h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Short and informative if you ask me...

Cheers,

HELL

Oops forgot the link...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568073

Not being a scientist in any way shape or form, and having an average understaning of the subject at best, would like an explanation of this statement:

Electrons must be distinguishable in at least one quantum number.


Not sure to what lengths you should go to explain this but, I think that more information is better than not enough. For the edited guide, the most informative (yet still somehow concise) and descriptive, factual articles will be recomended.

I find the subject matter interesting, and would be quite disappointed if you didn't pursue this further.

Looking forward to hearing more

Lucien-scout

I agree, more explanation is require methinks - I know what you're talking about but only cos I have a degree in chemistry.

What are the quantum nubers and what do they define would do for a start

This could get hairy though I must admit .

And isn't it, electrons occupying the same space need to be different in at least one quantum number?

OK I'll do it. Just wait and see.

HELL

Better now?

I really would not like to have to explain the quantum theory first (since oonly 3 or 4 people understand it, and I am not one of them). I really do not think anyone would want or need to know it to understand a minimum of the Pauli Principle.

I think that thinking about quantum mechanics as a grid affecting only VERY tiny particles is enough for a start.

Cheers,

HELL

Some major modifications have been made... Uff.

It is quite difficult trying to explain a rather difficult topic in understandable terms, but I've tried.

please read the new one.

helps and comments very welcome.

HELL

O boy, what a bit to chew! I don't envy you for having to try to explain this, but I will try to help. I am not one of those 3 or 4, but I can at least follow them a bit.

++++++++++++++++++
Please will anyone who cannot follow this at all stay for the moment out of the discussion until the entry has evolved a bit more. It will never be finished if all energy is going into an elementary course on quantum mechanics in the peer review.
Can you agree with that, Hell?
++++++++++++++++++

Maybe you should start with something like
'All particles may have a property called spin, what can be compared with (but is not the same as) a spinning tennis ball.
For quantum mechanical reasons spin can only have a few fixed values, being a multiple of 1/2 h, where h is Plancks constant. For practical reasons normally only the number is mentioned.'
You might go to differentating between bosons and fermions, and even introduce the model of a three dimensional vector with the also quantisized projection on the Z-axis (if that's not to deep)

I will stop here for the moment, otherwise I may rewrite the complete entry and this should be done in small quantised steps.

Hell,
maybe you can rephrase the principle to something like:
No two fermions can be in exactly the same quantum mechanical state.

Most people will stop thinking when they see the words 'quantum mechanical' and assume they cannot understand the details anyhow.

offtopic. If you apply this to the Highlander discussion, you may say that the immortals are fermions, for 'there can only be one'. /offtopic

Well first things first.


PLEASE SOMEONE GET THIS OUT OF THE PR!


This entry was a part of the periodic table cycle... It should have been used to explain the electronic configuration and the build-up of atomic shells.

The problem IS, that the Pauli Principle reaches way farther than simple atomic orbital-filling rules... After all he's got a Nobel-biscuit for that...

Uff... So after a while there seemed to be the need for a better explanation - Guide style, remember, funny but correct and not absolutely precise... also because it is aimed at a broad public of interested laypersons rather than specialized quantum physicists, who'd contest everything in the entry anyway...

So I set out, and everytime I'd put in a concept someone came up and said, well but what is a photon then? what are fermions? why doesn't the rule apply to bosons? and all THAT kind of stuff. So it's gotten way too far out of the original scope.

It would be best to remove this entry entirely from the PR, and everyone (e.g. Orcus, Marijn ...) is welcome to help out...

- I'm starting a thread soon on the entry, check it out

Cheerio,

HELL

Hell,
sorry if I went in too deep. As I found it in Peer Review, I assumed it was an independent entry.

I am afraid that with this kind of subject you allways lose.
If it is for the layman, the specialists will burn you fore leaving out 'essential' details. If you write for the specialist the laymen will complain that it is incomprehensible.
Let's hope there can be found a compromise.

Hey, I'm sure this can be worked out, its surely not impossible.
My guess would be to just explain how orbitals are filled and *not* explain why this is. Going into the differences in fermions and bosons etc. is going ot be way too hairy and probably impenetrable to someone who hasn't studied wave mechanics and stuff to at least some degree.

I'll post a message on the scouts noticeboard to get this removed from Peer Review as requested.

I'll recommend a move to the Writing Workshop as that seems to be the place for that sort of thing.

I'll be glad to help out

Orcus

Hey marijn no lamenting here... It's definetly not ready for the guide in this version.

I think the word 'lose' is quite wrong. You cannot 'lose' anything here, it is not going to devastate MY ego if I start off something and it's not good yet... I definetly needs more work out, and the PR is the wrong place.

About the layman/specialist problem... This guide is NOT primarily for specialists (IMHO) even though there are some pretty deep things in here (Aspirin, Mitochondria...). If a specialist wants to read something qualified and special and absurdly accurate he will not pop into the GUIDE and look for it.

The basic problem with specialists (like me too) is that they always think they must contribute in some way, or be pedantic about many things. I (for my part) have fun engaging in discussions, other people take it more seriously....

Anyway. No harm done. The entry is not good YET, and therefore it must leave the PR.

(Marijn come on in and help if you like)

Salve,

HELL

Hey Orcus, cheers.

The basics of the Pauli Principle are noted in the Shells and Orbital enty anyway, so it's not going to be a '''loss''' if this entry has to be worked out -- which it definetly does.

To the contrary, it can only become better this way.

Thanks for helping Orcus,

Over & Out

HELL

Hey Orcus, cheers.

The basics of the Pauli Principle are noted in the Shells and Orbital enty anyway, so it's not going to be a '''loss''' if this entry has to be worked out -- which it definetly does.

To the contrary, it can only become better this way.

Thanks for helping Orcus,

Over & Out

HELL

Hell, I wasn't lamenting, just hasty because my wife wanted me downstairs for a nightcap.
I am ready to help shaping the entry, just tell me where to find it after it is removed from PR. Your entry U171578?

Be seeing you
Marijn

The move to the WW has been approved by 'those in charge'.
Surprised it hasn't happened already actually

Nono YOU were not lamenting.. I thought you thought *I* was.

The thread is at the entry itself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568073

Welcome.

Over & Out,

HELL

Oh Orcus,

So it's there in the WW then... How does that work from then on?
I thought it would just be removed from the PR, because I honestly do not think the WW will help, since it's not about writing but about contents...


Well, anyway... Glad it's outa *here*

HELL

Well actually its not...yet. It still seems to be in PR - don't worry about where the thread is too much - after all it doesn't really matter.
Not sure how much stuff really goes on at the WW anyway - can't say I go over there much . We can discuss it underneath the entry