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: Pauli Exclusion

Regarding Brian W's focusing of the discussion:

In responding to David's puzzlement, I will acknowledge that's a
state quite well known to me, too.

I think it is quite a universally common state.

So I had better narrow down the field:
Does the puzzlement arise from the assertion that:
there was an electron occupancy paradox?

Yes. I don't believe I have heard of this paradox. The only
Fermi Paradox with which I'm familiar is the one concerning the
question of where all the ETs are given the size and age of the
universe and the tendency of technology to improve over time.

that Fermi offered a proposal to avoid a paradox or catastrophe?

That too. It goes along with my unfamiliarity with the original
paradox. I'm thus also unfamiliar with any proposed solutions to it.

that there are four quantum properties of interest in this case?
that Fermi's quantum model is upheld?
that the Fermi model works in some sense?

Yes.

Please elaborate on:

1) Why the concept of electron indistinguishability is unhelpful.

2) What this paradox is.

3) What Fermi's solution to it is.

4) What the 4 properties are.

5) Why the model is "pragmatic" and how it relates to the
the conventional quantum theory explanation of quantum
statistics.

Yours in anticipation

Brian Whatcott

David Bowman

At 09:40 AM 7/22/2004, you wrote:
Regarding Brian W's claim:

The idea that electrons are indistinguishable is unhelpful.

In describing Fermi's proposal for resolving a paradox,
one talks of four quantum properties of the particles
in question.

These quantum properties do in fact distinguish them.
That's why the pragmatic model is upheld.
It 'works' in some sense.

Brian W

Huh? Do you care to elaborate further? I'm confused.

David Bowman

Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!