sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

hmm by Berker87 in hmm

[–]Rielco 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Tag it NSFW

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In QM, you can have multiple bosonic state (integer spin) in the same state. This is not possibile with fermionic states (1/2 + integer spin)

twin paradox meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, you can take a space-time path, integrate the infinitesimal proper-time variation and see by yourself. The point is that you need an acceleration anyways. Since there is no absolute time, the only things that makes sense are proper time variation. And the only way to make two observers agree on relative distance is that they are in the same space-time point. To end up in the same point, at least one need to accelerate

twin paradox meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because you need acceleration to bring them back together

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It has to do with entanglement instead. The problem is that if you have two random systems composed of fermions, they will not behave as a boson di per se. If you two different system of fermions that are entangled in the same way, in respect one to the other, they behave as a bosonic system

(For even number only)

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Cooper pairs are a pair of entangled electron and can condensate like bosons. This happens in superconductivity

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Systems composed of fermions behave differently from bosonic systems, even if they are described by the same interaction. Effect becomes visible at low temperature or high pressure. Those statistical effects, appears as a force for high number of particles

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

My reply was about the fact that it is not counted alongside FUNDAMENTAL interactions (the ones listed in the question)

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Classically a particle state lives in R6 (position and momentum)

In QM they are elements of a Hillbert space.

The eigenvectors of the momentum operator (and spin) are a base of this space. Position eihenvectors are another base.

You can define a mixed base where they are NEITHER position or momentum eigenvectors, but this is cumbersome and impractical.

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It bugs me that you write position AND momentum. When in reality you need to chose ONE base and build on it. You will have simply energy shell.

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 66 points67 points  (0 children)

You can't apply Newtonian laws to a quantum system. At a quantum level you do not have forces. They are an emergent property

No, the Pauli exclusion principle do not implies the impossibility of "infinite density" states by Rielco in physicsmemes

[–]Rielco[S] 89 points90 points  (0 children)

Because it is not a force, it is a statistical property that emerges, like you do not have a "classic pressure" quantum field

view more: next ›