Re Is Pauli's repulsive force fundamental [Archive]

Alf P. Steinbach

Sep15-04, 02:29 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>* chris h fleming:\n>\n> * Alf P. Steinbach:\n> > * chris h fleming:\n> > >\n> > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a\n> > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure\n> > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am\n> > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what\n> > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons\' inability to become any\n> > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)\n> >\n> > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved\n> > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?\n> >\n> > Yet again: yes or no, please.\n\nUhm, no answer.\n\n\n> > If yes, which?\n\nUhm, no answer.\n\n\n> > > Now if you keep on\n> > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will\n> > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?\n> >\n> > That has always made sense.\n> >\n> > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached\n> > cancels the inward pressure?\n> >\n> > It\'s perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other\n> > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed\n> > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?\n>\n>\n> It\'s just pressure.\n\nPressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental\nforces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,\nacting on individual molecules.\n\nAgain, as I understand it (correct me if I\'m wrong) without PEP those gas\nmolecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.\n\nSo assuming I haven\'t completely misunderstood things saying PEP is pressure\nis in a vague sense correct, but it is no explanation or definition; rather\nit\'s circular in a peculiar way, saying that PEP is what it is a part of.\n\n\n> And pressure is not a fundamental force.\n\nRight.\n\n\n[...]\n> The more massive the particle, the more degeneracy pressure you can\n> get. Degenerate electron stars collapse to degenerate neutron stars.\n\n[...]\n> Think about it some more. You CAN\'T apply enough pressure to put the\n> electrons in the same state. There is nothing you can do to turn a dog\n> into a cat and there is nothing you can do to put electrons in the\n> same state.\n\nI agree with the first paragraph. I disagree with the second since the effect\nof squeezing electrons down to a black hole is something we do not yet know\nvery much about (despite Hawkings\' latest mystifying comments). What was\ndiscussed was however not putting electrons into the same state but overcoming\nPEP, by force, to squeeze electrons + protons into neutrons. I still think\nthe "turn dogs into cats" argument is a pure emotional argument since I can\'t\nmake sense of it any other way; but again, please correct me if I\'m wrong.\n\n--\nA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.\nQ: Why is it such a bad thing?\nA: Top-posting.\nQ: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>* chris h fleming:
>
> * Alf P. Steinbach:
> > * chris h fleming:
> > >
> > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a
> > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure
> > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am
> > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what
> > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons' inability to become any
> > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)
> >
> > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved
> > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?
> >
> > Yet again: yes or no, please.

Uhm, no answer.

> > If yes, which?

Uhm, no answer.

> > > Now if you keep on
> > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will
> > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?
> >
> > That has always made sense.
> >
> > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached
> > cancels the inward pressure?
> >
> > It's perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other
> > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed
> > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?
>
>
> It's just pressure.

Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental
forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,
acting on individual molecules.

Again, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) without PEP those gas
molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.

So assuming I haven't completely misunderstood things saying PEP is pressure
is in a vague sense correct, but it is no explanation or definition; rather
it's circular in a peculiar way, saying that PEP is what it is a part of.

> And pressure is not a fundamental force.

Right.

[...]
> The more massive the particle, the more degeneracy pressure you can
> get. Degenerate electron stars collapse to degenerate neutron stars.

[...]
> Think about it some more. You CAN'T apply enough pressure to put the
> electrons in the same state. There is nothing you can do to turn a dog
> into a cat and there is nothing you can do to put electrons in the
> same state.

