0
$\begingroup$

If I understand it a bit the standard answer for this is: the pushing/holding apart of fermions and the pulling/holding together of bosons is just a result of symmetrization requirement (Griffths' term). But if it does force particles to move or be in a certain place, how come it is not a force? Is this just a way to say it is not the result of any of the four fundamental interactions?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The latter is definitely not right. The "Not a result of any of the four fundamental interactions" bit. The bosons are the embodiment of those, are they not? $\endgroup$ – Matt Jul 19 '16 at 11:16
2
$\begingroup$

It just means that the exchange force is not a classical force like between spinless classical particles. It is a purely quantum effect. It disappears when conditions become more and more classical.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So would a classical centrifugal force be a good analogy? It is not a force itself, but rather a result of inertia (I understood it is not classical. Just trying to draw an analogy not to be lost). $\endgroup$ – Patrick Jul 19 '16 at 13:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, it is not a good analogy. Because centrifugal force is measurable and classical. Some sort of exchange force can be mimicked with Dirac's "exchange interaction" terms including spins. $\endgroup$ – Vladimir Kalitvianski Jul 19 '16 at 13:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.