Talk:3027: Exclusion Principle - Revision history

172.68.186.132 at 09:36, 6 January 2025

2025-01-06T09:36:00Z

162.158.159.120: /* Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? */

2024-12-25T00:51:07Z

‎Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc?

Torzsmokus: Philosophical nitpicking

2024-12-24T06:54:36Z

Philosophical nitpicking

172.68.23.91: /* Do we need a category for quantum spin? */ reply

2024-12-23T21:11:37Z

‎Do we need a category for quantum spin?: reply

172.70.211.83: /* Do we need a category for quantum spin? */ r

2024-12-23T21:06:33Z

‎Do we need a category for quantum spin?: r

162.158.74.24: /* Do we need a category for quantum spin? */

2024-12-23T20:38:21Z

‎Do we need a category for quantum spin?

172.69.33.237: new cat?

2024-12-23T20:18:20Z

new cat?

Gertuviti: Add comment on where the exclusion principle comes from and why it's fundamental.

2024-12-23T10:39:45Z

Add comment on where the exclusion principle comes from and why it's fundamental.

172.71.191.51 at 23:24, 22 December 2024

2024-12-22T23:24:09Z

172.68.54.157: i mis-saw the article when making my comment

2024-12-22T15:24:59Z

i mis-saw the article when making my comment

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::: I would say the negation is caused by the underlying physical fact that causes the exclusion principle. The particles don't know about the equations, do they? 😏 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 06:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
 I'm increasingly under the impression that these forces & principles, are each an expression of complex electromagnetic interactions? I've never quite understood why they're viewed as separate forces, instead of distinct-but-related expressions of a single type of force across complex topologies.
@@ Line 30: / Line 28: @@
 I was so frustrated by my own feeling of "this complex thing I know very little about, really seems to have a very basic underlying principle that's being widely misconstrued", that [https://www.perplexity.ai/search/i-m-increasingly-under-the-imp-Q83bSr8pRXqMf64_VxKMZQ I've petitioned a mindless bot to hear my case.] (You'd have to scroll at least about halfway down, to get to any prompts even slightly interesting.) I'm probably wasting ''everyone's'' time with this, but it has been bothering me, more & more for ''decades,'' & my reading so far hasn't lessened that.
-Why is everyone so insistent that these 'other' forces aren't magnetism? Seems like quite literally ''everything'' is magnetism, to me. Besides a formal education in the matter, what the heck am I missing, here?
+Why is everyone so insistent that these 'other' forces aren't magnetism? Seems like quite literally ''everything'' is magnetism, to me. Besides a formal education in the matter, what the heck am I missing, here? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
 :I don't know what you mean by "complex topologies." Which topology? The reason we know the strong and weak interactions are not the electromagnetic interaction is that they have completely different gauge symmetries, among other reasons. The electromagnetic interaction has local symmetry group U(1), and the strong interaction has SU(3). Behaviorally-speaking, they are completely different in almost every respect, affecting different sets of particles, having different strengths, having different potentials, different ranges, carried by different fields, etc. Just as an example, an electron doesn't interact via the strong force ''at all.''
@@ Line 42: / Line 38: @@
 : I absolutely won't claim any kind of knowledge, but Richard Behiel's video series on quantum mechanics, culminating in his 3-hour video on electromagnetism as a gauge theory is INCREDIBLE and absolutely explained a lot to me[[Special:Contributions/172.71.191.51|172.71.191.51]] 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Bumpf
-== Actually explaining the Pauli Principle ==
+"Electrons don't like to be in the same 'spot'" is plain wrong. "Same quantum number set" is the buzzword - remember, two electrons fit in the s orbital, one spin up, one spin down. "Spin-statistics theorem" is a good place to start to ponder about the why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.145|162.158.95.145]] 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
 : Way too complicated, please change the universe so that "same spot" is good enough [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Do we need a category for quantum spin? ==
+Do we need a category for quantum spin? I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 :Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 ::Only if they're on different wiki pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 :Probably. I sometimes wonder if Randall is riffing off of how bad Wikipedia's article on {{w|Spin (physics)}} is. For a good time, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#Higher_spins [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.91|172.68.23.91]] 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 25 December 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	:It is likely that at extremely high energies, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are all unified. A theory describing this hypothetical union is called a grand unified theory or GUT, and detecting this experimentally is a major objective of modern physics. The unified "electroweak" interaction has already been observed at lower energies. But that doesn't mean the weak interaction is "just magnetism" or that electromagnetism is "just weak." They are both a consequence of a broken symmetry. The fully symmetric grand unified field would not resemble any one of the interactions that we see at lower energies but would be a symmetric combination of all of them. [[User:EebstertheGreat\|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat\|talk]]) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)		:It is likely that at extremely high energies, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are all unified. A theory describing this hypothetical union is called a grand unified theory or GUT, and detecting this experimentally is a major objective of modern physics. The unified "electroweak" interaction has already been observed at lower energies. But that doesn't mean the weak interaction is "just magnetism" or that electromagnetism is "just weak." They are both a consequence of a broken symmetry. The fully symmetric grand unified field would not resemble any one of the interactions that we see at lower energies but would be a symmetric combination of all of them. [[User:EebstertheGreat\|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat\|talk]]) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: I may be out of date but wasn't the electro-weak force unified about 40 years ago? What's changed? (If I had to guess somebodies changed the meaning of "unified" and its relationship to symmetry breaking at low energy?)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.120\|162.158.159.120]] 00:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

