Could a 1/r Force Explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the possibility that the Pauli exclusion principle could be explained by a force with a 1/r dependency between electrons, particularly in the context of electron degeneracy pressure in neutron stars. Participants examine the implications of such a force on quantum mechanics and the behavior of fermions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a 1/r force could account for the Pauli exclusion principle, suggesting that reducing the distance between electrons would increase the repulsive force and relate to momentum uncertainty.
  • Others argue that the Pauli principle is fundamentally linked to the antisymmetry of the fermion wave-function as predicted by quantum mechanics, questioning the necessity of introducing a force.
  • A participant challenges the idea by stating that if such a force existed, it would have been observed in atomic systems, particularly when electrons have different quantum numbers.
  • There is mention of a prior discussion on a different forum regarding the potential for a force-based explanation instead of the antisymmetrical wavefunction.
  • Some participants express skepticism about introducing new forces, emphasizing the need for consistency with all known experimental observations, particularly in light of quantum electrodynamics (QED) successes.
  • Concerns are raised about how a new force could explain the periodic table of elements and maintain agreement with existing QED results.
  • One participant expresses a desire for a force-based explanation rather than a principle, indicating a preference for a more tangible model.
  • A question is raised regarding the interpretation of uncertainties in the relation between momentum and position, specifically whether they refer to average values.
  • Another participant suggests that no new force is involved, despite the appeal of such a discovery, and references literature that discusses the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of a force-based explanation for the Pauli exclusion principle versus the established quantum mechanical framework.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of introducing a new force, potential conflicts with existing experimental data, and the challenge of reconciling such a force with established quantum theory.

Rothiemurchus
Messages
203
Reaction score
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
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
I agree with you but it would be nice to have a force and not a principle!
 
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?
 
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 by John Baez.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Undergrad Two hydrogen atoms and Pauli's exclusion principle
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
High School Bypassing Pauli Exclusion principle.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate How can a 'Principle' produce a 'Force'?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Pauli exclusion principle explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Violation of Pauli's Exclusion Principle possible?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Virtual Fermions and Pauli Principle
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Hund's rules and Pauli's principle
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Can the Pauli Exclusion Principle be explained through quantum states?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Pauli exclusion principle question (again)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Pauli exclusion principle and position-state restriction
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K