Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If you have two particles of the same species , Quantum mechanics says that $\Phi_{m_{1},x_{1},p_{1},m_{2},x_{2},p_{2}}=\alpha\Phi_{m_{2},x_{2},p_{2},m_{1},x_{1},p_{1}}$ But I don't understand why $\alpha$ doesn't depend on $x$ , $p$ . If $\alpha$ depends on $SO(3)$ invariants as $x^2 , x.p , p^2$ etc then it will be the same on all reference frame why does one require that it doesn't depend on these variables? Even if it depends on $p ,x$ $\alpha$ is a phase factor so it doesn't affect anything why should this be important?

EDIT : I figured out the answer to the second question , for $\alpha$ is a complex number that carries no indices so it cannot change

share|cite|improve this question
+1 for figuring out your own answer! Re the first question, if $\alpha$ depended on those variables, then when you start differentiating wavefunctions to do your Schroedinger equation, I guess things would get in a mess? – twistor59 Mar 31 '13 at 14:17
Well, as I see it, if $\alpha$ depended on $x_{1}$ (not operator, say we are in the position representation), say, it would change the derivative of $\Phi$ with respect of $x_{1}$, and thus would change the $p_{1}$ of the wavefunction. – guillefix May 15 '14 at 13:53

Let us step back for a moment to answer your question.

We consider a system of $n$ indistinguishable particles. What does that mean ? Let $S_n$ be the set of all permutations of $n$ elements, and let $\sigma \in S_n$. Then if $P(\sigma)$ is the (unitary) operator representing $\sigma$ on the $n$-particles Hilbert space $\cal H$, the property of "indistinguishability" means that the two vectors $|\psi\rangle$ and $P(\sigma)|\psi\rangle$ represent the same physical state, and this should be true for any state $|\psi\rangle \in {\cal H}$. In other words, we must have $$ P(\sigma) = e^{i \chi(\sigma)} {\mathbf 1} $$ where $\chi(\sigma)$ is some real number.

If I understand your question correctly, what you ask is why couldn't we have the number $\chi(\sigma)$ to be an operator depending on the momentum operator $\hat {\vec P}$ or the position operator $\hat {\vec R}$ (for example). But obviously $P(\sigma)$ would not be proportional to the identity operator $\mathbf 1$, violating the above conclusion.

I hope this help !

share|cite|improve this answer

Well, $\alpha$ could not depend on $x$ or any function of it since the space-time is homogenius. $p_{12}^2 = m^2$ is a constant (for given identical particles), so the only possiblity is that $\alpha$ depends on 4-invariant $p_1^\mu p_{2 \mu}$ which is identical to $p_2^\mu p_{1 \mu}$. So interchanging particles one more time will still lead (as it is usually derived in textbooks) to $\alpha^2 = 1$ hence $\alpha = \pm 1$. So $p_1 p_2 $ dependence cannot exist too.

However, you've asked a good question - there are some more possibilities that you're missing, so I advice you have a look at Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory, Vol 1, Chapter 4.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.