text:
Talk:Pauli exclusion principle

Energy-mass limit in given finite space
Need a little more clarification for laymen: there's a bound for the amount of information in a finite region of space (Bekenstein bound, which depends on the amount of energy-mass in that region. Does it mean if there's an infinite amount of energy in a region of space then there's an infinite amount of information? Should there be an upper bound for energy-mass if Pauli exclusion principle really holds true? Also, if that's the case then singularity is ruled out?Mastertek (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Correspondence
Conceptually, it is simple to understand the correspondence between fermions/matter and bosons/[fields; energy; ??]. It's an important point for this article too, I think - it's one of the most important consequences of the Pauli principle. What's the best way to describe it?

On one hand, describing bosons as "fields" is a little misleading, because fermions are also described as fields in QFT. The reason light is classically thought of as a "field" instead of a particle has as much to do with the fact that the photon is massless (hence long-range, hence classically detectable as a field) as the fact that it is a boson. So the distinction isn't too clear.

On the other hand, describing bosons as "energy" is also misleading, because obviously fermions carry energy just as well as bosons.

Thoughts? CYD

 * Both fermions and bosons can be considered as waves or fields. Even atoms can be bosons such as sodium and they behave accordingly at low temperatures. The most intuitive distinction I can think of is between matter and non-matter particles. But as for sodium even this distinction becomes blurry at low temperatures, so be careful. --Thorseth (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Non Matter
I changed "fields" to "non-matter". -

Antisymmetric
There's a hint in Quantum Physics by S. Gasiorowicz that fermions do not require a totally antisymmetric wavefunction if there is sufficient separation. From memory, it said something like: "the reader might expect that if we have one electron on earth and one on the moon, they won't require antisymmetrization... Indeed, even at lattice spacing distances of 5-6 angstroms, antisymmetrization is usually unnecessary".

Unfortunately, the only mathematics presented to support this was a calculation of the amount of overlap in probability densities between distant electrons.

That's as much as I know - I couldn't write an authoritative summary on the matter. If true, it would impact on not only this article, but also identical particles and fermions, and perhaps others.

-- Tim Starling 11 Oct. 2002

I believe he's saying that, under certain circumstances, you can make an approximation of ignoring antisymmetrization. -- CYD

 * I've posted a more detailed response over in the identical particles discussion page. But the gist is this: The two-particle wavefunction (for fermions) is always antisymmetric, but if the two particles are far apart (i.e., if the single-particle wave functions don't overlap significantly) then one of the two terms in the antisymmetric wavefunction will be very small, and you'll be left with a two-particle wavefunction that's approximately equal to what you would have had if you didn't bother to make it antisymmetric.  Hence, when it comes to actually calculating anything, the antisymmetrization is unnecessary, very unnecessary. -- Tim314 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

- Maybe... I have the book here now, and I can quote the most suggestive statement:

"The question arises whether we really have to worry about this when we consider a hydrogen atom on earth and another one on the moon. If they are both in the ground state, do they necessarily have to have opposite spin states? What then happens when we consider a third hydrogen atom in its ground state?"

I'll try to find some more authoritative information on this. -- Tim

Okay, CYD is right. Sorry everyone. -- Tim -

Simplification
Is the Pauli exclusion principle a complicated way of saying that two things can't be in the same place at the same time?

Answer: this is one consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle. See new section Stability of Matter. Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) -

Assumption
Pauli exclusion principle seems to be an ADDITIONAL assumption to the quantummechanical principles, since it seems (to me) that there is no proof WHY spin-half particles have anti-symmetric wavefunction and integer spin are symmetric. If this is indeed true, can someone edit the text in this respect? The exclusion principle is explained a thousand times on the web, but (almost) no one mentions this aspect. -- John

One of the results of quantum mechanics is that spin is quantized - the spin of a particle is either an integer or a half-integer times hbar. There is a theorem in relativistic quantum mechanics, called the spin-statistics theorem, which says that particles with integer spin obey Bose-Einstein statistics, whereas particles with half-integer spin ovey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and therefore obey the Pauli exclusion principle. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, however, the Pauli principle must be postulated (and there is certainly enough experimental evidence to call it an empirical fact.) See identical particles for a little discussion of this. -- CYD

for CYD: do you mean the exclusion principle holds only at short distances? because i just dont fully understand it, if no two 1/2 spin particles can occupy the same quantum state every atom of the same element will be different, and (i dunno much, just a guess) worse since the energy levels are quantized we wont have that many hydrogen atoms in the universe, but we do.

also, forgot to add, (remember i'm only a beginner at this stuff, so dont laugh at my questions), when the electrons in a lithum are not observed, so they remain in "waves", their spin is in superposition, so how can the exclusion principle apply to them??? i mean, doesnt it only work when you have an eigenvalue of the obserable? i know atomes will collapse that way but can you tell me why it doesnt?

thanks

-protecter

A note to questions posed above : Each of those millions and billions of Hydrogen atoms or electrons in various Lithium atoms are in different quantum states. An electron in its ground state in one Hydrogen atom is in an entirely different quantum state (i.e. posesses a different Hamiltonian or energy state) than another electron in a different Hydrogen atom some distance away. In fact, if you were to push two Hydrogen atoms close together, the Pauli exclusion principle predicts that there will arise some pressure between the two as the sates begin to overlap, in order to resist that overlap, and indeed, this pressure is detectable experimentally. The Pep holds - no two fermions can exist in the same state.

