may be broken down into a set of two-component spinors known as Weyl spinors (and with a reality condition, Majorana spinors):

$$u(p)=\left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{p\cdot \sigma}\, \xi\\ \sqrt{p \cdot \sigma}\, \xi\\ \end{array} \right)$$

for $\xi^{\dagger}\xi=1$. The antiparticle, a positron, corresponds to a negative frequency solution, namely,

$$v(p)=\left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{p\cdot \sigma}\, \eta\\ \sqrt{p \cdot \sigma}\, \eta\\ \end{array} \right)$$

where $\psi=v(p)e^{+ipx}$ instead. Notice both solutions have positive energy, as

$$E=\int \mathrm{d}^3 x \, T^{00}=\int \mathrm{d}^3 x \, \bar{\psi}(m-\gamma^i \partial_i)\psi \geq 0$$

(The above expression is obtained by applying Noether's theorem to the spacetime translation symmetry giving rise to energy-momentum tensor.)


Both the electron and positron are fermions, obey the same quantum field theory, and satisfy Fermi-Dirac statistics which - roughly - dictate we quantize the theory using anti-commutation relations rather than commutation relations, otherwise we would obtain a Hamiltonian unbounded from below.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user JamalS
answered Apr 29, 2014 by JamalS (885 points) [ no revision ]
So, if I remember the derivations correctly, we can say that from Dirac's equation we directly get both antiparticles and the statistics. Right?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user Davidmh
@Davidmh: What do you mean by "get statistics from the Dirac equation"?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user JamalS
@Davidmh: The Fermi-Dirac distribution is derived using a statistical ensemble. In a way quantizing using anti-commutations arises because commutation relations are inadequate, and hence they are the only reasonable canonical quantization alternative.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:26 (UCT), posted by SE-user JamalS

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...