Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/9812073 · Physical Review A

Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states

Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, Yukihisa Nogami, Lauro Tomio

Published Apr 1, 1999• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Regarding the Pauli principle in quantum field theory and in many-body quantum mechanics, Feynman advocated that Pauli's exclusion principle can be completely ignored in intermediate states of perturbation theory. He observed that all virtual processes (of the same order) that violate the Pauli principle cancel out. Feynman accordingly introduced a prescription, which is to disregard the Pauli principle in all intermediate processes. This ingenious trick is of crucial importance in the Feynman diagram technique. We show, however, an example in which Feynman's prescription fails. This casts doubts on the general validity of Feynman's prescription.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.59.2624

Related papers

Comment on “Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states”

R. M. Cavalcanti

In a recent paper, Coutinho, Nogami, and Tomio [Phys. Rev. A 59, 2624 (1999)] presented an example in which, they claim, Feynman's prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states of perturbation theory fails. We show that, contrary to their claim, Feynman's prescription is consistent with the exact solution of their example.

arXiv:quant-ph/9908088•Physical Review A•Jun 8, 2000•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Validity of Feynman’s prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states’ ”

Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, Yukihisa Nogami, Lauro Tomio

In a recent paper, we raised a question on the validity of Feynman's prescription of disregarding the Pauli principle in intermediate states of perturbation theory. In the preceding Comment, Cavalcanti correctly pointed out that Feynman's prescription is consistent with the exact solution of the model that we used. This means that the Pauli principle does not necessarily apply to intermediate states. We discuss implications of this puzzling aspect.

Physical Review A•Jun 8, 2000•4 citations

Experimental data from a quantum computer verifies the generalized Pauli exclusion principle

Scott E. Smart, David Schuster, David A. Mazziotti

Abstract “What are the consequences… that Fermi particles cannot get into the same state…” R. P. Feynman wrote of the Pauli exclusion principle, “In fact, almost all the peculiarities of the material world hinge on this wonderful fact.” In 1972 Borland and Dennis showed that there exist powerful constraints beyond the Pauli exclusion principle on the orbital occupations of Fermi particles, providing important restrictions on quantum correlation and entanglement. Here we use computations on quantum computers to experimentally verify the existence of these additional constraints. Quantum many-fermion states are randomly prepared on the quantum computer and tested for constraint violations. Measurements show no violation and confirm the generalized Pauli exclusion principle with an error of one part in one quintillion.

arXiv:2004.07731•Communications Physics•Jan 31, 2019•25 citations

Introduction

Michela Massimi

The history of the exclusion principle is already an old one, but its conclusion has not yet been written. It is now eighty years since Wolfgang Pauli introduced an ‘extremely natural’ prescriptive rule, while dealing with some spectroscopic anomalies that beset physicists in the heyday of the old quantum theory. The rule excluded the possibility that any two bound electrons in an atom were in the same dynamic state, identified by a set of four quantum numbers. Hence the name of Ausschlieβungsregel (exclusion rule), or Pauli's Verbot (Pauli's veto) as Werner Heisenberg nicknamed it. The far-reaching physical significance of this rule became clear only later. From spectroscopy to atomic physics, from quantum field theory to high-energy physics, there is hardly another scientific principle that has more far-reaching implications than Pauli's exclusion principle. It is thanks to Pauli's principle that one obtains the electronic configurations underlying the classification of chemical elements in Mendeleev's periodic table as well as atomic spectra. To this same principle we credit the statistical behaviour of any half-integral spin particles (protons, neutrons, among many others) and the stability of matter. Shifting to high-energy physics, it is the exclusion principle that fixes the crucial constraint for binding quarks in hadrons, which together with leptons compose our physical world. This book advances a philosophical analysis of the enduring and far-reaching validity of Pauli's principle. It does not aim to address what a scientific principle is.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 4, 2005•2 citations

Many-Body Perturbation Theory

William Tobocman

The usual perturbation treatment of the many-body problem is modified by eliminating the two-body interaction and introducing in its place a $t$ matrix. The Watson, Brueckner, and Bethe (W.B.B.) treatment of the many-body problem is shown to be a special case of the modified perturbation treatment. The modified perturbation treatment involves no assumption except that of supposing the convergence of the perturbation expansion. Thus to each order in the expansion the results must be meaningful and no unphysical "unlinked cluster" terms can appear. Within the framework of the modified perturbation treatment it is easy to interpret the concepts of the Pauli principle for intermediate states and the self-consistent choice of the comparison potential which play such an important role in the W.B.B. treatment. This work is similar to that of J. Goldstone in that we relate the W.B.B. treatment to a perturbation treatment of the many-body problem. We differ from Goldstone in that we use the usual time-independent perturbation theory instead of the time-dependent one. The time-independent approach permits a direct comparison with the W.B.B. treatment and facilitates discussion of the Pauli principle for intermediate states and of the self-consistent potential.