--zipz0p
 * I am puzzled by this point as well. You (zipz0p) state that two ground-state electrons in two different H atoms are in a different quantum state. But: the article states that for electrons, PEP is equivalent to saying the four quantum numbers cannot all be the same. Which of the four quantum numbers is always different for two ground state electrons in different H atoms? It seems to me (non-physicist) that some implied qualification is being left out. Clarification would be much appreciated! Mrhsj 01:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question is that you need an additional label for which atom the electron is in. In a many-atom situation, the PEP holds for the four quantum numbers plus atom label taken together.  The statement in the article about the four quantum numbers only holds for a single atom.  Another way of thinking about the atom label I talk about above is to introduce a continuous position variable that marks the center of mass of the atom the electron is in.  In summary, the PEP holds for the complete set of quantum or classical coordinates required to uniquely identify a particle.  I hope this helps. -- Custos0 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's what I was looking for. Thanks! Mrhsj 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

-

Pep vs. PEP
I think since the Exclusion Principle is a recognised title, then this article should reside under Pauli Exclusion Principle, rather than Pauli exclusion principle. I have been reading many published texts recently on the subject and all seem to use the capitalised version. What does everyone think? - Drrngrvy 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Since neither David J. Griffiths nor Richard L. Liboff capitalize the first letters of the whole Pauli exclusion principle, but rather write it in the form already in use in this article, I am inclined to say: leave it as is, if only for consistency. --zipz0p

Since in High Energy Physics (HEP) or Elementary Particle Physics the first letter is capitalized in acronyms, I would suggest to use PEP instead of Pep. On the other hand, small letters represent usually helping letters from the word, e.g., AliEn GRID. --serbanut

-

Other effects of the Pep
I think the article should perhaps say something about the fact that the PEP is the primary reason that material objects collide macroscopically and that we can stand on the ground, etc. It is commonly held that this is due to electromagnetic forces, but in fact, the dominant force is a product of the PEP: electrons in the atoms of the separate surfaces will effectively repel one another as the surfaces approach and the electrons come closer to occupying the same state (which is forbidden by the Pep). --zipz0p
 * What is the force that's responsible for maintaining the PEP? As a layperson, I'm having trouble finding an explanation of the PEP. Mathematical descriptions and predictions are fairly easy to find, but are not readily accessible to non-physicists. Why can't two identical fermions occupy the same space? The second para of the overview talks about wave functions - these are like descriptions of the probability of a particle occupying a quantum space, is that correct? I apologise for my lack of understanding, but i hope we can use that to further improve this article. Ethidium 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The responsible force for PEP is the magnetic force. Spin is intrinsic property of a particle (formerly considered as a revolution movement of the particle around its main axis; the earth model) or system which respond only to the magnetic force, therefore, in order to align the spin of particle/system a strong magnetic field is required (see experiments with polarized beam or target). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbanut (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1924 or 1925?
The article can't make up its mind. Which is it? --Michael C. Price talk 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It is probably ZS.f.Phys 31(1925) 765, Über den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen im Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, On the connection of the arrangement of electron groups in atoms with the complex structure of spectra. Here Pauli states on page 776
 * Es kann niemals zwei oder mehrere äquivalente Elektronen im Atom geben, für welche in starken Feldern die Werte aller Quantenzahlen  $$n, k_1, k_3, m_1 $$ (oder, was dasselbe ist, $$n, k_1, m_1, m_2 $$) übereinstimmen.  Ist ein Elektron  im Atom  vorhanden,  für das diese Quantenzahlen (im äußeren Felde) bestimmte Werte haben, so ist dieser Zustand  “besetzt “.
 * It is not possible that there are two or more equivalent electrons in an atom for which in strong fields all quantum numbers $$n, k_1, k_3, m_1$$ (or equivalent, $$n, k_1, m_1, m_2 $$) are identical. If there is an electron, which takes (with external applied field) a specific set of quantum numbers, this state is “occupied“.
 * He states that he cannot give a justification for that rule, but it seems self-evident from nature. He then concludes from thermodynamics and the invariance of statistical weights with respect to adiabatic transformations that the rule also holds for small fields. At the end of the article he states that a deeper understanding of the principles of quantum mechanics are required to understand the assumptions on which his conclusions (on the spectra and level occupation) are based.
 * However, from a modern point of view, I would say, the Pauli principle refers to the asymmetry of the total wave function; as a consequence two electrons cannot have the same set of quantum numbers, as this would result in a symmetric solution with respect to these two electrons. Mikuszefski (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting quote from the original article and also for the translation from German. The comment you answered dates from 2006. The article now says 1925 only, and describes both the quantum number and the antisymmetry versions of the PEP.
 * It seems from your quote that in 1925 Pauli proposed the concept that each electron has its own set of 4 quantum numbers, using quantum numbers from the old quantum theory. Later, after Schrodinger in 1926 introduced wave functions and the solution for the hydrogen atom, Pauli must have modified the identity of the quantum numbers and added the connection to the antisymmetry of the wave function.Dirac66 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fermi pressure?
How about discussing "matter occupies space exclusively for itself and does not allow other material objects to pass through it" in terms of Fermi pressure keeping matter apart? It might be useful to point out how much denser a Neutron Star is, where gravity overcomes to Fermi pressure of the electrons to give a star of the density of an atom's nucleus. Custos0 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrinos are Fermions too! When does neutrino degeneracy kick in? How many neutrinos can dance on a Singularity? Cave Draco 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrinos in Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics (that's the complete name of the model because there is also the Solar Standard Model) are massless particles. If non-zero mass particles obey Dirac equation, massless particles (of spin one half of hbar) obey Weyl equation. At the end of the day, the main difference between the two equations is the number of solutions: 4 for Dirac equation and 2 for Weyl equation. New neutrino physics (which is called beyond the Standard Model) introduces right-handed neutrino mass as being far too large for being able to interact with left-handed neutrino, and therefore, Standard Model can stand in the approximation left-handed neutrino mass over right-handed neutrino mass equal zero. serbanut —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consequences
Thanks to those who added to the Consequences section to discuss the solidity of matter. I agree with Custos0, that further examples of neutron stars could be a good example, possibly worthy of a separate section from the Consequences section.

I edited the last paragraph of the Consequences section to reflect that it is impossible to determine the state of matter inside a black hole, as this is beyond the event horizon, and no information about the inside can be passed out. However, after posting it, I thought some more about it, and am not sure that it is appropriate to even mention this discrepancy here. Is it perhaps not important enough to the subject, or not within the scope of the article?

Also, I wonder if the PEP is actually violated if the particles themselves have no physical extent. Can they actually occupy the same spatial coordinates, then? It seemed to me that they mathematically could, but that this would be a violation of the PEP, hence what I wrote in the article. Please correct me if I am mistaken, or elaborate if the understanding is not deep enough. zipz0p 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Phase-space and space are two different things. Phase-space is referred to energy - three-dimensional momentum and the space of the quantum numbers is referring usually to the phase-space. The orbital levels are related to the energy levels and no spacial radius of the orbit. Therefore, PEP is not violated by imposing your question to be true. Anyway, it is pretty hard to imagine that two fermions can be described by the same spacial coordinates in the same time. serbanut

Pep only applies to fermions, I don't believe the state of matter in a black hole can be considered fermions anymore and thus it is not required that Pep be violated. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Staffa

Why we don't fall through the ground
"One such phenomenon is the "rigidity" or "stiffness" of ordinary matter (fermions): the principle states that identical fermions cannot be squeezed into each other (cf. Young and bulk moduli of solids), hence our everyday observations in the macroscopic world that material objects collide rather than passing straight through each other, and that we are able to stand on the ground without sinking through it."

This statement is false. We don't fall through the floor because of coloumb interactions between electron shells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.34.13 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pauli principle is responsible for the existence of closed shells, forming atoms between which there is a net repulsive coulomb interaction. Between open-shell atoms, chemical bonds can be formed and there is a net attractive coulomb interaction due to increased electron-nuclear attraction. Therefore this statement is essentially true - without the Pauli principle there would be no closed shells and the net coulomb interaction would not be repulsive. Dirac66 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Slightly reworded Dirac66 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that any two open-shell atoms will attract each-other rather than repel? [post by 75.13.90.76]
 * Not "any two". In the simplest example of two hydrogen atoms, the force depends on the spin states of the two atoms. If the spins are opposite to each other ("paired") the force is attractive, but if the spins are parallel, the force is repulsive. Dirac66 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While it might be sorta true it is misleading. A neutron star is a degenerate state of matter that occurs because two things can not occupy the same space. This state of being is far different then my feet not falling through the floor, which is more easily understood as the repuslive force of electrons, even if the repulsive force is some how related to Pep. It is a more indirect cause the the neutron star example. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Staffa

