Is pauli exclusion principle a force

Dropout
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
If it takes energy to squeeze matter, then its a force at work right?

And what is spin? I can put the quantized nature of spin in the back of my mind for a moment, but what the heck does spin do?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Dropout said:
If it takes energy to squeeze matter, then its a force at work right?
The standard term used is "pressure", specifically "degeneracy pressure", when dealing with the Pauli exclusion principle. You are right that pressure essentially means that work must be done to compress something, and that is also associated with forces. It's an unusual force though, because it is a kind of community property, and most forces are pairwise interactions between particles. I suppose it's all in how you treat it-- I tend to avoid taking the labels of physics too seriously. Your question is actually an excellent example of why that is good to avoid, but maybe someone else can find a way to answer it more directly by couching it in a more general mathematical framework. Chances are, however, if they do they will not be answering the question you intend!

And what is spin? I can put the quantized nature of spin in the back of my mind for a moment, but what the heck does spin do?
It tracks a conserved quantity, angular momentum, and also describes the symmetry of a system under rotations. There are deep connections between those, and if you ask a mathematical physicist you will probably get a very complete and very difficult answer! You may need to specify the specific situation you are trying to understand, and the answer will be, "the concept of spin helps you organize the behaviors you will see in that situation". General enough? But the point is, one can only be general when talking about "what is"-- it's not a function that physics is perfectly constructed to perform (check out the "wave/particle duality" thread to see what I mean)!
 
Last edited:
Well I read that spin creates a magnetic momentum of an electron particle. I also read that magnetism can be explained away by special relativity although I really hate special relativity but I will concur with that conclusion.

But if magnetism is explained away by special relativity then that electron particle would have to have velocity. Maybe velocity in a tiny tubular extra dimension? Ok forget I said that.

Spin is a magnetic moment of an electron particle, how fast would the electron particle have to travel to create the exact magnitude of that magnetic moment, classically speaking. Speed of light?Also, is that magnetic moment randomly oriented with the 3 spatial dimensions, all 360 degrees?
 
Dropout said:
Also, is that magnetic moment randomly oriented with the 3 spatial dimensions, all 360 degrees?
It's randomly oriented, yes, but it's also quantized-- if you measure the spin in some direction, it has to come out certain values separated by integers.
 
Dropout said:
Spin is a magnetic moment of an electron particle, how fast would the electron particle have to travel to create the exact magnitude of that magnetic moment, classically speaking. Speed of light?

Also, is that magnetic moment randomly oriented with the 3 spatial dimensions, all 360 degrees?

Well, I wouldn't agree that special relativity "explains away" magnetism, but you can read my response to your other thread on that. But you are a bit right when you think that the electron's spin comes from "internal" degrees of freedom. This is indeed the picture when we talk about single electrons, but quantum field theory talks about electrons as excitations of an electron field, and that field simply has spin (look up on the Dirac equation if you want).

Back to your first question. I think the first poster covered it well, but I'd just like to add that it is analogous to the "pressure" of an ideal gas of non-interacting particles. But for fermions, the available room of each particle goes down significantly as the density increases, because they have to avoid other particles (because of Pauli exclusion), so the pressure goes up. Put differently, you can almost think of the PV = nRT relation, but where V behaves in a complicated way as a function of n.**

**This is only a picture. Don't take the formula too seriously.
 
lbrits said:
I'd just like to add that it is analogous to the "pressure" of an ideal gas of non-interacting particles.
That's a good point, pressure for a bunch of particles just means there's a momentum flux through any imaginary surface, so there doesn't need to be any forces, and degeneracy pressure is just like that too. What brings a force in is the implication that if we are going to compress this gas and do work on it, we are going to need some boundary that can contain the particles, i.e., that can exert a force on them. So the "force" that the OP is asking about really doesn't come from the pressure itself, it comes from whatever we are using to force the contraction of the gas. The pressure force may then be seen as the action/reaction pair of whatever real force is being used to accomplish the compression.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top