Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: The Electron



I see the differences in elements as defined by the number of protons in the
nucleus. Electrons and Neutrons are variable within the family of a single
element. That is something I can deal with. Why a proton can have that
much effect on the properties of an atom is very interesting. I am trying
to deal with electrons here, and the exclusion principle as applied to
electrons can be ignored if you just count protons. So, the uniqueness of
elements can be explained without even going near "some guy's theory".

Josh

----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@AV8N.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Electron


At 21:44 -0500 11/10/03, J. Green wrote:
>
>> When I mentioned the "some guy's theory" bit, I was principally
>> thinking of the Pauli exclusion principle, which is not much of an
>> answer for me, since the proof is that "he said it".

Whaaaat? Where is that coming from????

For homework, come up with five different lines
of solid physical evidence supporting the exclusion
principle.

I'll give you the first one for free: Do you
think the chemical properties of helium are
different from hydrogen? I think they are
different as a matter of fact, not because
"some guy said so". In the absence of the
exclusion principle, atomic theory would
predict them to be not much different.


On 11/10/2003 11:18 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:
>
> Not so. Pauli's exclusion principle follows from the proper QM
> calculations. It can be proven, but it isn't all that easy to do. The
> book by Icke I mentioned deals extensively with this subject. In
> particular, it deals with why the integer-spin particles behave
> differently from the half-integer spin ones, and gives some insight
> into why the Pauli principle has to apply to Fermions but not to
> Bosons.

That's all true, but unnecessarily complicated.
And it leaves the door open to the next-level
question: if the exclusion principle is derived
from the spin/statistics theorem, we have to ask
what is the evidence supporting the spin/statistics
theorem.