I have now included a new section on "Stability of matter", in which I have mentioned both the solidity of ordinary solids AND neutron stars. Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statements
The bits "The Pauli exclusion principle mathematically follows from applying the rotation operator to two identical particles with half-integer spin." and "The Pauli exclusion principle follows mathematically from the definition of the angular momentum operator (rotation operator) in quantum mechanics" seem to imply that the PEP is not a principle, but a consequence of quantum mechanics. This is not correct, as can be seen for example in "No spin-statistics connection in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics" by llen, R. E.; Mondragon, A. R., eprint arXiv:quant-ph/0304088. The PEP is a postulate and cannot be derived in quantum mechanics; it is a consequence of the spin-statistic connection in quantum field theory. You can have bosonic one-half spin particles in quantum mechanics without any contradictions arising. The statement "The Pauli exclusion principle can be derived starting from the assumption that a system of particles occupy antisymmetric quantum states." is trivial, because the Pauli exclusion principle can be formulated as saying that fermions occupy antisymmetric quantum states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.214.16.76 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed all the misstatements. There is a relativistic derivation along these lines, but it requires rotating the particles in time, not just in space, so that the order of the operators in the path integral is interchanged.Likebox (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PEP Causes the Normal Force?
The article on Freeman Dyson states that he proved that the PEP was the true cause of the Normal Force (eg. the force of a brick on a table). If this is true, this is remarkable and news to me, and should be mentioned here. But I have not looked into the articles on the Dyson article, but if they check out, this should be included in the article on PEP Substar (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Substar

I have now added a new section "Stability of matter" and explained what was proved by Dyson (and Lenard). Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Imaging of Pentacene Molecule
Suggestion: I'm not qualified to write this up, but doesn't the imaging of the pentacene molecule deserve some mention here, since, as I understand it, it depends on the PEP. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.244.187 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spin statistics without relativity
Since nonrelativistically, particles can have any statistics and any spin, there is no way to prove a spin-statistics theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. But there are "naturalness" assumptions which allow you to argue that the correct spin-statistics relation makes a more elegant theory. These arguments were marketed as a nonrelativistic spin/statistics proof by Berry et al, but they do not constitute a proof, as is well recognized, rather a plausibility argument. In order to have a spin-statistics theorem, you need relativity.Likebox (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that your first sentence in the above paragraph provides a simpler and clearer explanation than the text which you put in the article about spin 0 Fermi fields. Would you object to using this sentence (or something similar) in the article instead? Dirac66 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't object--- but the full text above requires a citation to Berry's paper, and I am not sure exactly how best to talk about it. They make this naturalness assumption, which I never really understood how its more natural. I guess it's the statement that the Berry phase acquired by dynamically rotating two particles around each other is the same as the kinematic phase for rotating two particles, which would give you a spin-statistics relation, but I don't know exactly why it is more natural than wrong spin-statistics.Likebox (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the article is best with just the first sentence above as you have it now. This is a simple statement accessible to readers who have only nonrelativistic QM, even in a chemistry course. Thanks.
 * Berry's argument is probably too complex for this article. Since you have brought it up here though, perhaps you could put the full reference on this talk page (though NOT in the article).Dirac66 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) It's Berry, M.V., Robbins, J.M.: Indistinguishability for quantum particles: spin, statistics and the geometric phase. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 453:1771-1790 (1997). I skimmed the argument, and I remember the main point. It is no way a proof of spin-statistics, but it argues that spin-statistics is natural if you take a type of tangent bundle structure on the configuration space.

The idea is that when you are looking at N spinning particles, you define the spin direction not relative to fixed static coordinate axes, like people have been doing since time immemorial, but relative to the positions of the other particles. Then you get the following obviousness: when two particles switch position by rotating around each other in some plane, if you move the mobile axes along with the rotations keeping the spins of the particles fixed, the spins make a half-turn each with respect to the mobile axes. So when the spins are unchanged relative to the global axis, the spin relative to each other gets a phase in the mobile axis which is equal to -1 for Fermions and +1 for Bosons (because it's one full turn). If you then demand that the wavefunction is single valued in this particular way under swaps, you get spin-statistics.

This is a bastardization of the relativistic argument which relates swapping to rotation, but without using the all-important imaginary time rotations. It's not mathematically wrong the way they do it, but it seems silly. The configuration space of N indistinguishable particles is a weird looking wedge if you want to count each configuration once and only once. If you don't do the moving frame business, the same condition of single valuedness would tell you that all particles are bosons, so the condition they give isn't natural at all.

