0
$\begingroup$

Imagine a sea of electrons which is so tightly packed that exclusion principle comes into play, next I remove 1 electron from this sea... this hole should behave like a particle and is positively charged so my question can it creates interference pattern when passing through doubleslit?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/95794, and physics.stackexchange.com/q/110542. The latter is related because it discusses Landau levels of "holes". A Landau level is kind of like an orbital, and (like an electron orbital in an atom) it is quantized because of self-interference. Holes can exhibit quantized Landau levels, so this is an example of hole self-interference. Not exactly double-slit interference, but related. And this is about holes (unoccupied electron states) in physical materials, not in the metaphorical Dirac-sea description of the vacuum state. $\endgroup$ Jan 4, 2019 at 1:55

2 Answers 2

0
$\begingroup$

The positron is a quantum particle and would show the same behavior as the electron. Interference fringes included. We would need more than one positron to see them though. But the description of a positron as a hole in the sea of Durac electrons is just that. A description. Any description of quantum objects in ordinary language will always be counter intuitive.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

The Dirac Sea explanation of negative frequency solutions is untenable. A bottomless sea of filled electron states implies infinite electron density. The associated infinite negative charge density must be compensated by an equally infinite positive charge density. Effects of electron correlation would likely alter the properties of the hole, giving an effective mass different from that of an electron. What are the n&k values of the Dirac Sea? We observe that the vacuum is perfectly transparent. How can this be consistent with the omnipresence of an infinite electron density ?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This really needs more explanation. Things aren't false just because somebody thinks they're an unviable concept. Lots of people thought that particles that moved at the same speed with respect to all observers, even observes moving relative to each other, was an unviable concept. And it turns that Einstein's theory of relativity is actually viable. Do you have any reference for your statement? Or explanation for why it's untenable? $\endgroup$ Jan 4, 2019 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ It is obvious if you know about many electron systems. On the other hand, things aren't tfue just because many people perpetuate them. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Jan 4, 2019 at 2:41
  • $\begingroup$ "It's obvious" isn't any better an explanation than "it's untenable." $\endgroup$ Jan 4, 2019 at 3:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Peter Shor. Why did you you stop reading after "obvious"? Anyway, if you maintain that the Dirac sea does make sense it is you that has a lot of explaining to do. One cannot entertain such a drastic idea without fully working out its consequences. I am looking forward to your detailed account of the physics of the Dirac sea. A link to a monograph, perhaps? $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Jan 4, 2019 at 10:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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