I agree with the first paragraph. I disagree with the second since the effect
of squeezing electrons down to a black hole is something we do not yet know
very much about (despite Hawkings' latest mystifying comments). What was
discussed was however not putting electrons into the same state but overcoming
PEP, by force, to squeeze electrons + protons into neutrons. I still think
the "turn dogs into cats" argument is a pure emotional argument since I can't
make sense of it any other way; but again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

chris h fleming

Sep16-04, 07:09 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nalfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...\n > * chris h fleming:\n> >\n> > * Alf P. Steinbach:\n> > > * chris h fleming:\n> > > >\n> > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a\n> > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure\n> > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am\n> > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what\n> > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons\' inability to become any\n> > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)\n> > >\n> > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved\n> > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?\n> > >\n> > > Yet again: yes or no, please.\n>\n> Uhm, no answer.\n>\n>\n> > > If yes, which?\n>\n> Uhm, no answer.\n>\n>\n> > > > Now if you keep on\n> > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will\n> > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?\n> > >\n> > > That has always made sense.\n> > >\n> > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached\n> > > cancels the inward pressure?\n> > >\n> > > It\'s perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other\n> > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed\n> > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?\n> >\n> >\n> > It\'s just pressure.\n>\n> Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental\n> forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,\n> acting on individual molecules.\n>\n> Again, as I understand it (correct me if I\'m wrong) without PEP those gas\n> molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.\n\nFor an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics\nfor large volumes\nif the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s\nthen Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)\n\nIf you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but\nradiation, then the pressure will still increase.\n\nThink about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation\nand think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the\nwalls of the container.\n\n> So assuming I haven\'t completely misunderstood things saying PEP is pressure\n> is in a vague sense correct, but it is no explanation or definition; rather\n> it\'s circular in a peculiar way, saying that PEP is what it is a part of.\n>\n>\n> > And pressure is not a fundamental force.\n>\n> Right.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...
> * chris h fleming:
> >
> > * Alf P. Steinbach:
> > > * chris h fleming:
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a
> > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure
> > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am
> > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what
> > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons' inability to become any
> > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)
> > >
> > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved
> > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?
> > >
> > > Yet again: yes or no, please.
>
> Uhm, no answer.
>
>
> > > If yes, which?
>
> Uhm, no answer.
>
>
> > > > Now if you keep on
> > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will
> > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?
> > >
> > > That has always made sense.
> > >
> > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached
> > > cancels the inward pressure?
> > >
> > > It's perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other
> > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed
> > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?
> >
> >
> > It's just pressure.
>
> Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental
> forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,
> acting on individual molecules.
>
> Again, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) without PEP those gas
> molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.

For an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics
for large volumes
if the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s
then Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)

If you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but
radiation, then the pressure will still increase.

Think about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation
and think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the
walls of the container.

> So assuming I haven't completely misunderstood things saying PEP is pressure
> is in a vague sense correct, but it is no explanation or definition; rather
> it's circular in a peculiar way, saying that PEP is what it is a part of.
>
>
> > And pressure is not a fundamental force.
>
> Right.

Rob Woodside

Sep16-04, 07:09 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nalfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...\n >\n>What was discussed was however not putting electrons into the same\nstate but >overcoming PEP, by force, to squeeze electrons + protons\ninto neutrons.\n>\nWhat about the neutrinos? Do the electrons and protons require\nelectron antineutrinos or do electron neutrinos come spewing out with\nthe neutrons? I strongly expect the latter as three body collsions are\npretty rare, but I\'m ignorant of cross sections at such high\npressures.\n\nThe force arising from PEP is a reaction force. Do all reaction forces\narise from PEP? Newtonian gravity and Coulomb forces appear as action\nreaction pairs,\nall be it at a distance. Introducing a field, the four fundamental\nforces are the action/reaction pairs of field acting on source and\nsource acting on field.\nIn GR this is confused as gravitational force (weight) becomes an\ninertial or fictitious force and not a real force in an\naction/reaction pair.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...
>
>What was discussed was however not putting electrons into the same
state but >overcoming PEP, by force, to squeeze electrons + protons
into neutrons.
>
What about the neutrinos? Do the electrons and protons require
electron antineutrinos or do electron neutrinos come spewing out with
the neutrons? I strongly expect the latter as three body collsions are
pretty rare, but I'm ignorant of cross sections at such high
pressures.

The force arising from PEP is a reaction force. Do all reaction forces
arise from PEP? Newtonian gravity and Coulomb forces appear as action
reaction pairs,
all be it at a distance. Introducing a field, the four fundamental
forces are the action/reaction pairs of field acting on source and
source acting on field.
In GR this is confused as gravitational force (weight) becomes an
inertial or fictitious force and not a real force in an
action/reaction pair.