If you use a normal fixed non-comoving frame, the condition of "single-valuedness" requires pasting the wavefunction in the different sectors with sign-changes along the boundaries which are glued. That's not any less natural than co-moving frames--- the wavefunction is defined as a section of an equivalent fiber bundle either way. Either the bundle is glued with trivial gluing but with phases defined along moving coordinate frames, or it is glued with sign-changes with non-moving coordinate frames. It's the same bundle. I mean, the fact that co-moving frames exist and give you the right answer is slightly interesting, if it's true. That would mean that you can define the comoving frame for N particles in some continuous way, but they don't do it for more than three particles in the original paper, and they don't do it in more than three dimensions.Likebox (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, too complex for this article, and not really relevant since it's not a real proof. So let's leave it with the (your) current statement that NR particles can have any statistics and any spin so there is no spin-statistic theorem for NR QM. Dirac66 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is very interesting, however I don't think it should be in the lead. The paragraph makes absolutely no sense to non-experts (Which it should). Please put i in the main article somewhere-thanks--Thorseth (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I have now moved the part on relativistic QFT down to a new subsection on the Pauli principle in advanced quantum theory, where the word "advanced" is meant to suggest "skip this part if you wish". The subsection can probably be improved, but I agree with Thorseth that it should not be in the lead. Dirac66 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bounce
Peter Lynds has been promoting the idea of a cyclic universe where singularities are not allowed. He never explains why. And he may be wrong as far as black holes inside the Universe. Is it possible that PEP comes into play if a black hole becomes too big? By this, I mean would gravity ever become so powerful that it would try and force particles to occupy the same space - the resulting interaction would cause a bounce effect where the Exclusion Principle would force the black hole to explode. As to Lynd and his cyclic universe theory a universe size big crunch may offer this type of showdown between gravity and particles occupying the same space. Comments? --Dane Sorensen (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(I have moved this new section to the end of the talk page.) But does Peter Lynds explicitly relate the PEP to his ideas? Your wording suggests that it is your own speculation, in which case it is "original research" which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. It may or may not be valid, but it has to be published elsewhere before it gets into Wikipedia. Dirac66 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, that is why it is in discussion. My speculations do not belong in a formal article. PEP has not been brought down to the level of quarks. We do not know if a PEP force exists for the smaller parts of matter. Perhaps the Hadron Collider will answers those questions. However, I may be wrong and some better educated person can add facts to the notion and expand this article on PEP as well as Lynds theory. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Finite vs. infinite repulsion
The results of the Bethe ansatz do not map to a free Fermi gas unless the delta functions repulsion of the one-dimensional bosons are infinitely strong. The bose-fermi map in the case of finite delta-repulsion does not provide a solution in this case, since both theories are interacting. The Bethe Ansatz article can include the nonlinear schrodinger equation as an example, of course, but this article is somewhat more elementary.Likebox (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical
This article is extremely technical. I cannot make sense of it :( 67.204.204.104 (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Placed new section at end.) Yes, the article describes an aspect of quantum mechanics which is not easy to simplify. I have re-ordered the intro paragraph to start with electrons in atoms as the most elementary case, and also explained the word fermions (in addition to the link provided). I encourage other editors also to try to simplify or explain further. Dirac66 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

History
the Lewis paper link that follows is broken :

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Lewis-1916/Lewis-1916.html

here's something maybe a replacement :

http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/bond/papers/corr216.3-lewispub-19160400.html

or even better, the original jacs abstract (full-text requires subscription):

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja02261a002

Stability of matter, first paragraph
Tomdo08 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) -- The first two sentences of the first paragraph in Pauli exclusion principle ("The stability of the electrons in an atom itself is not related to the exclusion principle, but is described by the quantum theory of the atom. The underlying idea is that close approach of an electron to the nucleus of the atom necessarily increases its kinetic energy, an application of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg.") do not make much sense: I could calculate that, but all this could be called original research. Therefore someone with a book at hand should rewrite that part of the paragraph. If my deduction is correct, the explanation should include the uncertainty principle, the low mass of the electron, the energy barrier and the sufficient hight and wideness.
 * What does "stability of the electrons in an atom" mean? Obviously not the stability of the separate orbitals against each other which is explained (partly) by PEP (see next paragraphs in article). Also not the stability of an electron against some decay. So it could mean not falling into the nucleus. But calling that "stability of the electrons in an atom" is at least misleading.
 * It is not necessary to use the uncertainty principle for the increase of kinetic energy coming with a close approach, simple newtonian physics is sufficient.
 * An increase in kinetic energy explains nothing, because that energy could be get lost by emitting a photon. Maybe the necessity of a minimum momentum range and therewith speed range is meant because of the higher certainty about location.
 * Still this is no explanation: How then do protons and neutrons stay in the nucleus? Maybe the low mass of the electron is part of the explanation: low mass means higher speed to momentum relation.
 * Even with a high speed range an electron location range could overlap with the nucleus (what actually would mean being in the nucleus). But lower mass means also higher energy to momentum relation. It could actually mean there is an energy barrier.
 * The barrier at least would be an explanatory hypothesis. But is it sufficient? The barrier has to be high and wide enough to prevent frequent overcoming and tunneling. Is that the case?

