Reason why the chair can support me

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reason Support
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics behind why a chair can support a person's weight, with references to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and electromagnetic forces. A physicist, Jean Dalibard, suggests that the interaction between electrons in the body and the chair creates pressure that prevents falling through. Participants debate the adequacy of quantum mechanics in explaining macroscopic phenomena, emphasizing the limitations of reductionist approaches and the importance of structural integrity in materials. The conversation highlights the philosophical implications of connecting quantum mechanics to classical physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics and electromagnetic forces
  • Familiarity with Pauli's Exclusion Principle
  • Concept of structural integrity in materials
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in macroscopic systems
  • Explore the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical physics
  • Study the principles of material strength and structural integrity
  • Investigate the role of electromagnetic forces in everyday objects
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, material scientists, and anyone interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and classical phenomena.

  • #61
alfredblase said:
Bah you guys call yourselves physicists and can't come up with an all round satisfactory answer to why you don't fall through a chair?! Let's us assume we have a diamond crystal large enough to sit on. This will be our chair. The question then becomes: why am I unable to compress a diamond crystal by sitting on it, by an amount noticeable to the naked eye? The answer of course is that diamond has a crystal structure that is resistant enough.
Q : Why can the chair resist my weight.
A: Because the material of the chair is resistant enough.

This crystal structure is held together by the electro-magnetic forces exerted on each atom by each atom.
This (the role of EM interactions between atoms) has been stated at least thrice in this thread before your "pioneering" post. Besides, a wooden chair has no crystal structure.

And these atoms do not collapse because of Pauli's exclusion principle, the EM force and the quantized nature of electron orbitals.
That's a complete non-answer (and the question has nothing to do with why an atom is stable, so everything from this point on is just fluff).

Secondly, you can't just throw words around and call it an explanation. I contend that the reason for the stability of the atom (of the chair under the forces it seees from your butt ) comes from time-dependent perturbation theory (applied to the eigenstates of the electrons), and can not be explained by the Exclusion Principle.

Thirdly - and this is pedantry -there is no mention of any kind of "force" in the QM description of an atom.

And what about the HUP? Well, yeah, that works too, but the HUP alone is not enough because we would not conserve atomic structure.
You are not saying anything physically meaningful with this sentence. What do you mean by "that works too" ?

And why do the nuclei not fall apart? Well that's because of the strong force, the quantized nature of nucleon orbitals (see the shell model) and Pauli's principle (again HUP is not enough on its own as we must conserve nuclear structure). And why do the nucleons not tear apart? Well that's QCD for you. Nuff said... (dear oh dear).
All you've done is show that you know some key words. Please, show me how QCD ensures the stability of the nucleon. I can't recall how asymptotic freedom arises out of the color of virtual gluons...

Blase : Your "explanation" is not explaining anything more than for instance, if I said : the reason the chair supports me is that this outcome corresponds to a local free energy minimum in the system whose activation energy is extremely large compared to thermal energies. This at least, is correct.

The only part of your post that goes towards answering the question, is the part that has been covered more than a few times before you joined this thread.

Edit: PS : Nuff said.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
15K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K