Alf P. Steinbach

Sep19-04, 06:56 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n* chris h fleming:\n>\n> alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...\n > > * chris h fleming:\n> > >\n> > > * Alf P. Steinbach:\n> > > > * chris h fleming:\n> > > > >\n> > > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a\n> > > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure\n> > > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am\n> > > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what\n> > > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons\' inability to become any\n> > > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)\n> > > >\n> > > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved\n> > > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?\n> > > >\n> > > > Yet again: yes or no, please.\n> >\n> > Uhm, no answer.\n> >\n> >\n> > > > If yes, which?\n> >\n> > Uhm, no answer.\n> >\n> >\n> > > > > Now if you keep on\n> > > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will\n> > > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?\n> > > >\n> > > > That has always made sense.\n> > > >\n> > > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached\n> > > > cancels the inward pressure?\n> > > >\n> > > > It\'s perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other\n> > > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed\n> > > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > It\'s just pressure.\n> >\n> > Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental\n> > forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,\n> > acting on individual molecules.\n> >\n> > Again, as I understand it (correct me if I\'m wrong) without PEP those gas\n> > molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.\n>\n> For an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics\n> for large volumes if the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s\n> then Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)\n\nI\'ll take that formula on faith; it doesn\'t matter except to the degree and\nthe manner in which the formula breaks down with small enough volume... ;-)\n\n\n\n> If you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but\n> radiation, then the pressure will still increase.\n>\n> Think about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation\n> and think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the\n> walls of the container.\n\nThis seems to be exactly the same situation as before.\n\nIf PEP is removed from the picture then presumably there is no container and\nhence no pressure, and if e.g. magnetic confinement can play the role of\ncontainer (then for a plasma not pure radiation) then for that situation it\'s\nevident that interaction via forces is necessary to achieve the containment.\n\nIt still seems, therefore, that this view of what PEP achieves (the forces\nthat among other things make pressure possible), and how, is circular, namely\ndefining the effect of PEP as a somewhat similar effect that PEP is a part of.\n\n"Somewhat similar": by banging my hand against the table (it didn\'t sink into\nthe table at all) I established that PEP "force" seems to have a very sudden\nonset as function of distance or compression, unlike ordinary gas pressure.\n\nStill mystified,\n\n\n- Alf\n\n--\nA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.\nQ: Why is it such a bad thing?\nA: Top-posting.\nQ: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>* chris h fleming:
>
> alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...
> > * chris h fleming:
> > >
> > > * Alf P. Steinbach:
> > > > * chris h fleming:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a
> > > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure
> > > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am
> > > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what
> > > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons' inability to become any
> > > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)
> > > >
> > > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved
> > > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?
> > > >
> > > > Yet again: yes or no, please.
> >
> > Uhm, no answer.
> >
> >
> > > > If yes, which?
> >
> > Uhm, no answer.
> >
> >
> > > > > Now if you keep on
> > > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will
> > > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?
> > > >
> > > > That has always made sense.
> > > >
> > > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached
> > > > cancels the inward pressure?
> > > >
> > > > It's perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other
> > > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed
> > > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?
> > >
> > >
> > > It's just pressure.
> >
> > Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental
> > forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,
> > acting on individual molecules.
> >
> > Again, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) without PEP those gas
> > molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.
>
> For an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics
> for large volumes if the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s
> then Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)

I'll take that formula on faith; it doesn't matter except to the degree and
the manner in which the formula breaks down with small enough volume... ;-)

> If you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but
> radiation, then the pressure will still increase.
>
> Think about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation
> and think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the
> walls of the container.

This seems to be exactly the same situation as before.

If PEP is removed from the picture then presumably there is no container and
hence no pressure, and if e.g. magnetic confinement can play the role of
container (then for a plasma not pure radiation) then for that situation it's
evident that interaction via forces is necessary to achieve the containment.

It still seems, therefore, that this view of what PEP achieves (the forces
that among other things make pressure possible), and how, is circular, namely
defining the effect of PEP as a somewhat similar effect that PEP is a part of.