The last sentence ("However, stability of large systems with many electrons and many nuclei is a different matter, and requires the Pauli exclusion principle.") is even more a riddle: Tomdo08 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many electrons" could relate to the separate electron orbitals in a atom. But that is better explained in the next paragraph.
 * What does the "many nuclei" part relate to? To the fact that hulls of different atoms cannot overlap? That would be a misnomer and should be explained better anyway.
 * There are other electron systems one could think about, but that should be better defined to be useful. At least the overlapping of position or the identity of attributes should be referenced in some way.

 * Maybe the explanation for electrons not falling into the nucleus (part of the stability of an atom) should be placed somewhere else and referenced here. Maybe it could be put into Atom; maybe a new article about electron hulls or matter stability would be right. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I suggest that the first sentence be re-written to talk about why the electron of a single hydrogen atom does not fall into its nucleus. That does not use the PEP. Rather for non-relativistic electrons the (negative) potential energy goes as O(1/r) and the (positive) kinetic energy [E=p^2/2m] goes as O(1/r^2) as r->0. Consequently, the energy has a minimum at some radius 0<r<+∞. This uses the fact that due to the uncertainty principle the absolute value of the momentum must be at least of O(1/r) and kinetic energy is proportional to the square of that.
 * For bulk matter, the volume available to an electron is 2V/N where V is the total volume and N is the number of electrons. Here PEP is used to show that the electrons of the same spin cannot share space. Then the previous argument applies to show that a balance between kinetic and potential energy requires a non-zero size.
 * The last two sentences of the section should be dropped. Formation of bosons is not required to explain black holes. When the attractive force becomes strong enough, the electrons become relativistic, in which case, the kinetic energy [E=pc-mc^2] goes as O(1/r) instead of O(1/r^2). So potential energy can win out over kinetic energy at any radius, and nothing stops collapse. Eventually, electrons and protons combine to form neutrons to reduce the kinetic energy. But even PEP between neutrons cannot avert collapse when the force is strong enough. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This section is essentially based on Lieb's article (reference 3). The first paragraph is an attempt to simplify material from Lieb, sections 2.1 and 2.2. Perhaps it can be better explained, but any changes should still be based on Lieb unless some other source is given. Dirac66 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Violations
What about molecules that violate the Pauli principal? Citation: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/67/1/012033 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.255.117 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I have moved this new section to the end. The paper you cite does not report evidence that the Pauli principle is violated. It reports a search for such evidence, in an experiment which was more sensitive than previous searches. According to the abstract, the parameter 1/2β2, which is a measure of any possible violation, has an [upper] limit of 4.5 × 10−28. There is no lower limit, which means that the result is consistent with zero. We can therefore continue to consider that there is no violation of the Pauli principle, unless and until some future experiment proves a result different from zero. Dirac66 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental property of matter?
Is the Pauli principle itself a fundamental property of matter (as far as we know), or is it caused by some other more fundamental property (or properties)? Please add. -- 77.189.26.217 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I think the article is already about as clear as it can be on this: the Pauli exclusion principle is equivalent to (or a direct result of) the antisymmetry of a fermion's quantum-mechanical wavefunction. There's not much room for something more fundamental than that within the current framework of quantum theory.  Quondum talkcontr 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How to make this page useful
There should be a place on the internet where the abstract reasoning of the Pauli Exclusion Principle should be explained, unfortunately this is not the place. There are two conceptual aspects that this page should be designed around, first the history, why [for instance] the need to define electron probability distributions (i.e. orbitals) that drove its discovery. However the second and more important principle separate behavior of particles with half spins from particles with integer spins (bosons).

The underlying abstract principle is that Pauli-exclusion statistics applies to particles with half spins (e.g. the statistcal size of an electron, proton or neutron is considerable smaller than the composites they form (Atoms and atomic neucleus) because of repulsion required to maintain symmetry statistics.

But the math used to explain symmetry statistics in this article is awful, and this comes from someone who has written several science articles involving advanced statistical techniques. If I don't follow your argument past the first sentence, you cannot expect lay readers to follow it either,

The rule here is if the individual needs to spend more than a few seconds to figure out the meaning of a modest size sentence, they have already left the page

" The Pauli exclusion principle with a single-valued many-particle wavefunction is equivalent to requiring the wavefunction to be antisymmetric. "

How do you define symmetry? Is it defined by spatial postioning, spin, momentum? What precisely do you mean by antisymmetrical? There are a dozen different ways to break symmetry, there is mirror symmetry, axial symmetry, radial symmetry, spherical symmetry,rotational symetry (such as the highest orbitals of the benzene ring), thus there are 100s of ways to be antisymetrical.

