text:
# On The Ladder Bethe-Salpeter Equation

## 1 Introduction

The ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation (BS) is an effective if not unique instrument to study bound states within the framework of quantum field theory (see, for example, ). However, the exact analytical solution is obtained only for the Wick-Cutkosky model in a particular case when the masses of intermediate particle and bound state are equal to zero . For other cases analytical solutions are not found and numerical methods are applied. Numerous literature is devoted to numerical solutions of the ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation for different particles, propagators and interactions to get acceptable description of spectrum and other characteristics in nuclear and particle physics. Although computer numerical methods are very powerful, we are convinced that a simple method to get analytical solutions of the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the form of known special functions with accuracy around 0.1-1.0% would be very useful for qualitative and semiquantative analysis of physical phenomena, the more if the accuracy can be improved. At present, the accuracy around 1% is undoubtedly acceptable in particle phenomenology at low energies.

A generally accepted approach to solve the BS equation ( I do not know exceptions ) consists in investigation of this equation in the momentum space where the BS-amplitude is expanded on a suitable basis in the Euclidean apace $`𝐑^4`$ to reduce the original four-dimensional integral equation to an infinite set of coupled one-dimensional equations which should be solved by numerical methods (see, for example,  and many-many other papers).

The goal of this work is to improve the variational approach to the bound-state problem of two scalar particles with mass $`m`$ interacting through the exchange of a scalar particle with mass $`\mu `$ within the ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation. In addition, variational calculations are attractive because they give restrictions on computable parameters from one definite side, meanwhile approximate calculations do not indicate what side we approach to an exact value from. Variational methods were applied to the BS equation long time ago  and now they are used directly in the Hamiltonian formulation of quantum field theory (see, for example, ). Our idea is the following. In the configuration Euclidean $`x`$-space the BS equation can be rewritten as an integral equation with the kernel which for stable bound states $`M<2m`$ is a self-adjoint positive symmetric operator. Thus, the problem of solution is reduced to searching eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of this kernel. As a result, the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude is expanded over this orthonormal system of functions and this series is nothing but the representation of the BS-amplitude over the Regge poles in the $`s`$-channel. The same representation of the BS-amplitude can be written in the $`t`$-channel. In this approach, the explicit form and normalization of vertex functions is naturally determined by the eigenfunctions. Besides, this representation makes clear the role of so-called abnormal states. Abnormal states are part of the full orthonormal system of functions. They are needed to get the correct representation of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude over bound states. The experimental status of abnormal states is not clear up to now. I think this problem deserves special investigation.

Since the kernel is a self-adjoint positive and symmetric operator, the task to find eigenvalues and eigenfunctions can be formulated as a variational problem. It turned out that quite simple test functions describe the bound state masses with accuracy less than 1% (we compare our results with the numbers obtained in ).

It is interesting to discuss the connection between the Schrödinger and BS equations and to estimate qualitatively the value of the coupling constant for which relativistic corrections should be taken into account. It turned out that the nonrelativistic limit is realized for very small coupling constants $`\alpha 10^3`$. In other words, any situations when binding energy is larger than 1% of constituent masses, require relativistic description.

## 2 The Bethe-Salpeter equation in the self-adjoint form and its formal solution

Within a simple quantum field model we shall consider the simplest case of the Yukawa interaction of charged scalar particles (”constituents”) described by the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with mass $`m`$ and neutral intermediate bosons (”tieons”) described by the field $`\varphi `$ with mass $`\mu `$. The Lagrangian density is

$`L(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+(\mathrm{}m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (\mathrm{}\mu ^2)\varphi +g\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi .`$ (1)
For simplicity, in the following we put $`m=1`$. It means that all dimensional variables ($`x`$-coordinate, energy, momentum and masses) are expressed in units of the constituent mass $`m`$. This model is frequently used as the simplest pattern of QFT in many discussions, although this system is considered to be unstable from a strict point of view because the Hamiltonian is not bounded from below (see, for example, ). Nevertheless this model has been investigated by various methods (see, for example,  and references therein).

A two-particle bound state corresponds to a solution of the homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation for a four-point amplitude. This equation in the ladder approximation in the configuration Euclidean $`x`$-space looks like

$`\mathrm{}(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4)=D(x_1x_2)\delta (x_1x_3)\delta (x_2x_4)`$ (2)
$`+g^2{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1𝑑z_2D(x_1x_2)S(x_1z_1)S(x_2z_2)\mathrm{}(z_1,z_2;x_3,x_4)},`$
where the propagators of constituents and tieons are

$`S(x)={\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ipx}}{1+k^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2}}}\mathrm{K}_1(\sqrt{x^2}),`$ (3)
$`D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ikx}}{\mu ^2+k^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{x^2}}}\mathrm{K}_1(\mu \sqrt{x^2}).`$
Let us write down equation (2) in the center-of-mass frame, i.e. let us introduce the variables

$$x_1=x+\frac{y}{2},x_2=x\frac{y}{2},x_3=x^{}+\frac{y^{}}{2},x_4=x^{}\frac{y^{}}{2},z_1=x^{\prime \prime }+\frac{y^{\prime \prime }}{2},z_2=x^{\prime \prime }\frac{y^{\prime \prime }}{2}.$$

Then

$`\mathrm{}(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4)=\mathrm{}(xx^{};y,y^{})`$
and equation (2) reads

$`\mathrm{}(xx^{};y,y^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{D(y)}\delta (xx^{})\delta (yy^{})\sqrt{D(y^{})}`$
$`+`$ $`g^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{\prime \prime }𝑑y^{\prime \prime }D(y)\mathrm{\Pi }(xx^{\prime \prime },yy^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}(x^{\prime \prime }x^{};y^{\prime \prime },y^{})},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(xx^{},yy^{})=S\left(xx^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{yy^{}}{2}}\right)S\left(xx^{}{\displaystyle \frac{yy^{}}{2}}\right)`$
Now let us go to the Fourier transform

$`\mathrm{}(xx^{};y,y^{})={\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip(xx^{})}\mathrm{}_p(y,y^{})}`$
and define the function

$`\mathrm{}_p(y,y^{})=\sqrt{D(y)}Z_p(y,y^{})\sqrt{D(y^{})}`$
Then equation (2) becomes

$`Z_p(y,y^{})=\delta (yy^{})+g^2{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{\prime \prime }K_p(y,y^{\prime \prime })Z_p(y^{\prime \prime },y^{})},`$ (5)
with the symmetric kernel

$`K_p(y,y^{})=\sqrt{D(y)}\mathrm{\Pi }_p(yy^{})\sqrt{D(y^{})}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_p(yy^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}S\left(x+\frac{yy^{}}{2}\right)S\left(x\frac{yy^{}}{2}\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(yy^{})}}{\left(\left(k+\frac{p}{2}\right)^2+1\right)\left(\left(k\frac{p}{2}\right)^2+1\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik(yy^{})}}{\left(k^2+1+\frac{p^2}{4}\right)^2(kp)^2}}.`$
We want to emphasize that equation (5) represents the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the form of the integral equation with the symmetrical kernel $`K_p(y,y^{})`$. If we consider the problem of stable bound states, i.e. $`p^2=s=M^2`$ and $`M<2`$ in (2), then the kernel $`K_p(y,y^{})`$ is the self-adjoint positive symmetrical normal operator on the functional space $`𝐋^2`$. This kernel can be represented in the form

$`K_p(y,y^{})={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}U_Q(y,p)\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)U_Q(y,p),(s=p^2)`$ (8)
where the functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)`$ and $`U_Q(y,p)`$ are the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the kernel $`K_p(y,y^{})`$, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)U_Q(y,p)={\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}K_p(y,y^{})U_Q(y^{},p)}.`$ (9)
Below we discuss the quantum numbers $`Q`$.

The functions $`\{U_Q(y,p)\}`$ are orthonormal

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yU_Q(y,p)U_Q^{}(y,p)}=\delta _{QQ^{}},{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}U_Q(y,p)U_Q(y^{},p)=\delta (yy^{})`$
The general properties of the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$ are characterized by the traces

$`T_n=\mathrm{Tr}K_p^n={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^n(s)={\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}𝑑y_nK_p(y_1,y_2)\mathrm{}K_p(y_n,y_1)}.`$ (10)
The trace (10) for the kernel (6) is finite $`T_n<\mathrm{}`$ for $`n3`$ in the case $`\mu =0`$ and for $`n2`$ in the case $`\mu >0`$. It means that eigenvalues decrease as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)\frac{1}{|Q|^c}`$ with an appropriate constant $`c`$.

If the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are found, one can write

$`\delta (yy^{})+g^2K_p(y,y^{})={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}U_Q(y,p)[1+g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)]U_Q(y^{},p).`$
Let us represent

$`Z_p(y,y^{})={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}U_Q(y,p)\stackrel{~}{Z}_Q(p)U_Q(y^{},p),`$
then equation (9) looks like

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_Q(p)=1+g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)\stackrel{~}{Z}_Q(p),\stackrel{~}{Z}_Q(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)}}.`$
One gets

$`Z_p(y,y^{})={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}U_Q(y,p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)}}U_Q(y^{},p).`$
and

$`\mathrm{}_p(y,y^{})={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}\sqrt{D(y)}U_Q(y,p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)}}U_Q(y^{},p)\sqrt{D(y^{})}`$ (11)
Finally, the solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation (2) in the $`x`$-space is

$`\mathrm{}(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4)=\mathrm{}(xx^{};y,y^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}\sqrt{D(y)}U_Q(y,p)\frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)}U_Q(y^{},p)\sqrt{D(y^{})}e^{ipx^{}}}.`$
The standard Fourier transform of the amplitude $`\mathrm{}`$ in the momentum space looks like

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3𝑑x_4e^{i(k_1x_1+k_2x_2k_3x_3k_4x_4)}\mathrm{}(x_1,x_2;x_3,x_4)}`$
$`=(2\pi )^4\delta (k_1+k_2k_3k_4)\mathrm{}(s,t).`$
Here $`s=(k_1+k_2)^2,t=(k_1k_3)^2`$, where $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ are the Euclidean momenta. Thus, the amplitude $`\mathrm{}`$ as the solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation (2) reads

$`\mathrm{}(s,t)={\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}V_Q(q,p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)}}V_Q(q^{},p)`$ (13)
where $`p=k_1+k_2,q=k_1k_2,q^{}=k_3k_4`$ and the vertices are

$`V_Q(q,p)=i^l{\displaystyle 𝑑ye^{iqy}\sqrt{D(y)}U_Q(y,p)}`$ (14)
The mass of a bound state with quantum numbers $`Q`$ is defined by the equation

$`1=g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M_Q^2),p=(\mathrm{𝟎},iM_Q).`$ (15)
Formula (13) gives the Regge representation over the poles in the $`s`$-channel. The same representation is valid in the $`t`$-channel.