"Somewhat similar": by banging my hand against the table (it didn't sink into
the table at all) I established that PEP "force" seems to have a very sudden
onset as function of distance or compression, unlike ordinary gas pressure.

Still mystified,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

chris h fleming

Sep20-04, 01:43 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nalfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<414ada23.160402578@news.individual.net>...\n > * chris h fleming:\n> >\n> > alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...\n > > > * chris h fleming:\n> > > >\n> > > > * Alf P. Steinbach:\n> > > > > * chris h fleming:\n> > > > > >\n> > > > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a\n> > > > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure\n> > > > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am\n> > > > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what\n> > > > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons\' inability to become any\n> > > > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)\n> > > > >\n> > > > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved\n> > > > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?\n> > > > >\n> > > > > Yet again: yes or no, please.\n> > >\n> > > Uhm, no answer.\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > > > If yes, which?\n> > >\n> > > Uhm, no answer.\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > > > > Now if you keep on\n> > > > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will\n> > > > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?\n> > > > >\n> > > > > That has always made sense.\n> > > > >\n> > > > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached\n> > > > > cancels the inward pressure?\n> > > > >\n> > > > > It\'s perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other\n> > > > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed\n> > > > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > > It\'s just pressure.\n> > >\n> > > Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental\n> > > forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,\n> > > acting on individual molecules.\n> > >\n> > > Again, as I understand it (correct me if I\'m wrong) without PEP those gas\n> > > molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.\n> >\n> > For an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics\n> > for large volumes if the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s\n> > then Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)\n>\n> I\'ll take that formula on faith; it doesn\'t matter except to the degree and\n> the manner in which the formula breaks down with small enough volume... ;-)\n>\n>\n>\n> > If you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but\n> > radiation, then the pressure will still increase.\n> >\n> > Think about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation\n> > and think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the\n> > walls of the container.\n>\n> This seems to be exactly the same situation as before.\n>\n> If PEP is removed from the picture then presumably there is no container and\n> hence no pressure, and if e.g. magnetic confinement can play the role of\n> container (then for a plasma not pure radiation) then for that situation it\'s\n> evident that interaction via forces is necessary to achieve the containment.\n\nWoa, woa, stop. PEP ISN\'T confining the electrons in star. GRAVITY is.\nIf there were no gravity, then they wouldn\'t be confined to such a\nsmall volume. PEP is dictating their specific statistics as to how you\ncan clump them together. But no matter if there is PEP or not as in\nthe case of bosons and classical maxwell particles, you still get\npressure.\n\n> It still seems, therefore, that this view of what PEP achieves (the forces\n> that among other things make pressure possible), and how, is circular, namely\n> defining the effect of PEP as a somewhat similar effect that PEP is a part of.\n\nIf you are going to call PEP a force from this reasoning, because this\nis really caused from pressure inherently, you are going to have to\ncall motion a force. Then you will run into some troubles. Given that\nmotion is a force, what do forces do? They balance out. Before you\ncould say that forces cause dynamics, but now you can only say that\nforces obey a zero constraint.\n\nyou would have to rewrite Newton\'s second law from\nF = ma\nto F_total = 0\nwhere F_total = F + F_motion\nwhere F_motion = -ma\n\nI would much rather think about the things that cause dynamics and the\ndynamics being caused than an obtuse constraint equation.\n\n> "Somewhat similar": by banging my hand against the table (it didn\'t sink into\n> the table at all) I established that PEP "force" seems to have a very sudden\n> onset as function of distance or compression, unlike ordinary gas pressure.\n\nThat\'s electro static. Atoms don\'t like being in other atoms. The\nsudden onset as a function of distance is from sheilding. The table\nand your hand are charge neutral over all. Things that are charge\nneutral over all don\'t give much of a force at distances much greater\nthan the distance between their charges. From far away a charge\nneutral object can look as if it has no charge, which is not the same.\n\n> Still mystified,\n>\n>\n> - Alf\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<414ada23.160402578@news.individual.net>...
> * chris h fleming:
> >
> > alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<41472d85.997188484@news.individual.net>...
> > > * chris h fleming:
> > > >
> > > > * Alf P. Steinbach:
> > > > > * chris h fleming:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes though PEP is thought of as providing a force as with a
> > > > > > massive star formed out of degenerate matter. The degeneracy pressure
> > > > > > of the electrons could be keeping the star from collapse. I am
> > > > > > assuming this is where the confusion lies. So in this situation what
> > > > > > is preventing the collapse is the electrons' inability to become any
> > > > > > more compact. (There is more to think about here)
> > > > >
> > > > > So, what is the force that cancels the inward pressure: is the force involved
> > > > > one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet again: yes or no, please.
> > >
> > > Uhm, no answer.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If yes, which?
> > >
> > > Uhm, no answer.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Now if you keep on
> > > > > > squishing PEP will not give in, but the electrons and protons will
> > > > > > merge to make neutrons. Does that make sense now?
> > > > >
> > > > > That has always made sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question raised is: what is the force that until some threshold is reached
> > > > > cancels the inward pressure?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's perfectly okay if that turns out to be some interaction of other
> > > > > forces, and that was part of the question -- but, is this force composed
> > > > > (solely) of one or more of the 4 fundamental forces, and if so which one(s)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's just pressure.
> > >
> > > Pressure in the ordinary gas sense is composed of / results from fundamental
> > > forces, inertia, plus, as I understand it, the Pauli exclusion principle, PEP,
> > > acting on individual molecules.
> > >
> > > Again, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) without PEP those gas
> > > molecules would just pass through whatever instead of exerting any pressure.
> >
> > For an ideal gas of either Bose, Fermi, or Maxwell statistics
> > for large volumes if the energy is proportional to (3-momentum)^s
> > then Pressure = (s/3) (Energy/Volume)
>
> I'll take that formula on faith; it doesn't matter except to the degree and
> the manner in which the formula breaks down with small enough volume... ;-)
>
>
>
> > If you squeeze in the volume of a container with nothing in it but
> > radiation, then the pressure will still increase.
> >
> > Think about what the squeezing does to the standing waves of radiation
> > and think about the particle model of the radiation bouncing off the
> > walls of the container.
>
> This seems to be exactly the same situation as before.
>
> If PEP is removed from the picture then presumably there is no container and
> hence no pressure, and if e.g. magnetic confinement can play the role of
> container (then for a plasma not pure radiation) then for that situation it's
> evident that interaction via forces is necessary to achieve the containment.

