Why in nature there is no spinless fermion?

In summary: Grassmann numbers are: they are a way of counting the number of different ways you can combine two particles together, without taking into account the order of the particles. For example, there are six different ways to combine two electrons together.
  • #1
wdlang
307
0
why?

i can see the link between spin value and the statistics in quantum mechanics
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
wdlang said:
why?

i can see the link between spin value and the statistics in quantum mechanics

Well, actually there are spinless fermions of sorts. It just depends on what you define to be a "real" particle is. I am of course talking about Faddeev-Popov Ghosts in quantized non-Abelian Gauge theories. These particles are spinless fermions (in other words spin = 0, but they anti-commute.) However they do not possesses positive definite norm, which makes them less "real" if you like. More to the point, however, they depend on the choice of gauge. Interestingly, infinite renormalization constants depend on these spinless fermions, but finite gauge invariant quantities do not: they simply cancel out. This amazing fact is far from obvious by any argument that I have heard of. It takes a lot of hard formalism to prove it. So you decide for yourself if Faddeev-Popov Ghosts are real spinless fermions. Most physicists will not elevate them to the status of being "real" particles however.
 
  • #4
fermi said:
Well, actually there are spinless fermions of sorts. It just depends on what you define to be a "real" particle is. I am of course talking about Faddeev-Popov Ghosts in quantized non-Abelian Gauge theories. These particles are spinless fermions (in other words spin = 0, but they anti-commute.) However they do not possesses positive definite norm, which makes them less "real" if you like. More to the point, however, they depend on the choice of gauge. Interestingly, infinite renormalization constants depend on these spinless fermions, but finite gauge invariant quantities do not: they simply cancel out. This amazing fact is far from obvious by any argument that I have heard of. It takes a lot of hard formalism to prove it. So you decide for yourself if Faddeev-Popov Ghosts are real spinless fermions. Most physicists will not elevate them to the status of being "real" particles however.

i am not familiar with quantum field theory

i work in the low energy regime

the problem i am concerned with is, possibly there is no contradiction if we take a spinless or spin integer particle and impose fermionic commutation relations on it
 
  • #5
Which kind of expression do you have in mind?

If you do point-particle quantum mechanics then you should study something like Grassmann numbers (like in supersymmetric QM).

But in many cases there are not even commutation relations b/c the particles are not the canonical variables.Think about the non-rel. Pauli equation: I think you can plug in any spin you like. The fundamental variables are still x and p, so no anticommutation at all.

I think w/o using some sort of field theory you will never observe something like commutation or anticommutation relations between particles.
 
  • #6
wdlang said:
the problem i am concerned with is, possibly there is no contradiction if we take a spinless or spin integer particle and impose fermionic commutation relations on it
If you are worried about the standard phrase "let us study spinless fermions" that you can find in many books on QM and condensed matter, then my answer would be no, there is no contradiction in imposing anticommutation relations on spinless fermions. Very often in non-interacting problems the spin degree of freedom is irrelevant, so you can forget it altogether and then, in the end, multiply your end result by a factor of two. In this case you just have too identical "flavors" of fermions that do not talk to each other. For example, most textbook solutions for the famous Tomonaga-Luttinger model (fermions in one spatial dimension) are done for spinless fermions, since then bosonization leads to a simple solution in terms of charge waves.

Things are of course very different for interacting systems, since the two spin species interact via Coulomb interaction. In the Tomonaga-Luttinger model, this leads to spin density waves that make matters a little bit more complicated.
EDIT: small clarification
 
Last edited:

Related to Why in nature there is no spinless fermion?

1. Why are fermions always associated with spin in nature?

Fermions are particles that follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics, which states that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state. This means that fermions need to have an intrinsic property that distinguishes them from each other, and this property is known as spin. Spin is a quantum mechanical property that indicates the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. Thus, fermions are always associated with spin in nature because it is a fundamental property that allows them to obey the Fermi-Dirac statistics.

2. Are there any known particles in nature that are spinless fermions?

As of now, there are no known particles in nature that are spinless fermions. All known fermions, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, have spin. The search for spinless fermions is ongoing in the field of particle physics, as it could potentially lead to a better understanding of the fundamental forces and particles in the universe.

3. Can fermions exist without spin?

No, fermions cannot exist without spin. As mentioned before, spin is a fundamental property of fermions, and it is necessary for them to have an intrinsic property that distinguishes them from each other. Without spin, fermions would not be able to obey the Fermi-Dirac statistics and would not function as we currently understand them.

4. Is it possible for a fermion to lose its spin?

No, it is not possible for a fermion to lose its spin. Spin is an intrinsic property of a particle and cannot be changed or removed. However, it is possible for a fermion to change its spin state, which is known as spin flipping. This can occur when a fermion interacts with another particle or when it is subjected to a strong magnetic field.

5. Can spinless fermions be created in a laboratory setting?

As of now, there is no evidence that spinless fermions exist in nature, so they cannot be created in a laboratory setting. However, scientists are actively researching and exploring the possibility of creating spinless fermions through experiments and simulations. If successful, it could open up new possibilities in the field of particle physics and our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
764
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
610
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
523
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
898
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
692
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top