A night with the stars (Brian Cox on telly)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dgwsoft
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stars
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Brian Cox's television program on quantum mechanics, specifically his claims regarding the Pauli exclusion principle and the behavior of electrons in the universe. Participants explore the implications of Cox's statements, questioning their accuracy and clarity for a general audience.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about Cox's assertion that all electrons in the universe must adjust their states in response to changes in a localized system, questioning whether this is a simplification of the Pauli exclusion principle.
  • Others argue that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to states within a quantum system rather than to absolute energy levels throughout the universe.
  • Several participants highlight the complexity of explaining quantum mechanics to a general audience, suggesting that Cox's simplifications may lead to misunderstandings.
  • Some contributions mention the connection between the Pauli exclusion principle and entanglement, noting that while they are related, the implications of this relationship are not straightforward.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of fermions and the implications of indistinguishable particles, with some participants questioning how energy levels can be calculated if all fermions are entangled.
  • One participant reflects on the challenges of conveying complex quantum concepts in a limited time frame, suggesting that the audience may struggle to grasp the material presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on the accuracy of Cox's statements, with multiple competing views regarding the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle and the nature of electron states. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing questions about the clarity and correctness of the explanations provided.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the limitations of Cox's explanation, including the potential for misunderstanding due to the simplification of complex quantum concepts. There is also mention of the need for a more rigorous discussion of the principles involved, which may not have been feasible within the program's format.

  • #121
Q-reeus said:
Not really; as pointed out by Ken G in #114, 'mere' correlation entanglement you talk about here is not the same as PEP.

I'll have to find out resoruces for this because to me PEP effects is just a kind of quantum entanglemnt. But this knowledge comes from an ever evolving self taught QM, so I am happy to change my view as soon ad I understand how it's different.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
I'm pretty sure Brian Cox would not interpret any of his own statements as implying that FTL communication is possible. He's trying to express an interpretation of quantum mechanics, not inventing his own theory! As in Bell's theorem, what we mean by an "instantaneous effect" is rather vague. I prefer never using that term for either Bell-type entanglement or indistinguishability issues, because I feel the term "effect" should be reserved for things that could allow communication between the event attributed as the cause and the event attributed as the effect. The basic problem is that "cause and effect" has no precise meaning in physics, especially when you note that the basic equations of physics are time symmetric. Cause and effect is basically sociology, any attempt to make it a physically testable principle results in speed-of-light limitations, and few expect relativistic quantum mechanics to be any different.
 
  • #123
Yes completelly agree, cause and effect is a pretty artificial concept, specially in quantum mechanics and even more specially in the quantum eraser experimenr)
 
  • #124
G said:
States reflect knowledge of a system, and when your knowledge changes, the state changes "instantaneously" (or at least as fast as your brain works)

but then, it follows that there is a correlation between the 2 states.
are you claiming a fully epistemic account of the process ?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Two hydrogen atoms and Pauli's exclusion principle
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Weakly interacting electrons in an atom
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate How can a 'Principle' produce a 'Force'?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Graduate Brian Cox explain Pauli exclusion principle
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
High School Can Electrical Repulsion Distort Electron Orbits in Atoms?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Pauli exclusion principle at distance
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Trying to understand why electrons fill orbitals the way they do
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad General Concepts About Fermi-Dirac Distribution
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions about Franck-Condon principle
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate Spin-orbital combination and the exclusion principle
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K