Brian Cox and the Pauli Exclusion principle

This threw me too.  I'd never heard of the universal application of the Pauli Exclusion Principal and believed it was limited in its effect to within each atom.   I have an amateur interest in quantum mechanics and this has sent me off on a bit of research task.  So far, I've found nothing to confirm what Prof. Cox said, but I suspect that it's my mistake rather than his.  I shall continue to search for an answer.  Any pointers?

Thanks Simon. Interesting article - I think I get the point without understanding all the detail. It led me to the following train of thought:

The article makes the point that localising any electron around any one proton is not allowed because of the language of quantum mechanics (I cannot comment on this), and goes on to use this as a means of proving that the energies within ground-state electrons must differ.

However, I would contend it is much simpler. The energy of a particle is partly the result of the sum of all the forces acting upon it and these must differ from particle to particle. Therefore, the exact energy of any particle is partly a result of its position in the Universe. Also, in S104 we learn that we don't really know the energy of an electron, we just know what energy is required to move it from one state to another.

So it makes sense to me that altering the energy of any one electron must change forces acting on nearby particles, changing their energy levels. This "ripple effect" must then spread through the entire Universe.

So in summary, I think that changes in one location must cause a change within all other components of the system. From that perspective I can now be comfortable with what Professor Cox said.

Thanks again, comments welcome!

 Hi Thomas - I can't quite get your conclusion.  If you imagine all the things going on in the universe demanding these shuffles and ripples all happening at the same time it blows the mind.  I tried to do some research and like Simon I could not find anything to corroborate Brian Cox's assertions.  Also like Simon I felt it must be my own lack of knowledge rather than Brian going it alone.  I was uncomfortable with the idea that no two hydrogen atoms can have "shells" of identical energy (like your own first thoughts).  But when I considered that every 's' shell in every atom of anything in the universe had to have a different energy level then I had to imagine a continuum of these energies.  I then tried to imagine something like a set of giant molecular orbitals for the universe and though daft it did seem to make a little sense.  My angle on all this was spectroscopy - so important in identifying the components of cosmological objects.  With this chaotic situation as described by Brian Cox I doubted that spectroscopt could be such a precise science.  Obviously it is!  So I am just naive in not having years of research in quantum physics and Brian Cox must be right.  But fully understanding it - I think that must be a long way ahead for me (and you too, no offence meant).

Great discussion subject, nice to know others picked up on it too

Good Luck

 Hi Thomas / Simon

Eureka!  The information you want to read is in a book I stumbled across today.  I have only scanned it but it contains a discussion of the above theme.

"The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw (2011).

I am pretty sure that Brian used this book as the basis of his lecture that we all saw on BBC television - A Night With the Stars.  I have persuaded my wife to buy it for me for Christmas but I'm sure you can get it from the library.

Happy reading

Merry Xmas

Jim