Does Pauli's principle prevent an electron from having infinte energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Pauli's exclusion principle on the electrostatic potential energy of an electron as it approaches another charge. Participants explore whether this principle prevents an electron from having infinite energy, considering both classical and quantum mechanical perspectives.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that as the distance 'r' between an electron and a test charge approaches zero, the electrostatic potential 'V' becomes infinite, suggesting that Pauli's principle prevents this scenario by disallowing two fermions from occupying the same space.
  • Another participant counters that the divergence at 'r = 0' is not relevant because charged particles are not point-like and cannot be infinitely close together, implying that the physical size of particles limits 'r'.
  • Some participants suggest that Pauli's principle is inherently accounted for in the mathematical formulation, as the potential energy equation cannot have a zero denominator.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of particles, with some asserting that while point particles are a theoretical construct, real particles have finite sizes that prevent them from reaching 'r = 0'.
  • One participant introduces the uncertainty principle as a factor that prevents electrons from achieving infinite energy, suggesting that while the exclusion principle affects wave functions, it is not the sole reason for limiting energy levels.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of Pauli's principle to the potential energy of electrons. While some see a connection, others argue that the physical limitations of particle size and the nature of electrostatic interactions are more significant. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumption that particles can be treated as point-like, which may not hold in all scenarios. The discussion also highlights the complexity of applying classical concepts to quantum systems, particularly regarding the behavior of fermions.

Mr Virtual
Messages
218
Reaction score
4
Suppose we have an electron. Electrostatic potential of the electron at any point at a distance r from it,
V = kq/r = (9*10^9 * 1.6*10^-19)/r

Now, as r decreases, V increases. We say that V is the amount of work done by the electron to bring a unit poitive charge from infinty to r. If r is close to zero, then V will be quite high.
I believe that r cannot be exactly zero as that would mean the electron and the test charge are at the same place at once. According to Pauli's principle, no two particles/fermions can occupy the same space at once. Since 'r' cannot be zero, V cannot be infinte. Does this mean that Pauli's principle protects electron from having infinite energy (I hope I am not mixing QM with classical physics too much)?
If I am wrong, please supply explanations as to why that is so.

warm regards
Mr V
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think it has to do with Pauli's principle. The Coulomb force between two charges q1 and q2 is indeed proportional to q1q2/r2. So when placing them "infinitely" far apart, they don't feel each other anymore. At r = 0 we get divergence, but this will actually not happen, since charged objects are rarely point particles and r can never become smaller than the diameter of such a particle.
 
In a sense, Pauli's principal is already incorporated in the equation, as a fraction can not have 0 as its denominator. And yes it does, either the Principle or the r in the denominator stops V from being 'equal to infinity' however r can be arbitrarily small and hence V arbitrarily big. That is assuming point particles though.
 
I don't think it has to do with Pauli's principle. The Coulomb force between two charges q1 and q2 is indeed proportional to q1q2/r2. So when placing them "infinitely" far apart, they don't feel each other anymore. At r = 0 we get divergence, but this will actually not happen, since charged objects are rarely point particles and r can never become smaller than the diameter of such a particle.

Aren't you yourself stating the Pauli principle? Why r cannot be less than the diameter ( actually, I think it should be radius) of the particle, is due to the reason that the test charge( aparticle) cannot reach into the electron(another particle) to make r=0. This is because both the test charge and the electrons are fermions, and thus, one cannot just pass through (or enter the body of) the other. This is what Pauli states: no two particles can be at exactly the same place at the same time.

In a sense, Pauli's principal is already incorporated in the equation, as a fraction can not have 0 as its denominator. And yes it does, either the Principle or the r in the denominator stops V from being 'equal to infinity' .
Exactly!

however r can be arbitrarily small and hence V arbitrarily big. That is assuming point particles though.
But as far as I know, there is no such thing as point particle in reality, is there? But yes, theoretically, it is very much possible to assume such point particles.

Thanks for your replies

regards
Mr V
 
Mr Virtual said:
Aren't you yourself stating the Pauli principle?
no, he was not.
 
Again, please explain why that is so.
Isn't what GibZ said above correct ?


Mr V
 
Okay. A many-particle system of fermions (e.g. electrons) is described by a wavefunction that must be antisymmetric if I interchange any two of the fermions. If I think in terms of single-particle "orbitals" (or "quantum states") this means that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state (because the total wave function would be trivally zero). That is the Pauli principle and it has nothing to do with the fact that the electrostatic potential of a point charge goes like 1/r.
 
Mr Virtual said:
Aren't you yourself stating the Pauli principle?
The formula I stated was the Coulomb formula, which I think is valid for any particles (bosons and fermions) that interact "Coloumbically".

Mr Virtual said:
Why r cannot be less than the diameter ( actually, I think it should be radius
If the origin of one particle is 2 radii (= 1 diameter) away from the origin of the
other particle, they exactly touch.

Mr Virtual said:
But as far as I know, there is no such thing as point particle in reality, is there?
Indeed, not that I know of. But theoretically it is often convenient to deal with point particles, as in many applications whether the radius is [itex]10^{-10}[/itex] m or 0 doesn't really matter.
 
Talking about potential energy between particles makes sense only in the classical theory, or as an approximation in a quantum theory in a special case where particles are in localised wave packets and sufficently far away from each others. So I would say that the OP is on a wrong track.

Continuing with the hand waving quantum mechanics, it is the uncertainty principle that prevents electrons from gaining infinite energies as result of small distances, although exclusion principle does have some effect on the wave functions too.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
539
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K