B Why Can't Two Fermions Occupy the Same Quantum State?

riz
So my question is why can't 2 object be at the exact same potion, (i.e. overlap). Why can't a +ve quark and electron just merge. In an universe where there is no force caused due to charge, why can't we just walk through a solid wall.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
riz said:
So my question is why can't 2 object be at the exact same potion, (i.e. overlap). Why can't a +ve quark and electron just merge.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two fermions (a type of particle) can have the same quantum state. You can think of that very (very!) loosely as saying that no two identical fermions can occupy the same position.

Since a quark and an electron are not identical particles, the exclusion principle has nothing to say (so far as I know) about their ability to merge.

Also, the exclusion principle only applies to fermions. There are other particles called bosons, that can occupy the same position. You might be interested to read about Bose-Einstein condensates, that are an instance of this sort of thing.
In an universe where there is no force caused due to charge, why can't we just walk through a solid wall.
A universe without charge would be different from this one, and operate under different laws. So this question is about science fiction. I imagine one could make up a set of laws for a universe in which it is possible to walk through a wall.
 
andrewkirk said:
The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two fermions (a type of particle) can have the same quantum state. You can think of that very (very!) loosely as saying that no two identical fermions can occupy the same position.

Since a quark and an electron are not identical particles, the exclusion principle has nothing to say (so far as I know) about their ability to merge.

isn't the ability "to merge" the very different behavior of bosons? Why do you say "loosely as saying that no two identical fermions can occupy the same position." I thought that was the whole other side of physics we can see the effects of. Bosons can, and Fermions can't isn't "loose".

You seem to suggest non-composite fermions can be in the same place at the same time; if they are say, a quark and a lepton...??

I just found out about this super odd physics through reading about helium 4 condensate, next to first hearing about the time travel implication of c, this is the coolest and most bizarre thing about physics.
 
Last edited:
Pauli exclusion principle says 'no two fermions can be in the same quantum state'. Quantum state is not the same as position.
Take helium atom, for instance. It has two electrons in the 1s state. That is, their spatial wave functions are identical and truly, they are in the same space at the same time but not in the same quantum state: their spins are different.
Pauli exclusion principle applies to the fermions of the same species, regardless if they are non-composite or not.
Take again helium as an example. It has two isotopes: Helium 3 and Helium 4. Helium 4 has 2 neutrons, 2 protons and 2 electrons - an even number of 1/2 spin particle, so the total spin has to be a multiple of 1 - hence it is a boson and does condense into a superfluid.
Helium 3 had only 1 neutron, hence an odd number of 1/2 spin particle and it is a fermion. It does not become superfluid.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top