## 3 Variational solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation

We start with the following observation. The usual variation approach is applied to the BS equation written in the well-known standard form (see, for example, )

$`L\psi =\lambda D\psi ,`$ (16)
where $`L`$ and $`D`$ are self-adjoint positive operators. The result is

$`\lambda =\underset{\psi }{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\psi L\psi )}{(\psi D\psi )}}.`$ (17)
For a test function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we get

$`\lambda \lambda _0={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }L\mathrm{\Psi })}{(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })}}.`$ (18)
However, if we rewrite equation (16) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\varphi =\sqrt{D}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\sqrt{D}\varphi ,\varphi =\sqrt{D}\psi ,`$ (19)
the variational problem looks like

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}=\underset{\varphi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\varphi \sqrt{D}\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{D}\varphi \right)}{(\varphi \varphi )}}=\underset{\psi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\psi D\frac{1}{L}D\psi \right)}{(\psi D\psi )}}`$ (20)
and for the same test function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as in (18) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }D\frac{1}{L}D\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}{(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })}},\lambda \lambda _1`$ (21)
One of the corollaries of the Cauchy inequality for a positive operator $`L`$ is

$`(XY)^2(XLX)\left(Y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}Y\right),X,Y𝐋^2.`$
This inequality for $`X=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`Y=D\mathrm{\Psi }`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })}{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }D\frac{1}{L}D\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }L\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}{(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })}}\mathrm{and}\lambda _1\lambda _0`$ (22)
Thus, the variational method is more preferable to apply to equation (19) and use (20).

Let us come back to equation (9). The kernel $`K_p(y,y^{})`$ in (6) for stable states $`p^2=s=M^2,M<2m`$ is the self-adjoint positive operator. The spectrum of this operator is bounded from above. The main preference of the representation (6) is that variational methods can be used to find the spectrum and eigenfunctions of this kernel. Therefore, the solution of equation (9) can be reduced to the variational problem in the form (20)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)=\underset{U_Q}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(U_QK_pU_Q)}{(U_QU_Q)}}=\underset{U_Q}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(U_Q\sqrt{D}\mathrm{\Pi }_p\sqrt{D}U_Q)}{(U_QU_Q)}}`$ (23)
It is convenient to introduce the function

$`U_Q(y,p)=\sqrt{D(y)}\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p).`$ (24)
Then formula (23) reads

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)=\underset{\mathrm{\Psi }_Q}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }_QD\mathrm{\Pi }_pD\mathrm{\Psi }_Q)}{(\mathrm{\Psi }_QD\mathrm{\Psi }_Q)}}`$ (25)
where

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_QD\mathrm{\Pi }_pD\mathrm{\Psi }_Q)={\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑y^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p)D(y)\mathrm{\Pi }_p(yy^{})D(y^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y^{},p)},`$
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_QD\mathrm{\Psi }_Q)={\displaystyle 𝑑y\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p)D(y)\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p)}.`$
The vertex (14) is defined by

$`V_Q(q,p)=i^l{\displaystyle 𝑑ye^{iqy}D(y)\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p)}.`$ (26)
The representation (25) will be exploited in this paper.

Another possibility is to introduce the function

$`U_Q(y,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_Q(y,p)}{\sqrt{D(y)}}}.`$ (27)
Then formula (23) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)=\underset{\mathrm{\Phi }_Q}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Phi }_Q\mathrm{\Pi }_p\mathrm{\Phi }_Q)}{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_Q\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{\Phi }_Q\right)}}`$ (28)
This representation is particularly convenient in the case of the Wick-Cutkosky model ($`\mu =0`$) for which

$`D(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(y)}}=(2\pi )^2y^2.`$ (29)
The variational problem in the form (25) and (28) is the key object of our investigation.

The mass of a bound state with quantum numbers $`Q`$ is defined by equation (15). The eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M)`$ is a monotonically increasing function when the mass $`M`$ increases on the interval $`M^2[0,4m^2]`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M_1^2)<\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M_2^2)\mathrm{if}M_1<M_2.$$

For a test function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in (25) we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{(var)}(M^2).`$ (30)
It gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M_Q^2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{(var)}((M_Q^{(var)})^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{(var)}(M_Q^2).`$
Thus, the variational calculations in (23,25,28) give the upper estimation for bound state masses

$`M_QM_Q^{(var)}.`$ (31)
If we want to find the coupling constant for a given mass $`M`$, then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{(var)}^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{(var)}(M_Q^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(M_Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$
and

$`g^2g_{(var)}^2.`$ (32)
### 3.1 Classification of states

Let us consider the classification of states dictated by equation (9). The kernel $`K_p(y,y^{})`$ depends on the direction of the vector $`p`$. It is convenient to work in the frame $`p=(\mathrm{𝟎},p_4)=(\mathrm{𝟎},iM)`$.

Let us start with the case $`M=0`$, i.e. $`p=0`$. Then the ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation has $`O(4)`$ symmetry in the Euclidean configuration space and the eigenfunctions look like

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa \{\mu \}}(y)=T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _\kappa }^{(\kappa )}(y)R_{n\kappa }(y^2),`$ (33)
$`T_{\{\mu \}}^{(\kappa )}(y)=O(|y|^\kappa ),R_{n\kappa }(y^2)=O(1)\mathrm{for}y0,`$
where $`n`$ and $`\kappa `$ are radial and orbital quantum numbers and $`T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _\kappa }^{(\kappa )}(y)`$ are spherical harmonics in the space $`𝐑^4`$ (see Appendix). All states are degenerated over four-dimensional orbital quantum number $`\kappa `$ and the number of these states is $`(\kappa +1)^2`$ for fixed $`n`$ and $`\kappa `$.

Now let $`M>0`$. Then the Bethe-Salpeter equation possesses $`O(3)`$ symmetry and all states are degenerated over three-dimensional orbital quantum numbers $`l`$ which define the spin of corresponding bound states. The degeneration of the state (33) is taken off and the total number of these states can be represented

$$(\kappa +1)^2=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\kappa }{}}(2l+1),$$

i.e. after removal of degeneration, the state (33) turns into superposition of states with three-dimensional orbital momenta $`l\kappa `$. Usually the state with $`l=\kappa `$ is considered as the desired bound state with spin $`l`$, but the states with $`l<\kappa `$, describing the spin $`l`$, are called ”abnormal” ones and are not considered. From the point of wiew of the representation (33) the number $`\kappa `$ characterizes the behaviour of the wave function in the vicinity of zero, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa l\{\mu \}}|y|^\kappa `$ for $`y0`$. Unconditionally the parameter $`\kappa `$ cannot be a normal quantum number, but for numerical calculations with a fixed accuracy $`\kappa `$ is connected with the smallness parameter because in real calculations the additional factor $`|y|^\kappa `$ leads to decreasing of integrals. These argumentations are consistent with the standard approach (see, for example, ), when the BS amplitude is developed over the four-dimensional hyperspherical harmonics $`Z_{\kappa lm}(\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ and the obtained system of equations is truncated over a ”nonphysical” quantum number $`\kappa `$.

Thus, we can characterize a bound state by the quantum numbers $`Q=(n,\kappa ,l,m)`$ where $`(l,m)`$ are three-dimensional orbital quantum numbers, $`n`$ is a radial quantum number and $`\kappa `$ is connected with the behaviour of a wave function for $`|y|0`$. The eigenvalues are degenerated over the magnetic quantum number $`m`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q(s)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n\kappa l}(s).$$

On the other hand, one can say that the quantum number $`\kappa `$ is connected with ”time” or the fourth coordinate component $`y_4`$. It has no special name and usually these states are called ”abnormal”. These states disappear in the nonrelativistic limit and usually are not considered. However, the representation of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude (13) is not valid without these states and their role should be clarified.

We choose the test functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$ in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q(y,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa lm}(y,p)=Y_{lm}(𝐲)W_{n\kappa l}(|𝐲|,y_4)`$
$`=`$ $`Y_{lm}(𝐲)R_{n\kappa l}(|𝐲|,y_4)F_{n\kappa l}(|𝐲|,y_4).`$
Here $`Y_{lm}(𝐲)=Y_{lm}(𝐧_y)|𝐲|^l`$ with $`𝐧_y=𝐲/|𝐲|`$. $`Y_{lm}(𝐧_y)=Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the standard three-dimensional spherical function; $`R_{n\kappa l}(u,v)`$ is a polynomial of the degree $`(n+\kappa )`$ and $`F_{n\kappa l}(u,v)`$ is a test function. The constant $`N_{n\kappa l}`$ is defined by the normalization condition

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_QD\mathrm{\Psi }_Q^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑yD(y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa lm}(y,p)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n^{}\kappa ^{}l^{}m^{}}(y,p)}=\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{\kappa \kappa ^{}}`$ (35)
The vertex (14) takes the form

$`V_Q(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{n\kappa lm}(q,p)=i^l{\displaystyle 𝑑ye^{iqy}D(y)Y_{lm}(𝐲)W_{n\kappa l}(|𝐲|,y_4)}`$
$`=`$ $`Y_{lm}(𝐪)V_{n\kappa l}(q,p).`$
where

$`V_{n\kappa l}(q,p)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲𝑑y_4|𝐪|^l|𝐲|^lP_l(𝐧_q𝐧_y)e^{i(\mathrm{𝐪𝐲}+q_4y_4)}D\left(\sqrt{𝐲^2+y_4^2}\right)W_{n\kappa l}(|𝐲|,y_4)}`$
Finally, the BS amplitude (13) looks like

$`\mathrm{}(s,t)={\displaystyle \underset{n\kappa l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{4\pi }}V_{n\kappa l}(q,p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n\kappa l}(s)}}V_{n\kappa l}(q^{},p)`$ (37)
The test function $`F(u,v)`$ contains variational parameters. We choose the test function in the following simplest form

$`W(y)=W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)=e^{a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^2}},`$ (38)
$`D_3(y)=D_3(|𝐲|,|y_4|)={\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iky}}{(a^2+𝐤^2+bk_4^2)^3}},`$
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are variational parameters.

Polynomials $`R_{n\kappa l}(u,v)`$ have to provide the orthogonality condition (35).

## 4 Nonrelativistic limit

### 4.1 The ”Bethe-Salpeter form” of the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation

First of all let us represent the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation in the ”Bethe-Salpeter form”. Bound states of two particles with masses $`m=1`$ interacting via an attractive potential are described by the equation

$`H\psi (𝐱)=\left(𝐩^2\alpha V(r)\right)\psi (𝐱)=ϵ\psi (𝐱).`$ (39)
where $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant, $`ϵ`$ is the binding energy and

$$𝐱𝐑^3,r=\sqrt{𝐱^2},𝐩^2=_{𝐱}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$

The function $`V(r)>0`$ is supposed to be positive. For the Yukawa potential $`V(r)=\frac{e^{\mu r}}{r}`$.

