Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(14,088 posts)
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:44 AM Feb 2012

Is Brian Cox full of it?

In this 1 minute 42 second video Brian Cox makes an astounding claim about the Pauli Exclusion Principle - when he rubs a diamond between his hands, all the elctrons in the universe are affected.




There's been some criticism of his claim on the internet - a lot of it by other physicists. There is an interesting explanation of what Cox said (and more) by Sean Carroll. An excerpt:

...

The point of this last statement is that when you say “When I heat this diamond up all the electrons across the universe instantly but imperceptibly change their energy levels,” people are naturally going to believe that something has changed about electrons very far away. But that’s not true, in the most accurate meaning we can attach to those words. In particular, imagine there is some physicist located in the Andromeda galaxy, doing experiments on the energy levels of electrons. This is a really good experimenter, with lots of electrons available and the ability to measure energies to arbitrarily good precision. When we rub the diamond here on Earth, is there any change at all in what that experimenter would measure?

Of course the answer is “none whatsoever.” Not just in practice, but in principle. The Hamiltonian of the universe will change when we heat up the diamond, which changes the instantaneous time-independent solutions to the Schoedinger equation throughout space, so in principle the energy levels of all the electrons in the universe do change. But that change is completely invisible to the far-off experimenter; there will be a change, but it won’t happen until the change in the electromagnetic field itself has had time to propagate out to Andromeda, which is at the speed of light. Another way of saying it is that “energy levels” are static, unchanging states, and what really happens is that we poke the electron into a non-static state that gradually evolves. (If it were any other way, we could send signals faster than light using this technique.)

Verdict: if this is what’s going on, there is an interpretation under which Cox’s statement is correct, except that it has nothing to do with the exclusion principle, and more importantly it gives a quite false impression to anyone who might be listening.

The other possibly relevant bit of physics is quantum entanglement and wave function collapse. This is usually the topic where people start talking about instantaneous changes throughout space, and we get mired in interpretive messes. Again, these concepts weren’t mentioned in this part of the lecture, and aren’t directly tied to the exclusion principle, but it’s worth discussing them.

...

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
1. I rubbed something between my hands in public once, and sure enough
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 08:49 AM
Feb 2012

my whole universe changed. The cop was NOT understanding in the least, and refused to accept my excuse that it was merely a physics experiment.

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
2. taking extremely complex and esoteric quantum dynamics
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 09:18 AM
Feb 2012

and bringing it to laymans' terms does have its pitfalls.

sP

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
3. I certainly wondered the same thing myself when he made that statement.
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 06:42 PM
Mar 2012

Doesn't seem to have gotten much attention here, though!

The comments at the link go back and forth as to whether location is part of the unique state.

That's certainly what I would have thought.

Can't tell if there's any concensus.

Jim__

(14,088 posts)
4. When I read some of the criticism from other physicists, I thought he really got it wrong.
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 07:45 PM
Mar 2012

When I read Sean Carroll's explanation, it sounds like he was technically wrong in citing the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but, other than that, what he said is correct. It makes sense. He is a professor of physics. I read E=mc2 which he co-authored, and he is good at explaining complex concepts. So, it was good to see that he wasn't really wrong.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
5. "When I heat this diamond up all the electrons in the universe INSTANTLY...change..."
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 08:08 PM
Mar 2012

Instantly.

I've only got one year of pre-Einsteinian physics to call upon...everything else I "know" I just picked up in one article or another, but his statement seems to say that all electrons are quantum entangled with all other electrons.

I that a consensus view?

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Is Brian Cox full of it?