Abstract

The symmetrization postulate (SP) states that wave functions are either completely symmetric or completely antisymmetric under permutations of identical particles. It is shown by one-dimensional counter-examples that SP is not demanded by the usual physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism of wave mechanics unless one makes use of further physical properties of real systems; the error in a standard proof of SP which ignores these properties is pointed out. It is then proved that SP is true for those systems of spinless particles which have the following properties: (a) probability densities are permutation-invariant, (b) allowable wave functions are continuous with continuous gradient, (c) the $3n$-dimensional configuration space is connected, (d) the Hamiltonian is symmetric, and (e) the nodes of allowed wave functions have certain properties. The counterexamples show that SP is not a necessary property of those systems which do not have property (c). The proof is extended to particles with internal degrees of freedom (including spin) by noting that any observable commutes with every permutation and making use of a particular observable acting only on internal variables. Extraneous mathematical assumptions, such as that of the existence of a "complete" set of commuting observables, criticized by Messiah and Greenberg, are not employed. Some comments are made on the conventional nature of the concept of identity for similar particles; the equivalence between the usual formulation in which different species of similar particles are treated as distinct, and that in which they are regarded as identical particles in different internal states, is emphasized.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.