Let us rewrite equation (39) in the form

$`\left(𝐩^2+ϵ\right)\psi (𝐱)=\alpha V(r)\psi (𝐱),\psi (𝐱)=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐩^2+ϵ}}V(r)\psi (𝐱)`$
and let us introduce the function

$`\varphi (𝐱)=\sqrt{V(r)}\psi (𝐱)`$
Then we get

$`\varphi (𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \sqrt{V(r)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐩^2+ϵ}}\sqrt{V(r)}\varphi (𝐱)=\alpha {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱^{}S_ϵ(𝐱,𝐱^{})\varphi (𝐱^{})}.`$
Here the kernel $`S_ϵ(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ for $`ϵ>0`$ is the self-adjoint symmetric positive operator

$`S_ϵ(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{V(r)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{𝐱}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+ϵ}}\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})\sqrt{V(r^{})}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{V(r)}\mathrm{\Pi }_ϵ(𝐱𝐱^{})\sqrt{V(r^{})},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_ϵ(𝐱𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐱^{})}}{𝐤^2+ϵ}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\sqrt{ϵ}|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}.`$ (40)
The solution of the Schrödinger equation (39) is equivalent to the variational problem which can be written in different forms

$`1=\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(ϵ)=\alpha \underset{\varphi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi S_ϵ\varphi )}{(\varphi \varphi )}}=\alpha \underset{\psi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\psi V\mathrm{\Pi }_ϵV\psi )}{(\psi V\psi )}}=\alpha \underset{\phi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\phi \mathrm{\Pi }_ϵ\phi )}{\left(\phi \frac{1}{V}\phi \right)}}.`$
We will show that in nonrelativistic limit $`M2m`$ the variational problem (25) is reduced to (4.1).

### 4.2 The nonrelativistic limit in the Bethe-Salpeter equation

Now let us come back to the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the form (28) and consider the polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_p(yy^{})`$

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_p(yy^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dk_4}{2\pi }\frac{e^{i𝐤(𝐲𝐲^{})ik_4(y_4y_4^{})}}{\left(𝐤^2+k_4^2+1\frac{M^2}{4}\right)^2+M^2k_4^2}}`$
where $`p=(\mathrm{𝟎},iM)`$ and $`(pk)=iMk_4`$.

For a state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,p)`$ we have and

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Pi }_pD\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dk_4}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(𝐤,k_4)}{\left(𝐤^2+k_4^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2+M^2k_4^2}}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1\frac{M^2}{4}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐤,k_4)=𝑑ye^{ipy}D(y)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐲,y_4).$$

In the nonrelativistic limit

$`M2,\mathrm{\Delta }=1{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4}}0.`$ (42)
Introducing new variables $`𝐤=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝐪`$ and $`k_4=\mathrm{\Delta }q_4`$ one can get in the limit (42)

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Pi }_PD\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dq_4}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝐪,\mathrm{\Delta }q_4)}{(𝐪^2+\mathrm{\Delta }q_4^2+1)^2+4q_4^2}}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dq_4}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝐪,0)}{(𝐪^2+1)^2+4q_4^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝐪,0)}{𝐪^2+1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^2(𝐤,0)}{𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
The test function is chosen in the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,p)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐲,0)=\psi (𝐲)`$. It leads to

$`\stackrel{~}{R}(𝐩,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲𝑑y_4e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐲}}D(y)\psi (𝐲)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲\frac{e^{\mu |𝐲|}}{|𝐲|}e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐲}}\psi (𝐲)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐲}}V(|𝐲|)\psi (𝐲)}`$
and

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲𝑑y_4D(y)\psi ^2(𝐲)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐲\frac{e^{\mu |𝐲|}}{|𝐲|}\psi ^2(𝐲)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left(\psi V\psi \right)`$
The binding energy equals

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2M)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{4}}\right)=ϵ\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4}}\right]ϵ`$
Collecting all these formulas we obtain (4.1)

$`1=\lambda (ϵ)=\alpha \underset{\psi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\psi V\mathrm{\Pi }_ϵV\psi \right)}{\left(\psi V\psi \right)}}`$
where $`\alpha `$ is connected with the coupling constant $`g`$ in the following way:

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi m^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}},\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi m^2}}.`$ (43)
The main result for the solution of the variational problem of the relativistic Bethe-Salpeter equation (25) for small binding energy $`ϵ1`$ is that it is convenient to choose the test function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(p)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}a𝐩,\mathrm{\Delta }bp_4)`$ (44)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are variational parameters.

## 5 The Wick-Cutkosky model $`\mu =0`$

### 5.1 The mass $`M_Q=0`$ in the Wick-Cutkosky model

As a by-product of the representation (8) equation (9) can be easily solved in the case $`M_Q=0`$ (see ). Equation (9) reads

$`U=g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }U=g^2KU`$
or

$`U(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{y^2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_0(yy^{})\frac{1}{\sqrt{(y^{})^2}}U(y^{})}`$ (45)
We look for the solution in the form $`U(y)=\sqrt{y^2}\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{})`$. Equation (45) reads

$$y^2\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=\frac{g^2}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑y^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_0(yy^{})\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{})$$

and in the momentum space

$`\mathrm{}_k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+1)^2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k),\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi }}.`$ (46)
The states are degenerated over quantum numbers $`m`$ and $`\kappa =l`$. Let us extract the angular variables

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k)=T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)A(k^2)`$
where $`T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)`$ is the spherical function in the four-dimension space (see Appendix) and satisfies the correlations (62)

$$\mathrm{}_kT_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)=0,\left(k\frac{}{k}\right)T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)=lT_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}^{(l)}(k).$$

Then equation (46) reads with $`k^2=u[0,\mathrm{}]`$

$`uA^{\prime \prime }(u)+(2+l)A^{}(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(u+1)^2}}A(u)=0.`$
Let us introduce new variables

$$t=\frac{u1}{u+1}[1,1],A(u)=(1t)^{l+1}B(t).$$

We get

$`(1t^2)B^{\prime \prime }(t)2(2+l)tB^{}(t)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}l^23l2\right)B(t)=0`$ (47)
The solution is the Jacobi polynomial $`B(t)=P_n^{(l+1,l+1)}(t)`$ with

$$\frac{\alpha }{\pi }l^23l2=n(n+2l+3)$$

and finally

$`\alpha _{nl}=\pi (n+l+1)(n+l+2)`$ (48)
### 5.2 Variation calculations

For the Wick-Cutcosky model we perform variational calculations for the lowest and first excited states and compare our numerical results with the numbers obtained in .

#### 5.2.1 The lowest state

For the lowest state the test function is chosen in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(y,p)=W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)=e^{a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^3}},`$ (49)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are variational parameters. Then

$`V_0(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yD(y)W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)e^{iky}}={\displaystyle \frac{dy}{(2\pi )^2y^2}e^{a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^2}i\mathrm{𝐤𝐲}ik_4y_4}}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ab+\sqrt{a^2b+ub+v}}{[u+v+a^2(1+b)+2a\sqrt{a^2b+ub+v}]\sqrt{a^2b+ub+v}}}`$
$`=`$ $`R(u,v;a,b),u=𝐤^2,v=k_4^2;`$
and

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{(2\pi )^2y^2}e^{2a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4a^2(1+\sqrt{b})}}`$
The eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M)`$ is defined by

$`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(M^2)=\alpha \underset{a,b}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑kk^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{4a^2(1+\sqrt{b})R^2(k^2,v^2;a,b)}{(k^2+v^2+\mathrm{\Delta })^2+4(1\mathrm{\Delta })v^2}}`$ (51)
The value of $`M`$ is defined by equation (15). It is instructive to compare the Bethe-Salpeter mass (51) with the bound state mass of the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb potential

$`ϵ=2M={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8\left(1\frac{M}{2}\right)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{Sch}}},`$
$`ϵ_{em}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}^2}{4}}=1.33\mathrm{}10^5,\alpha _{em}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{137}}`$
The numerical results are represented in Table 1 where we have used $`a=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}a_1`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Delta }b_1`$.

Table 1. The lowest state in the Wick-Cutkosky model. The coupling constant $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ for different masses $`M/m`$ and comparison $`1/\alpha `$ with the nonrelativistic value $`1/\alpha _{Sch}`$.

| $`\frac{M}{m}`$ | $`\frac{ϵ}{2m}`$ | $`\frac{1}{\alpha _{Sch}}`$ | $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ | $`a_1`$ | $`b_1`$ | $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ | $`\lambda _{Tj}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.000 | 1.00 | 0.3535 | 0.1586 | 0.76 | 1.0 | 25.21 | 25.13 |
| 0.500 | 0.75 | 0.4082 | 0.1671 | 0.78 | 1.0 | 23.93 |  |
| 1.000 | 0.50 | 0.5000 | 0.1994 | 0.80 | 1.0 | 20.06 | 20.01 |
| 1.500 | 0.25 | 0.7071 | 0.3023 | 0.84 | 1.3 | 13.23 |  |
| 1.900 | 0.05 | 1.5811 | 0.8901 | 0.88 | 2.1 | 4.493 | 4.483 |
| 1.999 | 0.0005 | 15.811 | 13.993 | 1.00 | 4.5 | 0.285 | 0.285 |
| $`2\frac{\alpha _{em}^2}{4}`$ | $`\frac{\alpha _{em}^2}{8}`$ | 137 | 133.9 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 0.0299 |  |

One can see that the variational calculations practically coincide with the numerical results obtained in .

It is important to remark that the nonrelativistic regime, when the Schrödinger equation can be used, is realized for very small binding energies $`ϵ10^4`$.

#### 5.2.2 The first orbital exited states

The test functions for the ”normal” state with $`\kappa =0,l=1`$ and for ”abnormal” state with $`\kappa =1,l=0`$ look like

$`𝚿^{(n)}(y,p)=𝐲W(|𝐲|,|y_4|),\mathrm{\Psi }^{(a)}(y,p)=y_4W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)`$ (52)
where the test function $`W`$ is the first function in (38). One can get after simple calculations

$`𝐕^{(n)}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝐲D(y)W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)e^{iky}}`$
$`=`$ $`2𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}R(u,v;a,b)=2𝐤R_u(u,v;a,b);`$
$`V^{(a)}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yy_4D(y)W(|𝐲|,|y_4|)e^{iky}}`$
$`=`$ $`2k_4{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}\stackrel{~}{R}(u,v;a,b)=2k_4R_v(u,v;a,b),`$
where the function $`R`$ is defined by (50), and

$`(𝚿^{(n)}D𝚿^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy𝐲^2}{(2\pi )^2y^2}e^{2a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16a^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+\sqrt{b}}{(1+\sqrt{b})^2}},`$
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(a)}D\mathrm{\Psi }^{(a)})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dyy_4^2}{(2\pi )^2y^2}e^{2a\sqrt{𝐲^2+by_4^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16a^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}(1+\sqrt{b})^2}},`$
The eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M^2)`$ is defined by

$`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}(M)=\alpha \underset{a,b}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑kk^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{16a^4(1+\sqrt{b})^24k^2R_u^2(k^2,v^2;a,b)}{3(2+\sqrt{b})\left(k^2+v^2+1\frac{M^2}{4}\right)^2+M^2v^2}},`$
$`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(a)}(M)=\alpha \underset{a,b}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑kk^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑v{\displaystyle \frac{16a^4\sqrt{b}(1+\sqrt{b})^24q^2R_v^2(k^2,v^2;a,b)}{3\left(k^2+v^2+1\frac{M^2}{4}\right)^2+M^2v^2}}.`$ (53)
The value of $`M`$ is defined by equation (15). The nonrelativistic binding energy of the bound state with $`l=1`$ is

$`ϵ=2M={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{16}},\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{32\left(1\frac{M}{2}\right)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{Sch}}},\alpha _{em}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{137}}`$
The numerical results are represented in Table 2 where $`a=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}a_1`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Delta }b_1`$. Here we should remark that the calculations in  contain a mistake for $`l1`$. For the state with $`l=1`$ factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ should be introduced to get the correct value.

