Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 1, 2021 at 12:17 comment added Roger V. @Lost yes, this is a good way to put it.
Apr 1, 2021 at 12:13 comment added Lost Oh okay. I probably understand now. So basically in other words what you are saying is that the indistinguishability is not always a sufficient condition for Pauli to hold but it still is one of the necessary ones. So, a particle following Pauli has to be indistinguishable since thats a necessary constraint.
Apr 1, 2021 at 12:02 comment added Roger V. @Lost The textbook argument is that indistingushability of particles means that the probability density, $|\psi(x_1, x_2)|^2$ should not change under permitation of the coordinates (quantum numbers), which means that the wave function can change only by a phase factor. The phase factors $\pm 1$ then correspond to bosons and fermions, and in case of $-1$ the Pauli principle follows, since $\psi(x_1, x_2)=-\psi(x_2, x_1)$, i.e., $\psi(x_1, x_1)=-\psi(x_1, x_1)=0$
Apr 1, 2021 at 11:56 comment added Lost Okay, but your statement "Pauli principle follows from particles being identical" doesn't apply on Bosons. They are identical but just because they are identical doesn't make them follow Pauli.
Mar 31, 2021 at 16:22 comment added Roger V. @Lost Historically this is probably the case, but logically Pauli principle follows from particles being identical, but not necessarily the other way round. If this is the aspect that interests you, perhaps you coudl reformulate the question to this end.
Mar 31, 2021 at 16:18 comment added Lost If I am not wrong, the Pauli Exclusion Principle historically predates the indistinguability derivation of it i.e. Pauli postulated spin to explain certain experimental results which is to imply that the principle can be taken as an independent postulate (probably) . Also, bosons are indistinguishable but they don't follow Pauli exclusion principle. What's going on here then?
Mar 31, 2021 at 12:56 history answered Roger V. CC BY-SA 4.0