	: I absolutely won't claim any kind of knowledge, but Richard Behiel's video series on quantum mechanics, culminating in his 3-hour video on electromagnetism as a gauge theory is INCREDIBLE and absolutely explained a lot to me[[Special:Contributions/172.71.191.51\|172.71.191.51]] 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Bumpf		: I absolutely won't claim any kind of knowledge, but Richard Behiel's video series on quantum mechanics, culminating in his 3-hour video on electromagnetism as a gauge theory is INCREDIBLE and absolutely explained a lot to me[[Special:Contributions/172.71.191.51\|172.71.191.51]] 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 24 December 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:

	:: If you'd like a more detailed or precise explanation, most intro to quantum mecahnics textbooks have a chapter on the exclusion principle. [[User:Gertuviti\|Gertuviti]] ([[User talk:Gertuviti\|talk]]) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		:: If you'd like a more detailed or precise explanation, most intro to quantum mecahnics textbooks have a chapter on the exclusion principle. [[User:Gertuviti\|Gertuviti]] ([[User talk:Gertuviti\|talk]]) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: I would say the negation is caused by the underlying physical fact that causes the exclusion principle. The particles don't know about the equations, do they? 😏 [[User:Torzsmokus\|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus\|talk]]) 06:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? ==		== Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 23 December 2024
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24\|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		:Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24\|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Only if they're on different wiki pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		::Only if they're on different wiki pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	:Probably. I sometimes wonder if Randall is riffing off of how bad Wikipedia's article on {{w\|Spin (physics)}} is. For a good time, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#Higher_spins [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.91\|172.68.23.91]] 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 23 December 2024
Line 46:		Line 46:
	I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237\|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237\|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24\|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		:Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24\|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	::Only if they're on different wiki pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 23 December 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:
	== Do we need a category for quantum spin? ==		== Do we need a category for quantum spin? ==
	I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237\|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237\|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	:Can there be more than one article in any given quantum spin category? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24\|162.158.74.24]] 20:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 23 December 2024
Line 42:		Line 42:
	:"Electrons don't like to be in the same 'spot'" is plain wrong. "Same quantum number set" is the buzzword - remember, two electrons fit in the s orbital, one spin up, one spin down. "Spin-statistics theorem" is a good place to start to ponder about the why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.145\|162.158.95.145]] 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)		:"Electrons don't like to be in the same 'spot'" is plain wrong. "Same quantum number set" is the buzzword - remember, two electrons fit in the s orbital, one spin up, one spin down. "Spin-statistics theorem" is a good place to start to ponder about the why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.145\|162.158.95.145]] 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Way too complicated, please change the universe so that "same spot" is good enough [[User:Kev\|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev\|talk]]) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)		:: Way too complicated, please change the universe so that "same spot" is good enough [[User:Kev\|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev\|talk]]) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Do we need a category for quantum spin? ==
		+	I'm seeing well over a dozen comics closely involved with spin in search. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.237\|172.69.33.237]] 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 It should be noted, that amusingly, since the quantum gravity has yet to be full explained thanks to the fact that gravity affects, and that for all we know, Exclusion Principle may be just as valid, if not more so, to be on the list as Gravity (even though Exclusion Principle should not, generally, be on this list.) {{unsigned|LilithRose|06:48, 21 December 2024}}
 : I'm in agreement.  "Fundamental Forces" aren't an unalterable fact about the physical universe - they are scientists' best explanation for the unalterable facts about the physical universe until we find a better one.  As a result there could be an underlying reason for the exclusion principle being just as fundamental to the universe as electromagnetism - we just don't know it yet. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 12:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
 == Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 22 December 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:It is likely that at extremely high energies, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are all unified. A theory describing this hypothetical union is called a grand unified theory or GUT, and detecting this experimentally is a major objective of modern physics. The unified "electroweak" interaction has already been observed at lower energies. But that doesn't mean the weak interaction is "just magnetism" or that electromagnetism is "just weak." They are both a consequence of a broken symmetry. The fully symmetric grand unified field would not resemble any one of the interactions that we see at lower energies but would be a symmetric combination of all of them. [[User:EebstertheGreat\|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat\|talk]]) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)		:It is likely that at extremely high energies, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are all unified. A theory describing this hypothetical union is called a grand unified theory or GUT, and detecting this experimentally is a major objective of modern physics. The unified "electroweak" interaction has already been observed at lower energies. But that doesn't mean the weak interaction is "just magnetism" or that electromagnetism is "just weak." They are both a consequence of a broken symmetry. The fully symmetric grand unified field would not resemble any one of the interactions that we see at lower energies but would be a symmetric combination of all of them. [[User:EebstertheGreat\|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat\|talk]]) 16:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I absolutely won't claim any kind of knowledge, but Richard Behiel's video series on quantum mechanics, culminating in his 3-hour video on electromagnetism as a gauge theory is INCREDIBLE and absolutely explained a lot to me[[Special:Contributions/172.71.191.51\|172.71.191.51]] 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

	== Actually explaining the Pauli Principle ==		== Actually explaining the Pauli Principle ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 22 December 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:"Electrons don't like to be in the same 'spot'" is plain wrong. "Same quantum number set" is the buzzword - remember, two electrons fit in the s orbital, one spin up, one spin down. "Spin-statistics theorem" is a good place to start to ponder about the why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.145\|162.158.95.145]] 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)		:"Electrons don't like to be in the same 'spot'" is plain wrong. "Same quantum number set" is the buzzword - remember, two electrons fit in the s orbital, one spin up, one spin down. "Spin-statistics theorem" is a good place to start to ponder about the why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.145\|162.158.95.145]] 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Way too complicated, please change the universe so that "same spot" is good enough [[User:Kev\|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev\|talk]]) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)		:: Way too complicated, please change the universe so that "same spot" is good enough [[User:Kev\|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev\|talk]]) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
−	: This is a joke about the pauli exclusion principle, but whoever or whatever wrote the initial article wrote it otherwise, such that the joke topic is not mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.156\|172.68.54.156]] 15:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)