Re: Whence Degeneracy Pressure?

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, John S. Denker wrote:

> John Mallinckrodt wrote:
>
> > A "fundamental interaction" is
> > identified by the fact that it shows up in the operators (and we
> > *believe* that gravity will someday show up in those operators!)
>
> The fundamental interactions, like everything else, can be
> expressed in operator notation.  Non-fundamental operations
> can be expressed this way, too.  So that's not a good criterion
> for what's fundamental and what's not.

This seems like an important criticism.  Perhaps I should have
qualified my words with a statement to the effect that the
interaction should not be derivable from something "more
fundamental", but that would seem to beg a (if not the) question.

At any rate, while I do value all constructive criticism of my
tentative answer, I would be even more interested in hearing
*positive* proposals from others.  That is, what *would* you say
to my "sophisticated layperson" who asks, "Why shouldn't the Pauli
exclusion principle be viewed as a fundamental force?"

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm