2
$\begingroup$

In the discussion of electrons in metals, often the semiclassical model is used. There, the electrons are treated as occupying localized wave packets $|k,x_i\rangle$ which have momentum $k$ and position $x$ with small fluctuations.

If this is really true, it would seem to be possible for many electrons (say 1000) to occupy the same momentum state, as long as they are localized at different points. (you can have an antisymmetric wavefunction like that if I'm not mistaken: $|\psi\rangle = \sum_P sgn(P) |k,x_{P(1)}\rangle |k,x_{P(2)}\rangle |k,x_{P(3)}\rangle... $).

In the experiment we observe the Fermi distribution: Only two electrons at most can have the same momentum. This seems to be in direct conflict with the semiclassical model.

What is going on here?

To clarify: The question is why the semiclassical model doesn't contradict the fact that electrons in a metal are distributed according to the Fermi distribution.

Edit: I guess what must happen is that the "semiclassical" description yields the same momentum distibution (at least in some approximation) because of the spacial constraint of the material which manifests in both models in a different way. In the wavepacket model we must fill the space with no overlapping $x_i$, while in the Bloch approach we have $\Delta k \sim \frac{2 \pi}{L}$. Is this true? If so, can you help me with the details?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

The Pauli exclusion principle only refers to particles in exactly the same state. If they are local wavepackets localised at different locations then they aren't in exactly the same state. So it doesn't apply here. In fact, since Pauli is a (somewhat weak) corollary to the fact that fermion wavefunctions must be anti-symmetric under exchange, that you wrote down an anti-symmetric wavefunction shows that Pauli clearly doesn't apply here.

It's worth noting that neither the momentum nor the position in this case can be exactly certain (as per Heisenberg) - this is obvious for the positions since the wavepacket by definition has a certain spread, but its also the case for the momentum (on general grounds via Heisenberg, or you could pick your favourite wavepacket and convert to momentum space and check).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ This is exactly my point. So you agree that the semiclassical model must be wrong? Or do we actually do measure 1000 electrons with the same momentum in an experiment? $\endgroup$
    – curio
    Commented Mar 30, 2021 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ We don't measure the momentum of any individual electrons. The state you wrote down is a perfectly fine (completely quantum) state. It corresponds to multiple electrons each with a probability distribution in momentum space that is not sharp but smeared out around some average momentum. Likewise for position, but the position centres are different in each case. $\endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    Commented Mar 30, 2021 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ I know what it corresponds to. My question is wether it makes sense to describe the electrons in a metal with this state, as the semiclassical model is doing (apparently). As far as I know we can measure the occupation of different momenta in a metal and we find that they are distributed according to the Fermi distribution, where each momentum is occupied only once per spin. $\endgroup$
    – curio
    Commented Mar 30, 2021 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ I'm now unclear what your question is. Your OP asked if the semi-classical approximation violates the PEP. It doesn't. I don't know to what extent this is a good model of a metal - maybe if there is some disorder or other spatial inhomogeneity then this makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – jacob1729
    Commented Mar 30, 2021 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry it was a bit unclear. $\endgroup$
    – curio
    Commented Mar 30, 2021 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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