" An antisymmetric two-particle state is represented as a sum of states in which one particle is in state $$\scriptstyle |x \rangle$$ and the other in state $$\scriptstyle |y\rangle$$:

$$ "
 * \psi\rangle = \sum_{x,y} A(x,y) |x,y\rangle

And this does not make sense, what is $$|x,y\rangle$$, is this the combined wave function statistic for the two. What does A(x,y) stand for, and what quality is being summed of x, and y?

So immediately you have lost 99.9% of the readers, and the explanation only gets worse as one moves to the next equation, the reader, bored to tears, has already clicked on something to see if they could link to Adolf Hitler in 3 more links.

I think the key point is that symmetry is maintained in a spatial proximity in some existing (albeit mobile) frame, the quantum state is defined in space/time (as faulty as this mode of definition is prone to be in a heisenberg context). True spatial symmetry does not exist at the atomic size level, that needs to be defined, but statistical symmetry, the tendency for particles to coexist in a very rough, statistically definable. What was attempted above and failed, was to define that statistical symmetry. Heisenberg noted that it is impossible to define a simulataneous position/momentum, and therefore even within orbitals such spatial symmetry does not exist outside of a range. In other words, the range parameter has a meaning that is not explained, as a consequence the user will not be able to follow this.

The classical question would be why do not electrons simply lay on the atomic nucleus, since negatively charged particles are attracted to the positively charged nucleus. Even when helium is condensed at absolute zero, its atoms maintain distance between electrons in the various orbitals, thus even though the symmetry is not true perfect symmetry, the need to maintain it is sufficient at the lowest energy state for certain stable particles. Thus the need to maintain symmetry is an observation of nature.

The second key question is why does symmetry need to be maintained and how does this pertain with particles with 1/2 spins. The answer is that electrons within the atom are driven to maintain a certain level of angular momentum (rotational energy) to statistically maintain distance from one another but also from the nucleus. The diamond I think is a perfect example for defining this type of issue, while diamond is the hardest and therefore stiffest molecule known to mankind (excluding the surfaces of dense boson such as neutron stars), both the electrons, their orbitals and the atoms within the nuclei are wobbling in space, but they are confined because of the need to maintain symmetry there is some stasis in the sp3 orbitals of the diamond molecule, where as super cooled helium (an effective boson) exhibits super fluidity. But it is the key need to maintain spherical symmetry in the sp3 orbital and polar 'spin' symmetry of electrons in those 'orbitals' that defines the strength of the diamond C-C bond. Thus symmetry is observed preference in arrangement of electrons as a key observation, placing particles with identical half 'spin' in the same quantum 'aspect' causes symmetry to cancel, resulting in instability (I think in this case, diamond electrons would fly into space the atoms would follow negative charge and you would have very few long lasting stable molecules in the Universe). Since stability is the observation then symmetry can be explained by the need for symmetry quantum states of half 'spin'. The math needs to explain this,

Why do particles with half-polar/'spin' states apply subtraction in defining the statistic whereas bosons (with integer) spins undergo addition? This is the statistical question, that needs to be defined. What, statistically, does up and down correspond to in electrons? How does one define this, and better yet how is this explained?

Within that context fermions exist in symmetrical quantum states, the lowest level of which is spin/dipole pairing of electrons, such as those that make diamond and exceptionally resilient structure. So that the spatial and momentum features of the quantum state have particular symmetry aspects. If you are generically referring to those symmetry aspects, then define that. PB666 yap 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This page Quantum superposition gives a partial explanation of the quantum statistics. This page is not without its descriptive oversights, also[Note I have neither written or edited the page]]. The way I veiw the problem of 'spin' is that an electrons wavefunction can be in any infinite number of states lets say between 0 and -1 but the average state is -1/2, then any other electron sharing the same orbital 'heisenberg' locality can be in states 0 to 1 averaging 1/2. If one electron tries to stray in the direction of the others 'exact' 4 component wave function, the other will respond by either pushing it back or flipping, so that there is an infinitely small period of time in which the two occupy the same state, a state in which one or the other would be close to zero. According to quantum superposition, an electron can occupy an infinite number of states (according to the same theory an electrons outside orbital dimensions are the universe) but the observed state is the probability density profile (point spin in this case, Point particle,elementary particle ), in other words it can simultaneous be described in the 1/2 up (or down) and the probability density of an electron between '0 to 1' wave function at the same time. Thus according to this theory when measuring wavefunction within an orbital the superposition would infer that there was always a difference of 1 between the states, even though this may vary on quantum time scales (a few magnitudes above planks time). The problem with defining locality and what makes spin an abstract state of matter is the uncertainty principle leaves locality always relative and statistical in its self, so the very nature of 'spin' states is in reference to the local of that atom. We can only see the affects of electron spin through the laws of mass action as it applies to chemistry (e.g. bond angles of atoms, bond lengths, crystal structure, etc) using techniques like circular dichroism and xray crystallography, thus quantum fluctuations are zeroed out of the final product.

