On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise > wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then > antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise > wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and nothing changes), hence it > is possible to have more than one boson in the same state. > As I recall it, this is completely right. I think it all goes back to the nature of the 4-component spinors of Dirac theory -- rotation by 360 degrees changes the sign, necessitating the antisymmetric nature of the quantum state. Fermi-Dirac statistics, and as has been said, the fundamental spin-statistics theorem. Bruce > > I'd have to go back to my class notes of QM to check this of course, > just speaking from 35+ years ago when I last studied this. > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > It is reasonable to state the Pauli exclusion principle is a postulate > on its > > own. There are though other possibilities. With supersymmetry, > parafermions, > > bosonization and now fermionization of bosons the role of the PEP is not > > entirely certain. > > > > LC > > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:09:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle have a similar status in QM as > Born's > > rule; namely, an empirical fact not derivable from the postulates of > QM? > > TIA, AG > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSNeqFM1WzjzwF3fe%3DC9pfEvPtreHgTZ%3DsDybj4np840Q%40mail.gmail.com.