Physical Review•Jul 1, 1957•28 citations

Difficulties with a Local Quantum Field Theory of Possible Violation of the Pauli Principle

Oscar Wallace Greenberg, Rabindra Nath Mohapatra

We point out difficulties with our proposed local quantum field theory of small violations of the Pauli principle and give a qualitative rationale for the surprising rigidity of the exclusion principle.

Physical Review Letters•Feb 13, 1989•56 citations
Regarding the Pauli principle in quantum field theory and in many-body quantum mechanics, Feynman advocated that Pauli's exclusion principle can be completely ignored in intermediate states of perturbation theory. He observed that all virtual processes (of the same order) that violate the Pauli principle cancel out. Feynman accordingly introduced a prescription, which is to disregard the Pauli principle in all intermediate processes. This ingenious trick is of crucial importance in the Feynman diagram technique. We show, however, an example in which Feynman's prescription fails. This casts doubts on the general validity of Feynman's prescription.
Abstract “What are the consequences… that Fermi particles cannot get into the same state…” R. P. Feynman wrote of the Pauli exclusion principle, “In fact, almost all the peculiarities of the material world hinge on this wonderful fact.” In 1972 Borland and Dennis showed that there exist powerful constraints beyond the Pauli exclusion principle on the orbital occupations of Fermi particles, providing important restrictions on quantum correlation and entanglement. Here we use computations on quantum computers to experimentally verify the existence of these additional constraints. Quantum many-fermion states are randomly prepared on the quantum computer and tested for constraint violations. Measurements show no violation and confirm the generalized Pauli exclusion principle with an error of one part in one quintillion.
The history of the exclusion principle is already an old one, but its conclusion has not yet been written. It is now eighty years since Wolfgang Pauli introduced an ‘extremely natural’ prescriptive rule, while dealing with some spectroscopic anomalies that beset physicists in the heyday of the old quantum theory. The rule excluded the possibility that any two bound electrons in an atom were in the same dynamic state, identified by a set of four quantum numbers. Hence the name of Ausschlieβungsregel (exclusion rule), or Pauli's Verbot (Pauli's veto) as Werner Heisenberg nicknamed it. The far-reaching physical significance of this rule became clear only later. From spectroscopy to atomic physics, from quantum field theory to high-energy physics, there is hardly another scientific principle that has more far-reaching implications than Pauli's exclusion principle. It is thanks to Pauli's principle that one obtains the electronic configurations underlying the classification of chemical elements in Mendeleev's periodic table as well as atomic spectra. To this same principle we credit the statistical behaviour of any half-integral spin particles (protons, neutrons, among many others) and the stability of matter. Shifting to high-energy physics, it is the exclusion principle that fixes the crucial constraint for binding quarks in hadrons, which together with leptons compose our physical world. This book advances a philosophical analysis of the enduring and far-reaching validity of Pauli's principle. It does not aim to address what a scientific principle is.
The usual perturbation treatment of the many-body problem is modified by eliminating the two-body interaction and introducing in its place a ttt matrix. The Watson, Brueckner, and Bethe (W.B.B.) treatment of the many-body problem is shown to be a special case of the modified perturbation treatment. The modified perturbation treatment involves no assumption except that of supposing the convergence of the perturbation expansion. Thus to each order in the expansion the results must be meaningful and no unphysical "unlinked cluster" terms can appear. Within the framework of the modified perturbation treatment it is easy to interpret the concepts of the Pauli principle for intermediate states and the self-consistent choice of the comparison potential which play such an important role in the W.B.B. treatment. This work is similar to that of J. Goldstone in that we relate the W.B.B. treatment to a perturbation treatment of the many-body problem. We differ from Goldstone in that we use the usual time-independent perturbation theory instead of the time-dependent one. The time-independent approach permits a direct comparison with the W.B.B. treatment and facilitates discussion of the Pauli principle for intermediate states and of the self-consistent potential.