Violation of Pauli's Exclusion Principle possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) and its implications in extreme astrophysical conditions, particularly in the context of neutron stars and black holes. Participants explore whether PEP can be violated under high pressure and density scenarios, and how this relates to the stability of neutron stars and the formation of black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that PEP cannot be violated, suggesting that neutron stars maintain stability due to degeneracy pressure, which counters gravitational collapse until a certain mass is reached.
  • Others express uncertainty about the implications of PEP in the context of black hole formation, questioning how PEP interacts with extreme conditions in neutron stars.
  • A participant references a paper discussing the equation of state in neutron stars, noting that as matter transitions from neutron to quark states, pressure may decrease despite increasing density, which raises questions about the nature of matter under such conditions.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of attempting to violate PEP, with some suggesting that such scenarios would lead to a shift from Fermi-Dirac to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, complicating classical models of particle interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of PEP in extreme conditions, with some arguing it remains intact while others suggest potential violations or changes in particle behavior under extreme pressures.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding the behavior of matter at extreme densities and pressures, particularly regarding the transition between different states of matter and the role of virtual particles in preventing collapse.

Aliasa
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
I was reading some simplistic explanations of Pauli's Exclusion Principle (PEP) to explain a group of non-science people, and I came across this:

For Fermions, even as pressure builds, no two can be located in the same energy state. This causes them to "stack up" in effect. Only under great force can this(PEP) be overcome.

I have a problem with the last sentence. They go on to talk about Neutron Degeneracy Pressure and formation of black holes, but I'm unsure whether PEP is actually being violated there. Can anyone shed a light?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No the PEP cannot be violated. I think what they want to say is that at too high masses neutron stars become unstable against gravitational collapse. For compact objects you always have a counterbalance between pressure and gravitation. The PEP causes a big pressure, i.e., you cannot squeeze indistinguishable fermions easily together. That's why you can have quite heavy neutron stars (not too long ago one has observed neutron stars with two solar masses!). But at one point this degeneration pressure cannot withstand the gravitation, and the object collapses to a black hole.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Aliasa said:
I was reading some simplistic explanations of Pauli's Exclusion Principle (PEP) to explain a group of non-science people, and I came across this:

For Fermions, even as pressure builds, no two can be located in the same energy state. This causes them to "stack up" in effect. Only under great force can this(PEP) be overcome.

I have a problem with the last sentence. They go on to talk about Neutron Degeneracy Pressure and formation of black holes, but I'm unsure whether PEP is actually being violated there. Can anyone shed a light?

From looking at this paper-
Neutron Star Interiors and the Equation of State of Superdense Matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2708v2

The impression I got is that the increase in equation of state (w=P/\rho c^2) brings on a change in the state of matter (note, for regular matter, w=0). For instance, looking at a typical neutron star, the equation of state (eos) at the centre is predicted to be w=0.59; for a hyperon star (neutron star with hyperons at the core), w=0.42 to 0.31 at the centre; and for a hybrid neutron star (with quark matter at the centre), w=0.21. The interesting thing here is that in the transition from neutron matter to quark matter, the density increases but the pressure seems to actually drop*. This gives the impression that as matter approaches w=1, there's a change in the state of matter, it may be that quarks break down into something else (there is the hypothetical preon) and this process keeps going until reaching Planck density/pressure where w=1 (or at least close to it). It's possible that virtual particles will play some part in halting the collapse before Planck density/pressure is reached.

*According to the paper, the quantities for the hyperon star at the centre are density- 2x109 tonnes/cm3 and the pressure is between 6 to 8x1034 N/m2 while for the hybrid star the density at the centre is 3x109 tonnes/cm3 and the pressure is 5x1034 N/m2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Aliasa
Aliasa said:
Only under great force can this(PEP) be overcome.

I have a problem with the last sentence.
I have a problem with that too. From one side it is claimed that PEP can't be violated but from other side it is said that black holes do form despite PEP.

So I have tried to understand what happens according to QM if you try to violate PEP.
One direct conclusion is that distribution of particles across different energy levels changes from Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics to Fermi–Dirac statistics.
Another more speculative conclusion is that particle collisions that involve degenerate matter can't be modeled classically (because "classical collisions" imply Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
24K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K