Woa, woa, stop. PEP ISN'T confining the electrons in star. GRAVITY is.
If there were no gravity, then they wouldn't be confined to such a
small volume. PEP is dictating their specific statistics as to how you
can clump them together. But no matter if there is PEP or not as in
the case of bosons and classical maxwell particles, you still get
pressure.

> It still seems, therefore, that this view of what PEP achieves (the forces
> that among other things make pressure possible), and how, is circular, namely
> defining the effect of PEP as a somewhat similar effect that PEP is a part of.

If you are going to call PEP a force from this reasoning, because this
is really caused from pressure inherently, you are going to have to
call motion a force. Then you will run into some troubles. Given that
motion is a force, what do forces do? They balance out. Before you
could say that forces cause dynamics, but now you can only say that
forces obey a zero constraint.

you would have to rewrite Newton's second law from
F = ma
to F_{total} =
where F_{total} = F + F_{motion}
where F_{motion} = -ma

I would much rather think about the things that cause dynamics and the
dynamics being caused than an obtuse constraint equation.

> "Somewhat similar": by banging my hand against the table (it didn't sink into
> the table at all) I established that PEP "force" seems to have a very sudden
> onset as function of distance or compression, unlike ordinary gas pressure.

That's electro static. Atoms don't like being in other atoms. The
sudden onset as a function of distance is from sheilding. The table
and your hand are charge neutral over all. Things that are charge
neutral over all don't give much of a force at distances much greater
than the distance between their charges. From far away a charge
neutral object can look as if it has no charge, which is not the same.

> Still mystified,
>
>
> - Alf