Table 2. The first excited states in the Wick-Cutkosky model. The coupling constant $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ for different masses $`M/m`$ and comparison $`1/\alpha `$ with the nonrelativistic value $`1/\alpha _{Sch}`$.

|  | | | Vector particles $`l=1`$ | | | | | ”Abnormal state” | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\frac{M}{m}`$ | $`\frac{ϵ}{2m}`$ | $`\frac{1}{\alpha _{Sch}}`$ | $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ | $`a_1`$ | $`b_1`$ | $`\lambda _v=4\alpha `$ | $`\lambda _{Tj}`$ | $`\lambda _s`$ | $`a_1`$ | $`b_1`$ |
| 0.000 | 1.00 | 0.176 | .0529 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 75.62 | 80 | 75.55 | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| 0.500 | 0.75 | 0.204 | 0.0559 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 71.47 |  | 72.78 | 0.85 | 1.0 |
| 1.000 | 0.50 | 0.250 | 0.0676 | 0.81 | 1.20 | 59.19 | 63.5 | 64.27 | 0.90 | 1.1 |
| 1.500 | 0.25 | 0.353 | 0.1059 | 0.87 | 1.48 | 37.77 |  | 48.55 | 0.94 | 1.4 |
| 1.900 | 0.05 | 0.790 | 0.3409 | 0.89 | 2.56 | 11.73 | 16 | 25.63 | 1.05 | 2.85 |
| 1.999 | 0.0005 | 7.906 | 6.4894 | 0.95 | 5.00 | 0.616 | 5 | 8.98 | 1.30 | 14.0 |
| $`2\frac{\alpha _{em}^2}{16}`$ | $`\frac{\alpha _{em}^2}{32}`$ | 137 | 133.9 | 0.986 | 10.0 | 0.0298 |  |  |  |  |

One can see that ”abnormal states” have practically the same mass as ”normal” states in the strong coupling regime when the mass defect is large. If the coupling constant is small the ”abnormal” masses are much more then ”normal” masses. In addition we can repeat that the nonrelativistic regime is realized for very small binding energies.

## 6 Massive tieons $`\mu >0`$

In this section we perform variational calculations in the case $`\mu >0`$ for the lowest and the first excited states and compare our numerical results with the numbers obtained in .

### 6.1 The lowest state

For the lowest state we choose the test function in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,p)=D_3(y,a,b)={\displaystyle \frac{dk}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iky}}{(a^2+𝐤^2+bk_4^2)^3}}`$ (54)
Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are variational parameters.

The direct calculations give

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }D\mathrm{\Psi })={\displaystyle 𝑑yD(y)D_3^2(y,a,b)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^4}}Z(\mu ,a,b),`$ (55)
$`Z(\mu ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dtduu^3t(1t)}{\sqrt{b(bu+1u)}(a^2u+\mu ^2(1u)t(1t))^3}},`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yD(y)\mathrm{\Psi }(y)e^{iky}}={\displaystyle 𝑑yD(y)D_3(y,a)e^{iky}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^4}}V(r,\theta ,a,b),`$ (56)
$`V(r,\theta ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dtt^2}{\sqrt{bt+1t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[a^2t+\mu ^2(1t)+t(1t)r^2\left(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )b}{bt+1t}\right)\right]^2}},`$
where we put $`|𝐤|^2=r^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )`$ and $`k_4^2=r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )`$.

The mass of the lowest state is defined by the variational equation (25). Our formulation of the problem is to find the coupling constant $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ for given $`\mu =\frac{\mu }{m}`$ and $`M=\frac{M}{m}`$, then we get

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a,b}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2Z(\mu ,a,b)}{J(\mu ,M,a,b)}}`$ (57)
where

$`J(\mu ,M,a,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{r^3\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )V^2(r,\theta ,a,b)}{\left(r^2+1\frac{M^2}{4}\right)^2+M^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}}`$
The numerical results are listed in Table3.

Table 3. The lowest states in the case $`\mu >0`$.

| $`\frac{\mu }{m}`$ | $`\frac{M}{m}`$ | $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ | $`a`$ | $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ | $`a`$ | $`b`$ | $`\lambda _{Tj}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  | $`b=1`$ |  |  |  |  |
| 1.000 | 0.000 | 42.960 | 1.27 | 42.960 | 1.27 | 1.00 | 42.96 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 36.945 | 1.15 | 36.940 | 1.27 | 1.10 | 36.94 |
| 1.000 | 1.900 | 17.293 | 0.66 | 17.252 | 0.70 | 1.87 | 17.23 |
| 1.000 | 1.999 | 10.294 | 0.41 | 10.273 | 0.44 | 2.35 | 10.25 |
| 0.100 | 0.000 | 25.802 | 1.02 | 25.802 | 1.02 | 1.00 | 25.80 |
| 0.100 | 1.000 | 20.692 | 0.89 | 20.680 | 0.91 | 1.20 | 20.68 |
| 0.100 | 1.900 | 5.3843 | 3.50 | 5.262 | 0.38 | 2.22 | 5.227 |
| 0.100 | 1.999 | 1.0789 | 0.089 | 1.054 | 0.089 | 9.00 | 1.043 |
| 0.001 | 0.000 | 25.133 | 1.00 | 25.133 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 25.13 |
| 0.001 | 1.000 | 20.023 | 0.87 | 20.013 | 0.87 | 1.20 | 20.01 |
| 0.001 | 1.900 | 4.6904 | 0.32 | 4.501 | 0.35 | 4.20 | 4.483 |
| 0.001 | 1.999 | 0.3523 | 0.031 | 0.2900 | 0.04 | 150 | 0.289 |

In Table 4 we listed the results of calculations for two cases: (1) one parameter $`a`$ with $`b=1`$ and (2) two parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$. One can see that only for small binding energies there is a remarkable difference in numbers. Our numbers are quite close to the numerical results obtained in .

### 6.2 The first excited states

For the first excited states we choose the test functions for ”normal” $`(n)`$ and ”abnormal” $`(a)`$ states in the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (y,p)=y_\mu D_3(y,a,b)=\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(n)}(y,p)=𝐲D_3(y,a,b),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{(a})(y,p)=y_4D_3(y,a,b)\hfill \end{array}`$ (60)
Repeating as before all calculations we reduce the problem to find the coupling constant $`\lambda =4\alpha `$ for given $`\mu =\frac{\mu }{m}`$ and $`M=\frac{M}{m}`$ to the variational task

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a,b}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2Z_j(\mu ,a,b)}{J_j(\mu ,M,a,b)}},(j=n,a).`$ (61)
Here

$`Z_n(\mu ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dtdu18u^4(1u)t^2(1t)^2}{\sqrt{b(bu+1u)}(a^2u+\mu ^2(1u)t(1t))^4}},`$
$`Z_a(\mu ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dtdu6u^4(1u)t^2(1t)^2}{\sqrt{b(bu+1u)^3}(a^2u+\mu ^2(1u)t(1t))^4}},`$
$`J_j(\mu ,M,a,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{r^3\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )V_j^2(r,\theta ,a,b)}{\left(r^2+1\frac{M^2}{4}\right)^2+M^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}}`$
$`V_n(r,\theta ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dtt^3}{\sqrt{bt+1t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4r\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{h(\mu ,r,\theta ,t,a,b)}},`$
$`V_a(r,\theta ,a,b)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dtt^3\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{(bt+1t)^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4r\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{h(\mu ,r,\theta ,t,a,b)}},`$
$$h(\mu ,r,\theta ,t,a,b)=\left[a^2t+\mu ^2(1t)+t(1t)r^2\left(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )b}{bt+1t}\right)\right]^3.$$

In Table 4 the results of calculations for ”normal” states with spin $`l=1`$ and for ”abnormal” states with spin $`l=0`$ are listed. The column $`\lambda _{Tj}`$ contains the results obtained in  with factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to get the correct numbers. One can see that our numbers are quite close to them. It should be noted that in the strong coupling regime the ”abnormal” states begin to play an essential role in the representation of the BS amplitude (13).

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank S.Dorkin for useful discussions and help in numerical calculations. This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant No. 01-02-17200-a.

Table 4. The first excited states in the case $`\mu >0`$.

|  | | Vector particles $`l=1`$ | | | | ”Abnormal state” | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\frac{\mu }{m}`$ | $`\frac{M}{m}`$ | $`\lambda _n=4\alpha `$ | $`a`$ | $`b`$ | $`\lambda _{Tj}`$ | $`\lambda _s=4\alpha `$ | $`a`$ | $`b`$ |
| 1.000 | 0.000 | 205.95 | 1.6 | 1.0 |  | 205.95 | 1.6 | 1.0 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 183.16 | 1.5 | 1.1 |  | 195.35 | 1.5 | 1.1 |
| 1.000 | 1.900 | 110.86 | 1.1 | 1.5 |  | 166.26 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 1.000 | 1.999 | 93.48 | 0.9 | 1.9 |  | 161.66 | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| 0.100 | 0.000 | 80.35 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 80.22 | 80.30 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 0.100 | 1.000 | 63.77 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 63.77 | 63.74 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| 0.100 | 1.900 | 16.05 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 15.99 | 34.78 | 0.6 | 3.2 |
| 0.100 | 1.999 | 4.87 | 0.2 | 6.2 | 4.77 | 27.44 | 0.4 | 4.4 |
| 0.001 | 0.000 | 75.40 | 1.0 | 1.1 |  | 75.40 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 0.001 | 1.000 | 59.06 | 0.9 | 1.2 |  | 64.24 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| 0.001 | 1.900 | 11.84 | 0.3 | 3.2 |  | 25.75 | 0.4 | 4.1 |
| 0.001 | 1.999 | 1.03 | 0.1 | 5.2 |  | 10.11 | 0.05 | 15.0 |

## 7 Appendix. Angular polynomials $`T_{\{\mu \}}^{(l)}(k)`$

The angular polynomials $`T_{\{\mu \}}^{(l)}(k)=T_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)`$ are symmetric for $`\mu _i\mu _j`$, and

$$T_{\mu ,\mu ,\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)=0$$

The recurrence relation is

$$T_{1\mathrm{}l}^{(l)}(k)=\frac{1}{l}P(1|2\mathrm{}l)k_1T_{2\mathrm{}l}^{(l1)}(k)\frac{k^2}{2l(l1)}P(12|3\mathrm{}l)\delta _{12}T_{3\mathrm{}l}^{(l2)}(k)$$

In particular

$`T^{(0)}=1,T_1^{(1)}(k)=k_1,`$
$`T_{12}^{(2)}(k)=k_1k_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _{12}k^2,`$
$`T_{123}^{(3)}(k)=k_1k_2k_3{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{6}}(k_1\delta _{23}+k_2\delta _{31}+k_3\delta _{12}),`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.`$
The normalization condition is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l}{}}T_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)T_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{|k|^l|p|^l}{2^l}}C_l^1((n_kn_p)),`$
where $`C_l^1(t)`$ is the Gegenbauer polynomial.

