| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"logan" |
| Date: |
17 May 2005 04:46:09 PM |
| Object: |
Spin Confinement |
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
logan
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 03:42:27 PM |
|
|
"logan" <logansummersh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116366369.345010.129140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist.
That's not the rule. Rather, only one electron can
occupy each orthogonal state. The wave functions
for spin-up and spin-down are orthogonal.
[Old Man]
logan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 08:17:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1116366369.345010.129140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
logan <logansummersh@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
In quantum mechanics, identical particles are identical in the
strongest possible way-- you can't say A is here and B is
there, but must assume both possibilities. And electrons, being
fermions, anticommute. In relativistic quantum mechanics it can be
shown that this must be so to preserve causality. So the wavefunction
for two electrons looks like
psi = psi(A,B) - psi(B,A)
where the positions indicate a nominal particle number, and A and B are
sets of quantum numbers. If the numbers are the same, B=A, then
psi = psi(A,A) - psi(A,A) = 0
And since electrons have spin 1/2, there's only two possibilities, +1/2
nad -1/2, for that quantum number. If electrons, like some particles,
had spin 3/2, then the possible values would be 3/2, 1/2, -1/2, -3/2,
and we would fill up an orbital with four electrons rather than just
two.
If electrons were bosons, with integral spin, they would commute, there
would be no limit to the number of particles that could exist with the
same quantum numbers, and we wouldn't have chemistry.
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 05:56:56 PM |
|
|
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 06:04:56 PM |
|
|
In article <428A76B8.7AD7F2FC@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
The man asked for a physical reason, Uncle *****. Since you don't
know the answer, you should shut the ***** up.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 07:28:37 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <428A76B8.7AD7F2FC@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
The man asked for a physical reason, Uncle *****. Since you don't
know the answer, you should shut the ***** up.
"In the age of information and the internet, anybody can do physics
any way they see fit." - Savain
Mitch P.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "logan" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 06:04:36 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
Genius. What I mean to say is why can't the electron
be composed of 1/4 spin each such that 4 can fit in
an orbital with one pointing 180 degree down, 90 degree,
etc. such that their quantum number 4 are different??
I know experiment show there are only 2 spin values,
why only 2? What's so magical about 2? What rule in
angular momentum can produce such character?
logan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
17 May 2005 08:43:28 PM |
|
|
logan wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
Genius. What I mean to say is why can't the electron
be composed of 1/4 spin each such that 4 can fit in
an orbital with one pointing 180 degree down, 90 degree,
etc. such that their quantum number 4 are different??
I know experiment show there are only 2 spin values,
why only 2? What's so magical about 2? What rule in
angular momentum can produce such character?
Get an education, then come back - or don't. Learn the math, learn
the quantum mechanics. Nobody is hiding it. Science does not
function with ignorance and it is wholly intolerant of stupidity.
Consider loathsome idiot Savain who is too stooopid even to shut up.
That is where you are going on your present course. Is that where you
want to be?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 03:53:37 AM |
|
|
logan wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
Genius. What I mean to say is why can't the electron
be composed of 1/4 spin each
Read up on "quantization of angular momentum". The angular momentum
quantum number can only be multiples of 1/2. That follows
mathematically from the commutation relations for the angular momentum
components, which follow mathematically from the most basic
commutation relation of QM: the one for position and momentum.
Do the math.
such that 4 can fit in
an orbital with one pointing 180 degree down, 90 degree,
etc.
etc.? Well, what comes after 90 degrees?
BTW, pointing 180 degrees down is *not* possible. Again, read up
on the quantization of angular momentum.
such that their quantum number 4 are different??
I know experiment show there are only 2 spin values,
why only 2? What's so magical about 2?
Nothing magical about it. It simply comes out of the math that spin
1/2 particles have 2 possible spin states (and it's a simple fact of
nature that electrons have spin 1/2). Look up the calculation.
What rule in angular momentum can produce such character?
See above.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 10:27:40 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
logan wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
Genius. What I mean to say is why can't the electron
be composed of 1/4 spin each
Read up on "quantization of angular momentum". The angular momentum
quantum number can only be multiples of 1/2. That follows mathematically
from the commutation relations for the angular momentum
components, which follow mathematically from the most basic commutation
relation of QM: the one for position and momentum.
Do the math.
such that 4 can fit in
an orbital with one pointing 180 degree down, 90 degree,
etc.
etc.? Well, what comes after 90 degrees?
BTW, pointing 180 degrees down is *not* possible. Again, read up
on the quantization of angular momentum.
such that their quantum number 4 are different??
I know experiment show there are only 2 spin values,
why only 2? What's so magical about 2?
Nothing magical about it. It simply comes out of the math that spin 1/2
particles have 2 possible spin states (and it's a simple fact of nature
that electrons have spin 1/2). Look up the calculation.
What rule in angular momentum can produce such character?
See above.
The question was..."What is the *physical reason*....."
QM doesn't have a physical model.
Therefore you don't have an answer.
Sit down, born-yesterday.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 03:54:21 AM |
|
|
logan wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
No two electrons in an atom may have all quantum number values
identical. Is that too complex a statement for your Liliputian
mentality?
--
Uncle Al
Genius. What I mean to say is why can't the electron
be composed of 1/4 spin each
Read up on "quantization of angular momentum". The angular momentum
quantum number can only be multiples of 1/2. That follows
mathematically from the commutation relations for the angular momentum
components, which follow mathematically from the most basic
commutation relation of QM: the one for position and momentum.
Do the math.
such that 4 can fit in
an orbital with one pointing 180 degree down, 90 degree,
etc.
etc.? Well, what comes after 90 degrees?
BTW, pointing 180 degrees down is *not* possible. Again, read up
on the quantization of angular momentum.
such that their quantum number 4 are different??
I know experiment show there are only 2 spin values,
why only 2? What's so magical about 2?
Nothing magical about it. It simply comes out of the math that spin
1/2 particles have 2 possible spin states (and it's a simple fact of
nature that electrons have spin 1/2). Look up the calculation.
What rule in angular momentum can produce such character?
See above.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 03:50:30 AM |
|
|
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out?
Because the necessary requirement is *not* that it is "balanced out".
The necessary requirement is that the total wavefunction of a system
of electrons is antisymmetric (with respect to particle exchange).
Since the "spatial" part of the wavefunction is the same for all
electrons in an orbital, this implies that the "spin" part has to be
antisymmetric. And you can't have antisymmetric spin functions for
more than two identical spin-1/2 particles. Do the math.
The reason *why* the total wavefunction has to be antisymmetric comes
from second quantization of the Dirac field. Open a book on QFT.
I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
I don't think you have the necessary mathematical and physical background
to understand this "core reason".
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 05:12:24 AM |
|
|
In article <d6evkn$gip$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, Bjoern
Feuerbacher <bjoern.feuerbacher@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
I don't think you have the necessary mathematical and physical background
to understand this "core reason".
ahahaha.... This is fucking amazing. Feuerbacher, you are one of the
most pompous and clueless assholes pretending to be a physicist that I
know of. Since when does math explain causal mechanisms, jackass? By
"core reason", the man is asking for a fundamental reason. The
fundamental is simple by virtue of being fundamental. Here's a quote
from my site that will show you for what you are, a voodoo scientist:
There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a
scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but
is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the
average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that
he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question
as anybody else. Voodoo science is not about understanding nature
but about working at being so incomprehensible or so arcane to
one's fellow human beings as to be regarded as brilliant. The
weapon of choice of a voodoo scientist is mathematics. The truth
is that a scientist's understanding of a phenomenon is inversely
proportional to the number of math equations he uses to describe
it. Neither Newton's gravity equation nor the equations of
General Relativity explain why things fall. But what better way
is there to hide one's cluelessness while presenting a façade of
erudition than to use obscure equations to erect an impregnable
mountain of obfuscation? Voodoo science is guru science.
But even worse in your case, you are just a wannabe guru. You're a
chicken ***** kisser, destined o kiss the asses of other gurus,
kind of like the way Uncle ***** (Uncle Al) kisses John Baez's *****
every chance he gets.... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha.....
AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha.....ahahaha..... ahahaha....AHAHAHAHA....
ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA....
ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha.....
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 06:10:44 AM |
|
|
Hi Traveler Reality is electrons would spin in every angle,and
directions. This is shown to us in their release of photons. Still there
is a magnetic field acting on all electrons that is always partially
aliening their spin direction. This is shown to us when frogs and even
mice can be levitated Lots of heat makes electrons spin very random.
Heat kills a magnetic field(Currie effect). All electrons spin at 'c'
even when in a low energy state. The spinning cloud of electrons is what
makes the universe go round and round. Without spin there would be no
universe.All this is part of my "Spin is in Theory" Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Spin Confinement |
18 May 2005 01:03:08 AM |
|
|
logan wrote:
What is the physical reason that in an orbital, only
2 electrons of spin up and down can exist. Why can't it
be 4 electrons of 2 spin up and 2 spin down as this can
also balance out? I want to understand the core reason
for the 2 electron limit in the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
logan
They don't fucking know, man.
They just make the rules after the fact.
*They have no actual physical model.*
There. There's your answer.
But the real reason is because when electrons
turn they create a magnetic field, and since
all these magnetic fields have the same center, they will
all share the same position.
This makes it necessary for the electrons to
all lie in and turn the same way around
the same disc (concentric rings).
But an atom is not a disc, it is a sphere, so
you have to sweep the disc through a spherical volume.
NOW.
When you rotate the disc in its own plane
at 1, or 3, or 5, or any odd number of turns
at the same time as precessing
it at 2 complete turns to sweep out
your sphere something wonderful
happens; every particle on one side of the disc
will now share its path with whatever is exactly
opposite itself on the disc.
Every pathway will contain a max of 2 members.
Also, an electron must precess through 720
degrees before completing its orbital.
It's called the Galaxy Model for the atom.
It is at
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
It is unique because QM doesn't
have a physical model.
They can't give you a physical reason because
they can't give you a physical picture of
the atom. Period.
Ask them for one.
They'll say, "Oh, it's like Bohr said but it's not
like that."
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
