There are many particles in the Universe. We think that one particle has a space. Is it impossible two particles have one place? Any rules exist about space, i.c., one particle to one finite space?

 

There are many particles in the Universe. We think that one particle has a space. Is it impossible two particles have one place? Any rules exist about space, i.c., one particle to one finite space?

 

 

In particle physics, particles don't have finite physical boundaries, and in particles physics they aren't treated as merely point-like objects in their natural state either. In non-classical versions of particle physics, particles have a sort of probability cloud, and can mathematically be described as a field. In this model, particles can occupy the same volume of space, but no more than two can occupy the same quantum state. And a quantum state is a set of intrinsic properties of a particle that determine it's shape. In this new model, there are wave mechanics which describe properties of particles. If you drop two stones in the water at the same time, the waves can overlap, and they will overlap differently depending on their angle and magnitude.

Edited October 20, 201213 yr by EquisDeXD

I believe also in a Bose-Einstein condensate -- where the temperature is close to absolute zero -- two particles, two atoms even, occupy the same space. See link:

 

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html

 

 

Bosons can be co-located. Fermions cannot.

Bosons can be co-located. Fermions cannot.

 

But isn't that only if you define location as certain quantum states? Can't you have two electrons in the same sub-orbital? And can't the 3 dimensional models of the probabilities overlap?

Edited October 21, 201213 yr by EquisDeXD

But isn't that only if you define location as certain quantum states? Can't you have two electrons in the same sub-orbital? And can't the 3 dimensional models of the probabilities overlap?

You can have 2 electrons because you have 2 choices for spin. But that's it. If they were Bosons, you could have an arbitrary number.

Can you think of fermions as "things" that distort space? And bosons as "things" that do not distort space? If that is true then does it not follow that once a region of space is distorted in some configuration intrinsic to some fermion, that only that configuration(fermion) can distort(occupy) that region of space.

And since bosons do not distort space they are unrestricted as to what regions of space they can occupy.

Can you think of fermions as "things" that distort space? And bosons as "things" that do not distort space? If that is true then does it not follow that once a region of space is distorted in some configuration intrinsic to some fermion, that only that configuration(fermion) can distort(occupy) that region of space.

And since bosons do not distort space they are unrestricted as to what regions of space they can occupy.

Distort, as in the general relativity sense? No, I don't think you can go down that path. Bosons can feel and exert gravity. And I don't know of a distorted space model other than GR.

Ok thanks and I was thinking of GR. I think where I went wrong is that I knew photons felt gravity, but since they have no mass, I didn't think they could generate a gravitational field.

awesome diagram, thank you for the visual.

Someone showed alpha how to use paint and we've been suffering the results.