These angular functions satisfy the formulas

$`\mathrm{}_kT_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)=0,\left(k{\displaystyle \frac{}{k}}\right)T_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k)=lT_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _l}^{(l)}(k).`$ (62)


format: text

text:
# Quantum Statistics: Is there an effective fermion repulsion or boson attraction?

## I INTRODUCTION

The Pauli principle states that no two fermions can have the same quantum numbers. The origin of this law is the required antisymmetry of the multi-fermion wavefunction. Most physicists have heard or read a shorthand way of expressing the Pauli principle, which says something analogous to fermions being “antisocial” and bosons “gregarious.” Quite often this intuitive approach involves the statement that there is an effective repulsion between two fermions, sometimes called an “exchange force,” that keeps them spacially separated. We inquire into the validity of this heuristic point of view and find that the suggestion of an effective repulsion between fermions or an attraction between bosons is actually quite a dangerous concept, especially for beginning students, since it often leads to an inaccurate physical interpretation and sometimes to incorrect results. We argue that the effective interaction interpretation of the Pauli principle (or Bose principle) should almost always be replaced by some alternate physical interpretation that better reveals the true physics.

Physics comes in two parts: the precise mathematical formulation of the laws, and the conceptual interpretation of the mathematics. David Layzer says,Layzer  “There is a peculiar synergy between mathematics and ordinary language.…The two modes of discourse \[words and symbols\] stimulate and reinforce one another. Without adequate verbal support, the formulas and diagrams tend to lose their meaning; without formulas and diagrams, the words and phrases refuse to take on new meanings.” Interpreting the meaning of wavefunction symmetry or antisymmetry in a simple pedagogical representation is thus vitally important. However, if those words actually convey the wrong meaning of the mathematics, they must be replaced by more accurate words. We feel this is the situation with the heuristic “effective repulsion” for fermions or “effective attraction” for bosons, or “exchange force” generally.

One can demonstrate there is no real force due to Fermi/Bose symmetries by examining a time-dependent wave packet for two noninteracting spinless fermions. Consider the antisymmetric wave function for one-dimensional Gaussian wave packets, each satisfying the Schrödinger equation, and moving towards each other:

$`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`C\{f(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (x_1vt+a)^2\beta (x_2+vta)^2]`$ (1)
$`f(x_2,x_1)\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (x_2vt+a)^2\beta (x_1+vta)^2]\},`$
where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are the particle coordinates, $`f(x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[imv(x_1x_2)/\mathrm{}\right]`$, $`C`$ is a time-dependent factor, and the packet width parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are unequal. In reality, each single-particle packet will spread with time, but we assume that the spreading is negligible over the short time that we consider the system. At $`t=0`$ the $`\alpha `$-packet is peaked at $`a`$ and moving to the right with velocity $`v`$, while the $`\beta `$-packet is peaked at $`+a`$ and traveling to the left with the same velocity. Of course we cannot identify which particle is in which packet since they are indistinguishable, and each has a probability of being in each packet. At $`t=0`$ the packets are assumed well separated with little overlap.

At $`t=a/v,`$ the wave function becomes

$$\psi (x_1,x_2,t)=C\left\{f(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha (x_1)^2\beta \left(x_2\right)^2\right]f(x_2,x_1)\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha (x_2)^2\beta \left(x_1\right)^2\right]\right\},$$
(2)
and the direct and exchange parts have maximal overlap. The wave function clearly vanishes at $`x_1=x_2`$ (as it does at all times). At the time $`t=2a/v,`$ the packets have passed through one another and overlap very little again:

$`\psi (x_1,x_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`C\{f(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (x_1a)^2\beta (x_2+a)^2]`$ (3)
$`f(x_2,x_1)\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (x_2a)^2\beta (x_1+a)^2]\}.`$
Now the $`\alpha `$-packet is peaked at $`+a,`$ but still moving to the right and the $`\beta `$-packet is peaked at $`a`$ and still moving to the left. The packets have moved through one another unimpeded since, after all, they represent free-particle wave functions. Describing this process in terms of effective forces would imply the presence of scattering and accelerations, which do not occur here, and would be highly misleading.

Nonetheless, the concept of effective fermion repulsion is evident in many texts, particularly in discussions of the behavior of an ideal fermion gas — a case we explore further in section II. A common usage of the repulsion idea is in the interpretation of the second virial coefficient of an ideal gas. The first correction to classical ideal gas pressure due just to statistics is positive for spinless fermions and negative for spinless bosons. HeerHeer  (similar to most other texts that treat the subject, including one authored by one of usBrehm ) says, “The quantum correction that is introduced by statistics appears as an attractive potential for BE \[Bose-Einstein\] statistics and as a repulsive potential for FD \[Fermi-Dirac\] statistics.” Patria’s bookPatria  carries the idea further, developing an actual mathematical formula for the effective interaction between fermions or between bosons! He says, “In the Bose case, the potential is throughout attractive, thus giving rise to a ‘statistical attraction’ among bosons; in the Fermi case, it is throughout repulsive, giving a ‘statistical repulsion’ among fermions.” This interaction formula first appeared in 1932 in an article by Unlenbeck and Gropper,Uhlen  who may well be the originators of the whole statistical interaction picture. We discuss this formula in more detail in the next section.

WannierWannier  is a bit stronger in his assessment of the quantum thermal distribution function for fermions: “The particles exert a very strong influence on each other because a particle occupying a state excludes the others from it. This is equivalent to a strong repulsive force comparable to the strongest forces occurring in the problem.”

The modern physics book of LeightonLeighton  omits the word “effective” in discussing the so-called fermion interaction: “As compared with the behavior of hypothetical but distinguishable particles, Bose particles exhibit an additional attraction for one another and tend to be found near one another in space; Fermi particles, on the contrary, repel one another and tend not to be found near one another in space.” The classic kinetic-theory handbook by Herschfelder et alHirsch  may set the record by using the terms “apparent repulsion” (and “apparent attraction”) four times.

GriffithsGriffiths  does an interesting calculation of the average distance between two particles at positions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ when one is in state $`\psi _a`$ and the other in $`\psi _b,`$ the two functions being orthogonal and normalized. For distinguishable particles with wave function $`\psi _a(x_1)\psi _b(x_2),`$ the mean-square separation is

$$(x_1x_2)^2_d=x^2_a+x^2_b2x_ax_b,$$
(4)
where $`x^2_i=𝑑xx\left|\psi _i(x_1)\right|^2.`$ For spinless fermions the wave function must be antisymmetrized, and for bosons symmetrized, giving

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\psi _a(x_1)\psi _b(x_2)\pm \psi _a(x_2)\psi _b(x_1)\right],$$
(5)
where the upper sign is for bosons and the lower for fermions. From this form it is easy to compute the corresponding mean-square separation as

$$(x_1x_2)^2_\pm =(x_1x_2)^2_d2\left|x^2_{ab}\right|,$$
(6)
where $`x_{ab}=𝑑xx\psi _a^{}(x)\psi _b(x)`$. Thus he finds that bosons tend to be closer together and fermions farther apart when compared to distinguishable particles. Griffiths comments, “The system behaves as though there were a ‘force of attraction’ between identical bosons, pulling them closer together, and a ‘force of repulsion’ between identical fermions, pushing them apart. We call it an exchange force, although it’s not really a force at all—no physical agency is pushing on the particles; rather it is a purely a geometrical consequence of the symmetrization requirement.” This wording shows more care than the works cited above and is thus less likely to be misinterpreted. However, the term “force” has explicit meaning for physicists. It implies a push or pull, along with its associated acceleration, deflection, scattering, etc. Are these elements properly associated with the exchange force? If not, then the term should be replaced with something carrying more accurate connotations.

Our intention is not to be critical of authors for using the words “repulsion” and “attraction” in describing the statistical effects of wavefunction antisymmetry or symmetry. This concept has been with physics since the early days of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, it is important to examine the usefulness of this heuristic interpretation of the mathematics. As Layzer has pointed out, no such interpretation can carry the whole weight of the rigorous mathematical formulation; however, if a heuristic interpretation brings along the baggage of subsequent misconceptions, then physicists must be more circumspect in its use.

For example, consider the following case where there is a complete breakdown of the concept. Suppose two spinless fermions or bosons have a completely repulsive interparticle potential and impinge on one another at energies low enough that there is only s-wave scattering. As we show in Sec. III, if the scattering amplitude for distinguishable particles is $`f`$, then the scattering amplitude for fermions vanishes identically, whereas for that for bosons is $`2f`$. In this case statistical symmetry has *diminished* the interaction for fermions—not made it more repulsive–and it has *enhanced* the interaction for bosons—not made it less repulsive.

Wherever the idea of an effective force breaks down (as it does in our wave-packet description and in the s-wave scattering example), we need to replace this interpretation with other heuristic interpretations that better represent the physics. This is our aim in each of the examples we analyze below.

In Sec. II we examine more closely the physics that gives rise to the idea of an effective statistical interaction between quantum particles and will derive the Uhlenbeck-Gropper formula for the interaction. Section III will take the opposite point of view, and find cases where the idea is highly misleading and indeed where the effect is actually opposite the usual implication. Sec. IV summarizes our conclusions.

## II EXAMPLES OF THE STATISTICAL INTERACTION

There are several places where the idea of a statistical interaction arises somewhat naturally, and might seem to imply an effective force. The virial correction to the pressure of an ideal gas is most likely the origin of this idea of effective interaction. The physics of white dwarf stars is another classic example of “Fermi repulsion.” The diatomic hydrogen atom is bound in the electron singlet state, while the triplet is unbound, which is often used as an example of the effective repulsion between like-spin electrons due to the Paul principle. When two rare gas atoms approach one another there is a hard-core exponential repulsion between the atoms, which is often explained by the electron statistical repulsion. On the other hand when trapped bosons condense, they collapse to a smaller region in the center of the trap; which gives the impression of an effective boson statistical attraction. In each of these cases we will show that relying on the intuitive idea of Pauli repulsion or Bose attraction may actually hinder understanding of the basic phenomena. Alternative explanations are provided.

