# Pauli Principle and magnetic bonding – 60 years of Schrodinger, fusion, atomic, nuclear and global things

What causes the Pauli Exclusion Principle? at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlp2GQ3OLeE

Particles of any size with permanent magnetic moments can bind magnetically. The magnetic potential is proportional to the product of the magnetic moments (in Joules/Tesla) divided by the inverse cube of their separation. But simply, it is two magnets binding. Two electrons can bind magnetically where it takes work to press them together because of their Coulomb repulsion, but at close distances the 1/r^3 term can bring them together. Two protons, two neutron, two muons, a particle and its antiparticle. If they have permanent magnetic moments, there will almost always be conditions where the geometry and energies have stable solutions.

The electron and proton forms a neutron. The 1/r^3 potential is a simplification of a vector interaction where antiparallel, and end-to-end combinations are possible. So there are many chains of atoms or particles that are stable. But in general the stable distances for particles that include electrons are going to be of “atomic sizes” with bond energies under 1 MeV. Two protons or two neutrons, and many combinations of nuclear magnetic moments give stables solutions that tend to be in MeV bond energies and corresponding sizes. So “Pauli” is because magnetic often bind in pairs, but many combinations are possible.

When many different atoms with magnetic moments bind in extended networks and the bonds have energies from 100 KeV to 3000 KeV (3 MeV), those are “atomic” bonds. In a very broad sense, Electron Volt bonds are mostly “chemical”, the KeV bonds are “atomic” and the MeV bonds are “nuclear” (inside the nucleus). I had to use this broad kind of classification for the Internet Foundation, to group and translate materials from different group working on binding, stability and structure — where the non-linear Dirac, or non-linear Schrodinger method are hoped for but approximations used. Doing the full field calculations, even for vector magnetic energy density models is not simple, but can be programmed and used. Generating and compiling and analyzing regions where stable solutions are possible is routine, if not simple.

The bond strength and bond energy of all diatomic pairs are connected. It only requires that electrons, positrons and low mass states be included. When the bond energies are in KeV, then the binding energy ranges from 10 to 1000 Electron Volts. Chemical bonds of fuels tend to be about 10 eV. So when you make extended networks of 10 KeV bonds, the materials can be used as fuels with 1000 times larger energy densities. Or as stronger materials with strengths 1000 times larger. So super strong fibers, fabrics, sheets, and solid networks are possible. When you make super conducting materials, those are all that type of extended network. In neutron stars both the proton pair regions, and neutron pair regions are super fluid or superconducting depending on how you model them. The “Cooper pairs” are electron pairs, but can be positron pairs, or any particle antiparticle pairs.

When you combine particles and antiparticles, they usually end up with no external magnetic dipole moment, no external charge, but they can have mass, and they can have permanent lifetimes, depending on their environment. They are a good candidate for “dark matter” because if you have collisions of neutron stars, or neutron stars and black holes, or any combination of dense matter stars or “chunks” or “gases” – those stable combinations of protons and protons, or neutrons and neutrons, because of those pressures will remain stable, invisible (you can use quadrupoles and higher moments”

On my bookshelf is a copy of the book by Emilio Segre, title “From X-rays to Quarks” and in there is a letter I got from Emilio Segre in Jan 1981 encouraging me to work out the detailed spectrum of positronium. I was working at Georgetown University in the Center for Population Research on models of all countries and all industries and also taking courses and studying in the Chemistry department – on magnetic resonance, magnetic resonance imaging, heterocyles, nuclear reactions (reactions where the bond energies are KeV and MeV and the reactions going on in accelerators or fusion reactions or other places and devices. I had been working for nearly a decade on fusion reactions (UT Austin Ilya Prigogine, and the fusion group), (UMD College Park – Misner and Weber and Forward and NASA gravitational models). When you scan ALL isotopes, including unstable ones but that can be used today for “chemistry at KeV and MeV and GeV enegies” the magnetic moment is the first and simplest way to estimate what will bind and have stable solutions, and the energies most likely. Now the tables of the isotopes all are on line. I asked they add the nuclear magnetic moments for all those because of their value in solving simple models of reactions for screening, planing and finding useful new materials.

Can these materials be made, are they possible and useful, can they be modeled and simulated and designed? Indeed yes. I first learned about Schrodinger equations and chemical models in 1964 in my first year of high school in an innovative program called the Chemical Bond Approach, I took chemistry every year of high school, got a perfect SAT in Chemistry, full scholarship offers everywhere I applied and went to Case Institute of Technology in Chemistry but changed to physics and information systems because those are more fundamental than chemistry. When I worked at Phillips Petroleum on industrial chemistry planning tjhe models and use of nuclear energies for new materials, and processes was foremost in my mind. I did design a hydrogen economy, got involved in the early global climate and clean air models, alternative fuels there – about 1988-1991. Even cold fusion, where knowing all the possible reactions helps. It is the speed of modeling and screening and management of possible processes that is the main difficulty, not “is it possible at all?”

I included some personal notes because I am getting older (75) and may not be around much longer. Schrodinger is used inside the nucleus, but the broader framework is careful management of information, models, algorithms, data, data formats and units, groups and translation between different sets of units and assumptions. Robert Forward in his dissertation, “Detectors for Dynamic Gravitational Waves” explains the key to fitting gravity and electromagnetic “fields” can be achieve by focusing on just getting the groups to use common units, and to encoded and store the models in a common framework. The last 26 years of the Internet Foundation is aimed at that specifically, but it applies to all human languages, all humans, all countries, all computer languages and formats, and all domain specific languages like physics, chemistry, etc etc etc, as well.

I will mention one thing that is on my mind about this. The binding energy in the nucleus is invisible to gravity and inertia. The “mass energy” that is converted from mass form to binding energy is not seen by mass spectroscopy. But that bond form of energy should ultimately be at very high frequencies and short wavelengths even if the mass calculations, based on longer wavelengths, do not count it. In a neutron star or quark gluon star (dark or nearly black) If two particles put all their energy into binding, they would have no traditional mass. If they are in active regions, there will be small bits of mass from other interactions. There are stable states that give that result. And those might be good candidates for neutrinos. But for bulk “invisible matter” I look inside neutron stars, stars and situations where there are quark gluon pressures that allow stable bonds. I do NOT see black holes as having ‘singularities’ inherited from elementary classes ‘intro to cosmology’. It is more subtle and precise than that. But it is possible to inventory now and simply store events at ALL energies for every place in the infinite universe. From Planck wavelengths to much larger than a few big bang sized regions in an infinite universe. Where dark holes (because they can be scanned with gravity) are common and often blow up, merge and change.

(1) If you make a starship out of “bond energy alone” it would have no inertia, no gravitational mass. Pure standing or traveling wave solutions. To interact with matter it has to have the same frequencies that make up the gravitational wave functions of that environment. If the frequencies are shifted, there is no mass in the ship “at those frequencies”, no interactions and delays and resistance. (2) You can do that with acoustics, vibrations on the earth for vehicles and processes. (3) I am working out how to replace the Booster of Starship with field generators to lift the StarShip to orbital or escape velocity and height. Not wasting fuel, oxygen, and huge chemical systems is cost effective and is pretty much “routine electromagnetism all the way down” now. (4) Also “atomic fuels that are 100 times more energy dense (KeV bond energies) means the Starship fuel stack can be 2 meters not 125 meters. Or, as I am looking, send the energy, and do not store it. (5) And accept incoming payloads and deliveries with fields, not stored chemical fuels that have to be sent out (to the moon and back)

Filed as (Pauli Principle and magnetic bonding – 60 years of Schrodinger, fusion, atomic and global things)

Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation