Re: exclusion principle

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I suspect JG meant neutrons only.  BTW  the chemistry of deuterium and H
are more different than very nearly the same *, so I expect that of
tritium to be even differenter.   A notable physical difference is
freezing T: ~ 0 vs. ~ 4 deg. C.

* D2O is mildly toxic:  http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

bc, who wonders if anyone has published spectral absorption of heavy
water, inter alia.

p.s.   Huh?    the protons determine the number of electrons (outside
the nucleus), which determine the chemical and physical props, except
mass, etc. when the isotope effect is significant.

John S. Denker wrote:

> On 11/13/2003 12:20 AM, J. Green wrote:
> > 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.
>
> "Interesting" isn't the right word.  How about "preposterous"?
>
> The chemistry of tritium (3H) is very nearly the chemistry
> of hydrogen.  The chemistry of 3He is rather different.  If
> you disagree, please tell us how you would prepare a bottle
> of monatomic tritium at STP.  Compare to the marked price
> for a bottle of 3He.
>
> > I am trying to deal with electrons here, and the exclusion principle
> > as applied to electrons can be ignored if you just count protons.
>
> It would be more accurate to say you can ignore the
> exclusion principle if (and only if) you ignore all
> the observed facts in chemistry, materials science,
> and electronics, plus many additional facts in physics,
> astronomy, and a few other areas.
>
> In the absence of exclusion, helium would be about as
> reactive as hydrogen.
>
> > So, the uniqueness of elements can be explained
> > without even going near "some guy's theory".
>
> Uniqueness in the narrowest sense, yes.  But the actual
> observed properties, no, that would not be explainable,
> not even to the crudest imaginable approximation.
>
> ===========
>
> Also remember that the homework was to find five independent
> observable phenomena that provide objective evidence of
> exclusion.  Hint:  I was able to come up with 5 phenomena
> in two minutes and >10 phenomena in ten minutes.  Actually
> 12 but a couple of pairs are arguably partially related.
>
> If I can come up with 10 or 12 you ought to be able to
> come up with 4 or 5.