*Virial expansion.* A real gas has an equation of state that differs from that of an ideal classical gas. For high temperature $`T`$ and low density $`n`$ of the gas, the pressure $`P`$ can be written

$$P=nk_BT\left(1+nB(T)\right),$$
(7)
where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`B`$ is known as the second virial coefficient. This equation gives the lowest terms of the so-called virial expansion, a series in powers of $`n\lambda ^3,`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the thermal wavelength, given by $`\lambda =\sqrt{h^2/(2\pi mk_BT)}`$ for particles of mass $`m`$.

For ideal spinless fermions and bosons, standard calculationsPatria ; Huang  give the effect of Fermi or Bose symmetry:

$$B(T)=\eta \frac{\lambda ^3}{2^{5/2}},$$
(8)
where $`\eta =\pm 1,`$ with the plus sign for bosons and the minus for fermions. Thus fermions exert a larger pressure, and bosons a smaller pressure, on the walls than a classical gas at the same temperature.

Compare this result with that for a classical interacting gas, where the second virial coefficient is given byPatria

$$B(T)=\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐫\left(1e^{\beta U(𝐫)}\right),$$
(9)
where $`U(r)`$ is the real interatomic potential at separation $`r`$ and $`\beta =1/k_BT.`$ It is evident from Eq. (9) that a completely repulsive potential leads to a positive $`B(T)`$ and a positive contribution to the pressure, while an attractive one results in a negative contribution.

A connection to the Fermi or Bose ideal gas is made by considering the pair density matrix given by

$$G(1,2)=V^2\frac{𝐫_1𝐫_2|e^{\beta H_{12}}|𝐫_1𝐫_2}{\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{\beta H_{12}}\right)}=\lambda ^3\underset{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{}\psi _{𝐩_1}(𝐫_1)\psi _{𝐩_2}(𝐫_2)e^{\beta (ϵ_{p_1}+ϵ_{p_2})}(1+\eta P_{12})\psi _{𝐩_1}^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _{𝐩_2}^{}(𝐫_2),$$
(10)
where $`\psi _{𝐩_i}(𝐫_i)`$ is a plane-wave momentum state for particle $`i`$ and $`P_{12}`$ is the permutation operator interchanging $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$. The single-particle energy is $`ϵ_p=p^2/2m.`$ Changing the momentum sums to integrals and carrying out the calculations leads us to the following result depending on relative position $`r_{12}`$ only:

$$G(r_{12})=\left(1+\eta e^{2\pi r_{12}^2/\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(11)
The purely classical ideal gas result would correspond to $`\eta =0`$ with no correlation between particles. Fermions, on the other hand, have $`G`$ small within a thermal wavelength, an example of the spatial consequences of the Pauli principle. Bosons have $`G`$ larger than the classical value. This result is consistent with the Griffiths’ calculation of $`(x_1x_2)^2`$ cited in Sec. I.

Spatial correlations in a classical gas are described by the two-particle distribution function given by $`G_{cl}(1,2)=e^{\beta U(𝐫)}`$. Thus, a s in Ref. Uhlen,  and repeated in Ref. Patria, , we identify by analogy an effective statistical potential as

$$U_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=k_BT\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\eta e^{2\pi r_{12}^2/\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(12)
This quantity is plotted in Fig. 1. It is purely repulsive for fermions and attractive for bosons. If we put this back into the classical expression for the second virial coefficient, we get precisely the result quoted in Eq. (8). A repulsive potential excludes atoms from approaching too closely and raises the pressure; fermions also have an “excluded volume” of $`\lambda ^3`$ and an increase in pressure. This comparison seems to be the major impetus behind the concept of “effective force” as applied to Fermi statistics. Is the physics similar enough for the analogy to be useful? Our opinion is that it is not very helpful, as we argue below.

In a classical gas the rms average momentum remains $`\sqrt{\overline{p^2}}=`$ $`\sqrt{3mk_BT}`$ even when there are interactions. Pressure is force per unit area and the force comes from the impulse of an atom striking the wall. The average force that a single particle exerts on the wall is, by the impulse-momentum theorem, $`F=\mathrm{\Delta }p/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is twice the average momentum and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the average time over which the force is exerted, which here is *not* the time of contact, but rather the time for an atom to cross the width $`L`$ of the container, that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=mL/\overline{p}`$. When one makes the volume of an ideal classical gas smaller (at constant $`T)`$ $`\overline{p}`$ is unchanged, but the transit time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is diminished causing the pressure to increase. Analogously, when a classical gas has repulsive interactions “turned on” with no change in the temperature or $`\overline{p}`$, the pressure rises because of a decreased average transit time: some molecules bounce off others back to the wall they just left. But this is *not* what happens in the fermion case. The idea that the correlation hole in the two-body density Eq. (11) gives rise to “bounces” or deflections of fermions from one another is a misconception that arises from the idea of a Pauli repulsion. When one compares Fermi gas dynamics to that of classical statistics, what is altered is *not* the effective $`L`$ in the transit time, but rather the $`\overline{p}`$ in both $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t.`$ For a given value of $`T`$, the momentum distribution in an ideal Bose or Fermi gas differs from that in an ideal classical gas. The exact quantum second virial coefficient is given byHuang

$$B(T)=\frac{1}{2V}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\left[1G(1,2)\right].$$
(13)
This result explains why the substitution of $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ into the classical equation gives the exact answer. Nevertheless, it is not the spatial dependence of $`G`$ that gives us physical insight; it is the *momentum* dependence: Carry out the position integration indicated in Eq. (13) with $`G`$ as given by Eq. (10). The result is

$$\frac{1}{2V}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2G(1,2)=\frac{\lambda ^6}{V}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\underset{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{}e^{\beta (ϵ_{p_1}+ϵ_{p_2})}+\eta \underset{𝐩}{}e^{2\beta ϵ_p}\right]\right\}.$$
(14)
The quantity inside the curly brackets is the partition function for two quantum particles. The first term of this is just the classical partition function and its contribution is already accounted for in the classical ideal gas pressure; it cancels out in Eq. (13). The second term corrects the wrong classical momentum distribution represented by the first term. The classical term includes double-occupation states; for fermions the second term cancels these out. For bosons, the classical counting undercounts these double-occupation terms and the second term corrects that fault as well. Writing the second virial coefficient in momentum space clarifies how the change in momentum distribution affects the pressure. For bosons, there is a lowering of the average momentum so the force on the wall is lessened. For fermions, the momentum is raised increasing the pressure. The idea of an effective repulsion between fermions just ignores the real physics and gives a very poor analogy with classical repulsive gases.

*White dwarf stars and related objects.* It is the fermion zero-point pressure that prevents the collapse under gravitational forces of the white dwarf star. KraneKrane  says, “A white dwarf star is prevented from collapse by the Pauli principle, which prevents the electron wave functions from being squeezed too close together.…Will the repulsion of the electron wave functions due to the Pauli principle be able to prevent the collapse of any star, no matter how massive?” (This line leads into a discussion of neutron stars.) We feel this qualitative picture of what goes on in a white dwarf star could, as with the second virial coefficient interpretation, be greatly improved by discussion in terms of the momentum-space features of the Pauli principle. Most elementary discussionsKrane  of white dwarfs incorporate a discussion of “Fermi repulsion” by doing a dimensional analysis that equates the zero-point energy of the ideal Fermi gas to the gravitational self-energy of the star matter. The Fermi temperature is much greater than the physical temperature in the star so that the $`T=0`$ fermion gas is used as a model.

An alternate physical description arises from considering the hydrostatic equilibrium conditions of the star.Chandra  The star is assumed to contain $`N`$ nuclei (assumed all helium) in radius $`R`$. A spherical shell of thickness $`dr`$ at radius $`r`$ has an outward force due to a difference between the pressure $`P(r)`$ on the inner surface and the pressure $`P(r+dr)=P+dP`$ (with $`dP<0)`$ on the outer surface, caused by the nonuniform nuclear number density of the star, $`n(r)`$. This net outward force $`4\pi r^2dP`$ is balanced by the gravitational pull toward the center due to the total mass $`M(r)`$ enclosed by the shell. The mass of the shell itself is $`4\pi r^2n(r)drm_{\mathrm{He}},`$ where $`m_{\mathrm{He}}`$ is the helium mass, so that

$$dP=\frac{GM(r)n(r)drm_{\mathrm{He}}}{r^2}.$$
(15)
The crucial idea is that $`P`$ is the pressure of a degenerate electron gas with the electron density maintained by charge neutrality at twice the helium number density $`n_\mathrm{e}(r)=2n(r).`$ For a non-relativistic model the Pauli pressure at $`T=0`$ is given by standard statistical argumentsHuang  as $`P\mathrm{}^2n_\mathrm{e}^{5/3}/m_\mathrm{e}.`$ ChandrasekharChandra  develops a second-order differential equation for $`n(r)`$ from these steps. We can do a simple dimensional analysis based on Eq. (15) by replacing $`dP/dr`$ by $`P/R,`$ $`n(r)`$ by $`N/R^3,`$ $`M(r)`$ by $`M(R)=m_{\mathrm{He}}N`$, etc. to arrive at

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{Gm_\mathrm{e}m_{\mathrm{He}}^2}\frac{1}{N^{1/3}}\frac{1}{M^{1/3}}.$$
(16)
This is the usual non-relativistic result, which does not demonstrate the collapse at some large $`M`$ like the relativistic case, but gives the idea behind the stability of the star.

The gravitational attraction on a mass element is balanced by the difference in Pauli pressure across the mass shell. In order to develop a qualitative argument for the strong density dependence of the Pauli pressure that supports the star against gravitational collapse, we can return to the argument used for the virial coefficient. In a box of sides $`L`$, the pressure is force per unit area $`A`$, or $`P=(N/A)\mathrm{\Delta }p/\mathrm{\Delta }t.`$ But the average momentum per particle $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ imparted to the wall for a degenerate Fermi gas is of order $`p_\mathrm{F},`$ the Fermi momentum. The transit time is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ $`Lm_\mathrm{e}/p_\mathrm{F}`$ so that

$$P\frac{N}{AL}\frac{p_\mathrm{F}}{m_\mathrm{e}/p_\mathrm{F}}=n_\mathrm{e}\frac{p_\mathrm{F}^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}.$$
(17)
The Fermi momentum itself is strongly dependent on the density because of the necessity to fill the single-particle energy levels with two per momenum state. This requirement is $`N=(2V/h^3)𝑑𝐩n_𝐩`$ with $`n_𝐩`$ a step function cutting off at $`p=p_\mathrm{F}.`$ This integral gives $`p_\mathrm{F}=\mathrm{}(3\pi ^2n_\mathrm{e})^{1/3}.`$ Note that $`p_\mathrm{F}`$ is related to a deBroglie wavelength by

$$p_\mathrm{F}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\lambda }\mathrm{}n_\mathrm{e}^{1/3}.$$
(18)
Thus the maximum wavelength is approximately the interparticle separation, which one can argue is necessitated by the Pauli principle requiring that the electrons be in single-particle wave packets compact enough that they don’t overlap. This is an argument about quantum-mechanical wave-function correlation rather than an argument based on an effective force. The connection to the Pauli pressure is the high momentum that this correlation induces. We end up with

$$Pn_\mathrm{e}\frac{p_\mathrm{F}^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}n_\mathrm{e}^{5/3}.$$
(19)
If by “preventing the wave functions from being squeezed too close together”Krane  one means that the fermion wave function must have sufficient curvature for nodes to appear whenever any two coordinates are equal, then the idea leads directly to the correct behavior. This extra curvature requires higher Fourier components. The pressure differs from one kind of statistics to another directly because of differing momentum distributions; the Fermi distribution involves larger average momenta, giving it a Pauli pressure. The idea of “wave function repulsion” as a *correlation* that leads to this momentum distribution might be useful, although the word “repulsion” still carries the connotation of a force, which is less useful.

