If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #27
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058
There is room for another electron as long as it has the opposite spin. Only particles with identical quantum states are forbidden to share.
The wave function that results from two electrons with identical quantum states turns out to be 0. That is nonsense so that is not going to happen. Which is lucky for us, otherwise electrons would tumble into lower and lower energy states while emitting all the energy as radiation.
My view is that there is no need for a force to keep them apart because the resulting state has no existence. If you try to force such an imaginary state you have to pump so much energy into the system that it rips itself apart and you are left with something completely different.
Registered Member #65
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155
Actually the reason its so complex is one can get conditions called shell-penetration and e- shielding where the normal behaviors no longer apply. =]
A shell is only 90% certain where the afore mentioned Phi^2 expresses the probability density.
Knowing the fill order you know what principle quantum number (n)... Knowing this you can figure out the angular momentum quantum number (n-1).... Knowing this you can determine the likely spin (-l,0,+l) [or 2l+1 possible]...
Remember that shameful heuristic I mentioned includes numerous exceptions...
The quantum mechanics courses are like statistics, physics, and calculus in a single class. With Maple and Mathematica the math is at least manageable for most normal people these days.
Perhaps this may be of some practical help to explain observer influence: "If you know where a given e- was located, one can only be LESS certain of where its going to be next."
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:40PM
Location: Zadar, Croatia
Posts: 3145
The wave function that results from two electrons with identical quantum states turns out to be 0. That is nonsense so that is not going to happen. Which is lucky for us, otherwise electrons would tumble into lower and lower energy states while emitting all the energy as radiation.
My view is that there is no need for a force to keep them apart because the resulting state has no existence. If you try to force such an imaginary state you have to pump so much energy into the system that it rips itself apart and you are left with something completely different.
But how is this 'compatible' with standard model? I mean, the force, degeneracy pressure or whatever appears quite real and even on macroscopic scale in some cases.
Now it inevitably leads me to think that particles can interact, transfer momentum and information without really interacting via strong, weak or EM force in the end? Wtf?
Registered Member #27
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058
You seem to be getting the hang of it. After wtf, there is disbelief, then follows acceptance or alternatively madness. You should probably also try to soften up your view of particles and have good look of how they can be described as waves and how overlapping waves is more like a single system than several distinct particles.
The Pauli exclusion principle is one of the corner stones of particle physics and if it cracks then all of it will fall apart. It is one of the most tested and accepted of all principles. How it works on the lowest level is unknown, the same is true for the rest of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is problematic since the connection to reality is unknown, the level of abstraction from whatever is the true mechanics is also completely unknown. Most philosophers have run away hiding or are still struggling to accept 80 year old discoveries.
Registered Member #27
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058
No, I am just stressing that even if it is one of the key parts of the theory there is little deep understanding outside the ability to manipulate the equations. So if you feel that you are missing something important it will often mean that you know just as much as anyone else.
Vigilatny Registered Member #17
Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158
If you don't believe Bjorn find a copy of Feynman's lectures on physics. He says much the same thing. Sadly not much has changed since he made them. We know a slight bit more, but nobody's put it together better. Many have given up altogether. Actually I think there are even more problems now, which is a good sign, at least we have more information to work with.
Anyone who says otherwise a) doesn't know or b) is trying to get laid or look smart etc...
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:40PM
Location: Zadar, Croatia
Posts: 3145
Doh, I see I may be generating misunderstanding generated on my part.
May last question was really simpler than that, all involving things already written in books and wikipedia, some of which appeared to be in contradiction to me, in this order:
- Standard model describes all interactions between particles via three and only three fundamental forces, all of them mediated by bosons.
- Standard model also claims to be fully consistent with quantum mechanics and special relativity.
- Pauli principle is one of fundamentals of QM. But to my understanding of it, it allows particles to interact through 'something else' than fundamental interactions.
- This apparent paradox led me to think I have got something terribly wrong about the thing, from available data. But meh.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Rigidness (Pauli exclusion principle)
