Exploring the Possible Mechanisms Behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle

In summary, the Pauli exclusion principle is due to a repulsive force between electrons. When two electrons have opposite spins, the force is attractive.
  • #1
Rothiemurchus
203
1
Could the Pauli exclusion principle be due to a force that
has a 1 / r dependency where r is the distance between two electrons.
Then in the case of electron degeneracy pressure in neutron stars
could we say that uncertainty in momentum x uncertainty in position
arises from a repulsive force - reducing r to 1/2 its value would double
the repulsive force and the momentum if mv x position = 10^-34 = constant
and m stays approximately constant.When two electrons have opposite spins
the force would be attractive (in analogy to electric charges of opposite sign attracting each other).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How did you come to this ? What exactly is this force you are referring to.
I think this is quite speculative...

The Pauli-principle has to do with the antisymmetry of the fermion wave-function as predicted by QM. So why this force ?

regards
marlon
 
  • #3
Rothiemurchus said:
Could the Pauli exclusion principle be due to a force that
has a 1 / r dependency where r is the distance between two electrons.
Then in the case of electron degeneracy pressure in neutron stars
could we say that uncertainty in momentum x uncertainty in position
arises from a repulsive force - reducing r to 1/2 its value would double
the repulsive force and the momentum if mv x position = 10^-34 = constant
and m stays approximately constant.When two electrons have opposite spins
the force would be attractive (in analogy to electric charges of opposite sign attracting each other).

No. Think about a simple two electrons atom. If the electrons have different quantum numbers, there is no force of this nature between them. Surely, your force would have been observed in atoms a long time ago!

Regards

Pat
 
  • #4
There is a post on sci.physics.research where someone asked if a force could be the explanation instead of the antisymmetrical wavefunction.I was wondering if
anyone had ever tried in the past to use a force type explanation.
 
  • #5
Rothiemurchus said:
There is a post on sci.physics.research where someone asked if a force could be the explanation instead of the antisymmetrical wavefunction.I was wondering if
anyone had ever tried in the past to use a force type explanation.

I understand what you are saying. My point is that whenever something is introduced, one must make sure that it is in agreement with *all* known experimental observations. That's why it's so hard to introduce new theories :smile: .

As for your question, the first thing to check when introducing a new type of force between electrons is that it does not conflict with any of the experimental success of usual QM. Now, It's true that one could argue for a very short range force so that it could maybe act only extreme condition such as white dwarves and neutron stars, but I still think it would be hard to not conflict with the extremely precise measurements of helium type atoms, which agree so far with QED. (But I might be wrong.)


Of course, other problesm pop up when you start thinking more seriously about this idea. For example, what would explain the Table of elements if there is no Pauli principle? (could this force explain the pattern of the elements and at the same time yields the standard results of QED for helium, etc?) It's hard to imagine.

Regards

Pat
 
  • #6
I agree with you but it would be nice to have a force and not a principle!
 
  • #7
In the relation:
uncertainty in momentum x uncertainty in position = constant

are the uncertainties average uncertainties - is the right hand side of the equation an absolute or average value?
 
  • #8
I think there is no new force involved, even though that would be great and exciting news !
You can take a look at :
R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman's PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, reprinted by Addison-Wesley, New York, 1989
or check : http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spin.stat.html [Broken] by John Baez.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the Pauli exclusion principle?

The Pauli exclusion principle is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that states that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. This principle helps explain the stability of matter and the behavior of atoms.

2. Who discovered the Pauli exclusion principle?

The Pauli exclusion principle was first proposed by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. He later received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945 for his contributions to the development of quantum mechanics.

3. How does the Pauli exclusion principle affect the electron configuration of atoms?

The Pauli exclusion principle plays a crucial role in determining the electron configuration of atoms. It states that each electron in an atom must have a unique set of quantum numbers, including the spin quantum number. This leads to the filling of atomic orbitals in a specific order, with no more than two electrons in each orbital.

4. What is the significance of the Pauli exclusion principle in chemistry?

The Pauli exclusion principle is essential in understanding the chemical properties of elements and their compounds. It helps explain the formation of chemical bonds and the stability of molecules. It also plays a role in determining the properties of materials, such as their conductivity and magnetism.

5. Is the Pauli exclusion principle applicable to all particles?

No, the Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions, which include electrons, protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles with half-integer spin. Bosons, on the other hand, follow different rules and can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously, as seen in the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
956
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
723
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
948
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
132
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
945
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top