The physical explanations of neutron stars,stars  strange quark matter,Witten  the Thomas-Fermi model of the atom,Harris  are all analogous to the white dwarf star in that the Pauli pressure of a Fermi fluid is the basis of resistance to compression.

*The hydrogen molecule and interatomic forces*. The singlet electron state of hydrogen is bound while the triplet state is unbound. Is it a case of the Pauli repulsion giving the spatially antisymmetric state associated with the triplet higher energy? Griffiths,Griffiths  applying the discussion of exchange forces to this problem, says “The system behaves as though there were a ‘force of attraction’ between identical bosons, pulling them closer together.…If electrons were bosons, the symmetrization requirement…would tend to concentrate the electrons toward the middle, between the two protons…, and the resulting accumulation of negative charge would attract the protons inward, accounting for the covalent bond.…But wait. We have been ignoring spin.…” He then talks of the fact that the entire spin and space wave function must be antisymmetric and gets the proper bonding in the singlet state. He shows that for the spatially antisymmetric triplet state “the concentration of negative charge should actually be shifted to the wings…, tearing the molecule apart.”

While this explanation is very carefully worded and provides a very useful physical picture of the hydrogen bond, a strikingly different picture of covalent bonding and antibonding is given by the work of Herring.Herring  Herring argues that the energy difference between singlet and triplet states (in widely separated atoms at least) is properly interpreted as a splitting between atomic levels due to tunneling. Consider the hypothetical case of two *spinless, distinguishable* electrons in a hydrogen molecule. The Hamiltonian has the form

$$H=t_1+t_2+V(12)+U(1)+U(2),$$
(20)
in which $`t_i`$ is the kinetic energy operator for particle $`i,`$ $`V(12)`$ represents the particle-particle interaction, and $`U(i)`$ is an external double-well potential representing the attraction of the $`i^{th}`$ electron to the two nuclei located, say, at $`R_a`$ and $`R_b`$. The Hamiltonian is symmetric under interchange of the two particles, so the eigenfunctions must be either symmetric or antisymmetric, even for these distinguishable particles. Let $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ represent the lowest symmetric and antisymmetric eigenfunctions, respectively, with corresponding energies $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}.`$

The combination

$$\varphi _{ab}(1,2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi _++\psi _{}\right)$$
(21)
is a function for which particle 1 is localized near site $`R_{a,},`$ and particle 2 near site $`R_{b.}`$ If $`P_{12}`$ is the permutation operator then the function $`P_{12}`$ $`\varphi _{ab}(1,2)=\varphi _{ab}(2,1)=\varphi _{ba}(1,2)`$ is localized around the exchanged sites; that is, particle 1 is localized near site $`R_{b,}`$ and particle 2 near site $`R_a.`$ Herring calls the functions $`\varphi _{ab}(1,2)`$ and $`\varphi _{ba}(1,2)`$ “home-base functions.” If one sets the initial conditions such that the particles are in $`\varphi _{ab}(1,2),`$ then the two particles will tunnel through the double-well barrier between $`\varphi _{ab}(1,2)`$ and $`\varphi _{ba}(1,2)`$ with frequency $`\omega =\left(E_+E_{}\right)/\mathrm{}.`$ We can write the energy of these two lowest states for distinguishable particles as

$$E_\pm =E_0\pm J,$$
(22)
where $`E_0=(E_++E_{})/2`$ and $`J=(E_+E_{})/2.`$ A theoremLieb  states that the symmetric nodeless state must be the ground state, thereby implying that $`J`$ is negative. This energy splitting occurs independent of any spin effects.

If the two particles are spin-1/2 fermions, exactly the same physics holds, except now the symmetric wave function $`\psi _+`$ must be associated with an antisymmetric spin function while $`\psi _{}`$ must be associated with a symmetric spin function in order to keep the entire wave function overall antisymmetric. The result is that Eq. (22) is replaced by

$$E_\pm =E_0\pm J\sigma _1\sigma _2,$$
(23)
where $`\sigma _i`$ is a Pauli spin matrix. This operator expression acts in spin space to associate the correct spin state (singlet or triplet) with the correct energy.spinperm  Since the symmetric spatial state is the ground state, as in the distinguishable particle case, the singlet state energy of the electrons is lower than that of the triplet state.

Note that we are not at all criticizing the idea quoted from Ref. Griffiths,  that the lowering of the energy in the spin singlet state can be associated with the concentration of the electron cloud in the region between the two nuclei. However, the energy lowering would arise even if the two particles were distinguishable; so it does not actually stem from their fermion character.surface  Of course, the fact that the corresponding spin state must be singlet *is* a fermion property. The suggestion that Fermi statistics or Pauli repulsion plays a role in the lowering of the singlet relative to the triplet state of H<sub>2</sub> misses the essential fact that much of the energy difference is due to splitting between tunneling states and that the tunneling ground state must be nodeless and symmetric.

Let’s continue the above discussion, but with the hydrogen nuclei replaced with helium nuclei. We can get an idea of the behaviour of the electronic energy for this pair of helium atoms by using the same symmetric and antisymmetric wave functions. Because of the Pauli principle, the two extra electrons would (in some approximation) be placed in the spatially antisymmetric, antibonding, triplet state, thereby losing the tunneling energy advantage of the symmetric state. This extra energy supplies a physical explanation for the repulsive interatomic interaction when the closed-shell electron clouds start to overlap. Within the Born-Oppenheimer approximationHirsch ; Ziman  the electronic energy (plus the internuclear Coulomb repulsion) is used as a potential energy for the atomic *nuclei*. The short-ranged repulsive part of this interaction potential between two rare-gas atoms is often described by a phenomenological $`1/r^{12}`$ or exponential repulsion.Hirsch ; dispersion  Here then is a case of a real repulsion arising; however, it is a repulsion between the nuclei—not the electrons.

While the Pauli principle is certainly vital in understanding molecular forces, the idea of an effective fermion statistical repulsion has never really entered the picture. Indeed, we feel its introduction short-circuits the discussion and could cause one to miss the basic physics.

*Bose-Einstein condensation*. Condensation of bosons into a harmonic trap might seem the best example of boson effective attraction.Pethick  The condensate in a trap is a noticably smaller object than the cloud of non-condensed atoms surrounding it. Of course, the real reason for this is that the ground state in the trap of the interacting bosons has smaller radius than that of the excited states. The particles are correlated to be in the same state; in this case it is a spatially more compact one.

One of the present authors has also used the following argumentBrehm  to explain the fact that the lowest excited mode in a Bose fluid is a phonon rather than a single-particle motion: “Bosons prefer to be in the same state with one another, so that if one atom is pushed on by an external force, all the particles within a deBroglie wavelength $`\lambda `$ (which is large at low temperature) want to move in the same way. The collective motion of a sound wave allows this while the single-particle motions are frozen out by this tendancy.” This argument seems based on the idea of a kind of boson effective attraction. A more rigorous argument is given by Feynman.Feynman  If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the ground state of the Bose fluid, then one might suppose that $`e^{i𝐤𝐫_1}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an excited state involving a single particle with momentum $`𝐤.`$ However the state has to be symmetric, so this state must be replaced by $`_ie^{i𝐤𝐫_i}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is precisely the one-phonon state. The particles “preferring to be in the same state” is a verbal expression to represent wave-function symmetry. Superfluids can be described by a “wave function” (order parameter), which depends on a single position variable, has a magnitude and phase, and represents the superfluid distribution. It costs energy to make this function nonuniform, as when a vortex is present. The system “prefers” to have the same phase and amplitude throughout, a property sometimes called “coherence.” Any idea of an effective boson attraction is better replaced by this latter concept.

## III WHERE THE IDEA OF A STATISTICAL INTERACTION FAILS

We have already argued above that the idea of a statistical fermion repulsion or boson attraction has the potential to make one miss the essential physics of the physical effect being explained. Worse however, is the fact that this idea might cause misconceptions and lead to incorrect conclusions. We present here some cases where that might occur.

*The other spin state*. Most of the textbooks quoted in Sec. I say unequivocally that fermions repel and bosons attract without the qualification of, say, the term “spinless.” These books have ignored, at some pedagogic risk, the effects of spin, which is usually taken into account only later. The effective repulsion or attraction (if there were one) is an effect of the spatial part of the wave function only. If the total spin state is symmetric, the space wave function is antisymmetric for fermions and symmetric for bosons, leading to the effects envisioned in most textbooks. However, when the total spin state is antisymmetric (as for two spin 1/2 particles in a spin singlet, or for two spin 1 particles in the $`S=1,m_s=0`$ state) the roles of fermions and bosons are reversed. Two spin 1/2 fermions in the spin singlet state behave like two spinless bosons, and two spin 1 bosons in the $`S=1,m_s=0`$ state behave like spinless fermions.

*Scattering theory*. When two particles scatter elastically via a repulsive force the idea of an additional effective interaction due to Fermi or Bose symmetry can lead to trouble. In the center-of-mass frame the two particles approach from opposite directions and scatter into opposite directions as shown in Fig. 2a. If the particles are distinguishable, the probability of detecting particle p1 in detector D1 and particle p2 in detector D2 is given by

$$P(\mathrm{p1}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{D1})=|f(\theta )|^2,$$
(24)
where $`f(\theta )`$ is the scattering amplitudephiless . Similarly, the probability of detecting particle p2 in detector D1 and particle p1 in D2 (as in Figure 2b) is given by

$$P(\mathrm{p1}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{D2})=|f(\pi \theta )|^2.$$
(25)
When you don’t care which particle goes to which detector, but just want to measure the cross section for either particle in a detector, the probability for a particle in detector D1 is

$$P(\mathrm{p1}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{D1})=|f(\theta )|^2+|f(\pi \theta )|^2.$$
(26)
Since the particles are in principle distinguishable there is no interference between amplitudes, even if the detectors themselves do not identify the difference between particles.

Now suppose the two particles are indistinguishable. In this case the two amplitudes corresponding to Figs. 2a and 2b interfere, and must be combined before squaring. If the particles are identical fermions, the two-particle wave function is antisymmetric with respect to particle exchange. Since diagrams 2a and 2b are related by the exchange of the two particles in the final state, they contribute to the total amplitude with opposite signs. Thus, the probability to detect a fermion in detector D1 is

$$P_{\mathrm{Fermi}}(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{D1})=|f(\theta )f(\pi \theta )|^2.$$
(27)
This is obviously different from the distinguishable case above. The difference is especially remarkable at $`\theta =\pi /2`$, where the fermion scattering probability vanishes. Moreover, in the limit of s-wave scattering, which is a good approximation for some low energy cases, the scattering is independent of the angle $`\theta `$ and the fermion probability for scattering is zero for all angles. A similar argument holds for bosons, but with the amplitudes adding instead of subtracting, leading to the scattering probability:

$$P_{\mathrm{Bose}}(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{D1})=|f(\theta )+f(\pi \theta )|^2.$$
(28)
In this case, the scattering probability at $`\theta =\pi /2`$ is twice the value for distinguishable particles. For s-wave scattering $`P_{\mathrm{Bose}}`$ is a factor of two times the distinguishable value at all angles.

The interpretation of these results in the context of an effective fermion repulsion or an effective boson attraction is quite confusing. For scattering at 90 degrees, or for s-wave scattering at all angles, it looks as if the total repulsive force is reduced in the case of fermions (leading to a smaller scattering probability) and enhanced in the case of bosons (leading to a larger scattering probability). This is exactly backwards from the notion that the scattering force should be supplemented by an effective repulsion for fermions and partially canceled by an effective attraction for bosons. It clearly demonstrates why the idea of an effective repulsion or attraction is a dangerous concept.

Focusing on the direct effects of the Bose or Fermi symmetry leads to a more useful conceptual approach to scattering. For two identical particles, the total spin state is symmetric. For fermions having a total spin state that is symmetric (either both spins up or both spins down), the space wave function itself must be antisymmetric as written in Eq. (5). For this wave function, the amplitude for the two fermions to be in the same place ($`r_1=r_2`$) is obviously zero. As noted in Sec. I, two identical fermions are on average farther apart than two distinguishable particles would be under the same circumstances. Consequently, the fermions interact *less* and are less likely to scatter. One can similarly argue that bosons are closer together on average, interact more and are *more* likely to scatter.

This conclusion is true whether the scattering force is repulsive or attractive, but it depends critically on the spin state of the two particles. For identical particles the spin state is necessarily symmetric, forcing the fermion spatial wave function to be antisymmetric or the boson wave function to be symmetric. However, if the two particles are in an antisymmetric spin state, e.g., two fermions in a spin-zero state, the conditions are reversed.

As a specific example of repulsive scattering, consider the quantum electrodynamic interaction of two electrons (Moller scattering). In QED, there are two lowest-order Feynman diagrams that contribute to the scattering amplitude with opposite signs, corresponding to the direct and exchange diagrams of Figure 2. In the non-relativistic limit, the electron spins do not change as a result of the interaction. (This is due to the fact that the low energy interaction occurs primarily via an electric field.) There is then only one final spin state to consider when doing the calculation. If the initial state has both particles with spin up then the final state also has both spins up. This case is treated in introductory particle-physics textsHalzenMartin  and the cross section for scattering is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\theta }(\mathrm{identical}\mathrm{spins})=\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{32p^4}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}\right)^2,$$
(29)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant and $`p`$ is momentum of the electrons in the center-of-mass frame. One notes that the cross section at $`\theta =\pi /2`$ vanishes, as it should.

To explore the case of an antisymmetric spin wave function, one can also calculate the scattering cross section for electrons in a spin-zero state:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\theta }(\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{zero})=\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{32p^4}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}\right)^2.$$
(30)
This differs from the identical spin case in the relative sign of the two terms.

These results should be compared to what the cross section would be if the two electrons were distinguishable. In that case, only the direct diagram of contributes, and the cross section for scattering with both spins up turns out to be the same as the spin-averaged cross section for electron-muon scattering found in many texts, with the muon mass set equal to the electron mass. After symmetrizing around $`\theta =\pi /2`$ to account for detectors that are sensitive to either particle, the cross section can be written as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\theta }(\mathrm{distinguishable}\mathrm{electrons})=\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{32p^4}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\theta }{2}}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^4\frac{\theta }{2}}\right).$$
(31)
All three cases are plotted as a function of scattering angle in Fig. 3a. All cross sections are symmetric around $`\pi /2`$, so only the range 0 to $`\pi /2`$ is plotted. As expected, the symmetric spin case gives the smallest scattering cross section, the antisymmetric spin case gives the largest cross section, and the case of distinguishable particles is in between. Moreover, as Fig. 3b shows, the ratios of the cross sections change as a function of scattering angle. At small scattering angles, the fermion cross sections are almost the same as the distinguishable particle cross section. The maximum difference occurs at $`\theta =\pi /2`$. It is difficult for any kind of effective fermion interaction to capture this effect, and moreover, the idea of an effective Fermi repulsion gives the wrong sign in the case of a repulsive scattering force.

*Transport theory*. Consider the example of thermal conductivity in a polarized fermion gas. One might think from the idea of Pauli repulsion that increasing polarization would *shorten* the particle’s mean-free path in the gas, which in turn would lower the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$. The opposite behavior is more likely to happen. At sufficiently low temperature where s-wave scattering predominates, polarization will actually cause a dramatic increase in $`\kappa `$, because, as we have just seen, the s-wave scattering cross section between like-spin fermions vanishes and only scattering between unlike spins, which now happens less often, can contribute to the mean free path.

We treat a gas obeying Boltzmann statistics, but having full quantum-mechanical collisions. For this to be true, the deBroglie wavelength must be larger than the scattering length, but smaller than the average separation between particles. If the temperature is low enough s-wave scattering will predominate. This situation can occur, for example, in trapped Fermi or Bose gases. The heat current for spin species $`\mu `$ in temperature gradient $`dT/dz`$ is given by arguments analogous to those for an unpolarized gasReif :

$$J_\mu =n_\mu \overline{v}l_\mu k_B\frac{dT}{dz},$$
(32)
where $`n_\mu `$ is the density of $`\mu `$ spins, $`\overline{v}`$ is the average velocity of either spin species, $`l_\mu `$ is the mean free path of a $`\mu `$ spin and $`k_B`$, the Boltzmann constant, is the specific heat per molecule. In Eq. (32) $`\mu `$ is $`+`$ for up spins and $``$ for down spins; there is a separate heat equation for each spin species. We have dropped any constant factors in the expression. When s-wave scattering dominates, up spins can interact only with down spins and not with each other, and vice versa. Thus the mean free path is $`l_\mu =\overline{v}\tau _\mu `$ where $`\tau _\mu `$ is the inverse of the scattering rate given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\mu }=n_\mu \overline{v}\sigma _+,$$
(33)
with $`\sigma _+`$ the cross section for spin up-down scattering. The spin density $`n_\mu `$ occurs on the right in Eq. (33) because it is that of the target particles for the incoming $`\mu `$ spins. The result is that

$$J_\mu =\frac{n_\mu }{n_\mu }\frac{\overline{v}k_B}{\sigma _+}\frac{dT}{dz}.$$
(34)
If $`n_+/n_{}1`$, the heat current $`J_{}`$ for down spins is negligible compared to $`J_+`$ for the up spins and the thermal conductivity is

$$\kappa =\frac{n_+}{n_{}}\frac{\overline{v}k_B}{\sigma _+}.$$
(35)
For high polarizations ($`n_+/n_{}1`$) $`\kappa `$ can be very large. The increase in $`\kappa `$ and other transport coefficients for polarized systems has been predicted theoreticallyLandL ; Meyero ; MandM  and also seen experimentally.PolExp  A similar increase also occurs if the particles are degenerate. The idea of a statistical repulsion is counterintuitive to this result.

*Ferromagnetism*. A very simple mean-field picture of magnetic fluids is provided by a model in which the particles interact by s-wave scattering only.Patria  Thus again there is no up-up or down-down interactions and the energy of the system of $`N_+`$ up spins and $`N_{}`$ down spins is given by

$$E=E_++E_{}+gN_+N,$$
(36)
where $`E_\sigma `$ is the total kinetic energy of the $`\sigma `$ spins, which is proportional to $`N_\sigma ^{5/3}`$ as in the ideal Fermi gas. The interaction parameter $`g`$ measures the scattering energy between up and down spins. Two up spins (or two down spins) do not “see” each other in this model. If $`g>0,`$ this model has three possible states. If $`g`$ is small, then the system favors less kinetic energy by having $`N_+=N_{}=N/2.`$ That is, one has antiferromagnetism. However, if $`g`$ is large enough, then either all the spins are up or all down to minimize the potential energy; ferromagnetism results. The kinetic energy in this case is larger than it would be if $`N_\sigma =N/2,`$ but the potential energy is zero. The wave-function antisymmetry between two like spins has made them invisible to one another and non-interacting, because their minimum separation is greater than the range of the interaction. The idea of a Pauli exchange force would lead one to assume a higher associated potential energy (as in Eq. (12)), but what actually happens is that the *kinetic* energy is raised by having more like spins, while at the same time statistics favors *lowering* the potential energy.

## IV DISCUSSION

Our goals in this paper have been to clarify the idea of the statistical effects sometimes referred to as “exchange forces”. We believe the term “force” used in this context may mislead students (and even more advanced workers), who might misinterprete the geometrical effect being described. We have given several examples of instances where statistical or exchange forces have been invoked to provide a conceptual explanation of the physics. We have not introduced any new physics in these examples, but we have tried to show how a teacher or writer might provide an alternative interpretation that avoids the exchange force terminology and thereby arrives at a deeper heuristic understanding of the physics. Indeed we identified several cases where the concept of an effective statistical force could lead to the opposite of the correct answer. When a concept has that potential, it is time to replace it.

Our alternative heuristics have taken several forms. We like GriffithsGriffiths  wording: “it is not really a force at all…it is purely a geometric consequence of the symmetrization requirement.” For same-spin fermions, the requirement that the wave function vanish whenever two particles are at the same position means that the wave function must have increased curvature, which leads to an enhanced momentum distribution. Indeed in many cases, the real statistical effect corresponds to a change in *kinetic* energy (i. e., momentum distribution) as in the explanation of the virial pressure or the white dwarf star, whereas a force picture leads to a change in *potential* energy as in the Unlenbeck-Gropper potential of Eq. (12). Equally helpfully, the geometrical interpretation leads directly to the changes in average particle separation as compared to distinguishable particles, with same-spin fermions farther apart on average, which nicely explains the scattering results where same-spin fermions have a reduced interaction.

It is hard to underestimate the importance of the the conceptual element of physics. Whole introductory courses have been constructed that leave out much of the mathematical half and concentrate only on the so-called “conceptual” side of the subject.Hewitt  Moreover, we emphasize to our students that they have not understood a theory until they can describe the physics in simple conceptual terms. Given that emphasis, we offer the following guiding principle regarding statistical symmetries: “May the force be *not* with you.”

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Dr. Terry Schalk for introducing the concern about Fermi repulsion to us, and Profs. John Donoghue and Barry Holstein for helpful conversations.