Pauli exclusion principle at distance

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) and its applicability over macro distances, particularly in relation to a statement made by physicist Brian Cox. Participants explore whether the PEP operates solely within individual atoms or can extend to electrons across vast distances in the universe, raising questions about the implications of such a principle in practical scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the PEP requires the wave function of identical fermions to be anti-symmetrized, implying that the state of electrons in one location could theoretically influence electrons in another distant location.
  • Others argue that while the PEP can apply to electrons across distances, the practical effects are negligible and only become significant when electrons are in close proximity, such as within a single atom or a small group of atoms.
  • A participant mentions that the symmetrization of wave functions can apply to a larger number of atoms, such as in a Bose-Einstein condensate, but distinguishes this from the PEP which specifically concerns identical fermions.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that the PEP applies to particles in separate potential wells, suggesting that the implications of the PEP may not hold in such cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the PEP over large distances, with some supporting the idea that it operates universally while others emphasize the limitations and negligible effects when distances increase. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent and practical implications of the PEP.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the influence of distance on the PEP and the definitions of terms like "potential well." The mathematical implications of the PEP in various contexts are not fully explored.

airydisc
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi.

New member to this Physics forum and not a physicist, although have an interest in physics from a layman's position.

I saw a series of threads on a Twitter discussion posted about a year ago concerning Brian Cox and some other physicists concerning a statement made by Cox that the Pauli Exclusion principle work over macro distances, so that when an electron is excited in one part of the universe, all other electrons in the universe change their energy state, even if that change is at an imperceptible level. The argument was about whether there was a misunderstanding of the PEP, in that it should only work within a single atom or atoms in proximity so that there is an exchange of information between the two. One side states this is the case, the other side states that the PEP is valid even over vast distances.

Does anyone know what the current understanding of this issue is?

Many thanks

airydisc
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Pauli exclusion principle in a general form states that the wave function of identical fermions should be anti-symmetrized. In principle, the wave function of the electrons of a rock on Earth does depend on the electrons on the moon. However, the error made by ignoring the electrons on the moon is negligible. There is a quantitative discussion of this in Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics", p283.
 
Ah OK. So suggesting that exciting electrons in a diamond on Earth forces electrons the other side of the Universe to alter their state so that they remain anti-symmetrized is theoretically correct, but in reality the impact is so tiny, its immeasurable. It only becomes measurable (and therefore a big enough deal) when the fermions are within close proximity, i.e. in a single atom or close group of atoms?
 
Yes, roughly. However, the number of atoms to which it applies with consequences we can measure can be quite large. For example, the symmetrization of the wave function applies for 2000 atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate . (The Pauli exclusion is a different effect in which the wave function is anti-symmetrized for identical fermions, while in the Bose-Einstein condensate the wave function is symmetrized for identical bosons. Nonetheless, the idea the idea is the same in that the effect in principle applies to identical particles throughout the universe.)
 
If we have 2000 atoms moving in a common potential well it the same as electrons in a single atom. So it does not make the point that PEP works for two particles that are confined to two separate potential wells.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Two hydrogen atoms and Pauli's exclusion principle
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Graduate Violation of Pauli's Exclusion Principle possible?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Pauli exclusion principle explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Bypassing Pauli Exclusion principle.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate Electrons, Muons and Pauli Exclusion
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Pauli Exclusion Principle: Quantum Coherence & Range
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate How can a 'Principle' produce a 'Force'?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Clarification of the Pauli exclusion princple
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Who will win -- Pauli or Einstein?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate What are the implications of the Pauli Exclusion Principle across the universe?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K