Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

> On 4 Apr 2020, at 10:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise > wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then > antisymmetry is

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

That is basically the case. The fermionic wave function is ψ is such that under the parity operator Pψ = -ψ. The standard example is the sin function. This gets more subtle with bosonization with χ = ψexp(εψ), where with ε^2 = 0 then χ = ψ + εψψ so there is a fermionic plus the square of

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish 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

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

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

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

But it's derivable from QM + special relativity, c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem Brent On 4/3/2020 4:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> Does the Pauli's Exclusion Principle

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

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

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM 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* > Yes. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed