Re: Is Pauli's repulsive force fundamental?

From: Alf P. Steinbach (alfps_at_start.no)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:06:32 +0000 (UTC)

* Igor:
>
>
> alfps@start.no (Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message news:<413d836a.363819140@news.individual.net>...
> > * Roland Franzius:
> > >
> > > Pedro Tamirez wrote:
> > > > Hello physics world out there,
> > > >
> > > > I am a bit confused about how many fundamental forces exist. Everybody
> > > > keeps on saying that there are four fundamental forces: gravity,
> > > > strong, weak and electromagnetic. (I don't want to start any
> > > > discussion about possible unifications or additional exotic forces.)
> > > > But then there is this strange repulsive force, caused by the Pauli
> > > > exclusion principle, that two fermions with the same quantum numbers
> > > > cannot be brought together infinitely close. A repulsive force keeps
> > > > them seperated.
> > > >
> > > > Now my question is: How does this _new_ force tie in with the other
> > > > four. As no one talks of 5 fundamental forces, it somehow must be
> > > > related to the others? Or is it a fundamental force?
> >
> > The trick to keeping 4 fundamental forces is to deny that other forces
> > such e.g. inflation force, are "forces". Unfortunately that denial also
> > includes denying that gravity is a "force". So then we're down to 3... :o)
> >
> >
> > > The so called repulsive exchange force of a fermion pair is a matrix
> > > element of the normal two particle potential (typically of coulomb type
> > > or something derived from it like the mean field in a thermodynamic many
> > > particle enviroment).
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned -- I'm not a scientist -- that's mumbo-jumbo.
> >
> > I once sent this very question to the SciAm "experts" answer-providing
> > service, but no reply.
> >
> > So, is the force involved one of the 4 forces, or a combination of them?
> >
> > Yes or no, please.
> >
> > If yes, which?
>
>
> The OP's question was whether the force was fundamental. The answer
> would have to be no, since it can be derived from other underlying
> factors -- namely the antisymmetric part of the wavefunction under
> exchange of particles.

So which of the 4 fundamental forces are those carrier particles for?

> This is the same reason that Van der Waals
> forces are not considered fundamental, because they are the residual
> effects of electrostatic forces between individual atoms and
> molecules.

Are you saying Pauli exlusion principle somehow generates eletrostatic
forces? 

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?