The point: some better background details of the quantum statistics and terminology used needs to be applied to the page, other wise simply remove the mathematics and use a verbal explanation. If one is not going to explain the 'lingua franca' of quantum mathematics, the equations are virtually useless. Certainly if you applied this lingo in statistics of gene frequencies, no-one would understand it. Which means that the statistics used has a limited scope within mathematics, and this means it needs (as in absolutely must have) to be fleshed out with an adequate description.

I will check back in on this page in a month or so. PB666 yap 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one electron per state.
Just a note to reassure editor 31.18.248.254 whose edit summary indicated uncertainty. Yes, the rule is one electron per state. And I agree that the sentence you modified is clearer with your addition of the word electron. This word does now appear three times in the sentence, but I think that in this case the repetition is helpful. Dirac66 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In an atom, or all electrons?
The Pauli exclusion principle applies to all electrons as they are indistinguishable. I refer to the wikipedia article on identical particles.
 * "Even if the particles have equivalent physical properties, there remains a second method for distinguishing between particles, which is to track the trajectory of each particle. As long as we can measure the position of each particle with infinite precision (even when the particles collide), there would be no ambiguity about which particle is which. The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics. According to quantum theory, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements. Instead, they are governed by wavefunctions that give the probability of finding a particle at each position. As time passes, the wavefunctions tend to spread out and overlap. Once this happens, it becomes impossible to determine, in a subsequent measurement, which of the particle positions correspond to those measured earlier. The particles are then said to be indistinguishable."

And this source http://www.hep.manchester.ac.uk/u/forshaw/BoseFermi/Double%20Well.html Wolfmankurd (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The example is given for an atom. If there are two separate atoms, nothing prevents an electron in one atom to be in the same state (i.e. posses the same quantum numbers) as the electron in another atom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Headbomb is correct. But I will add an example just to make the point clearer for Wolfmankurd. Consider a system of ten helium atoms in some volume. If the first He atom has its two electrons in its 1s orbital, do you really think the second He atom must have its two electrons in its 2s orbital, and the third He atom must have its two electrons in its 2p subshell, and so on?? In the real ground state of the system, each He atom has two electrons in its own 1s orbital. Dirac66 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument made in the link I gave is that they would be in the ground state but the associated energy levels would be different. I understand chemists often use orbital and energy interchangeably but that's not the case. The difference it's calculated and shown to be minuscule calculated particle in a box style( or well two particles in two boxes). Another argument made is that while we consider electrons localised to different atoms to be distinguishable in reality they are indistinguishable especially after a while when the wave functions will spread and overlap. Since the Pauli exclusion principle states that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state. And electrons are identical they must all have at least subtle different energy levels. Wolfmankurd (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is not clear enough on this. Wolfmankurd is obviously correct in saying that as electrons are identical, no two electrons can occupy the same state, and I think that the wording of the example should not leave something like this unclear. An electron in the 1s orbital of atom A is not in the same state as the 1s orbital of atom B: location comes into the definition of a state. The wording should ideally reflect this dependence of the state on position. The problem is that the "four quantum numbers" are not sufficient to specify the state; a further "quantum number" (giving which atom) must be given.  I had intended this to be implicit in my wording, but it is still not clear.  This is complicated by that the eigenstates of a separated pair of identical atoms are not the eigenstates of single atoms.  Could we look for a wording that makes it more obvious to the reader that in the example, where the electron is contributes to its state? Our objective here is to explain to the reader, not only to the OP. Should we start the example with "For example, in an isolated atom..."? —Quondum 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to use these words instead of "for a given atom", since it is really for an isolated atom that the state of an electron is specified by four quantum numbers. For an ensemble of atoms, the correct description would be given by band theory in which orbitals on different atoms overlap slightly and form an energy band. However for a gas at low pressure, the overlap and the bandwidth are negligible. And all this is too complicated for the introduction of this article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the change; the wording sort of sidesteps the problem of interpreting contexts with more electrons, but seems correct to me. It is probably worthwhile keeping the example in the lead simple at the expense of not giving much insight into when more electrons are to be considered.  If this can still be misinterpreted, feel free to comment.  —Quondum 18:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pauli did not discuss fermions in 1925
The article should reflect this. V8rik (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, he started in 1925 with electrons of course. Do you know when it was first proposed that the exclusion principle refers to all particles of half-integral spin? That information should be in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * more info is missing, the original citation for instance: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02980631. Did some googling but I was unable to find out who coined the phrase fermion and when. Possibly Dirac. V8rik (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work finding that source - I encourage you to include it in the article. And the word Elektronengruppen in the title confirms that he was thinking of only one type of particle. Perhaps we should just say that the extension to all fermions was "later", at least until someone finds the exact reference. Dirac66 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now corrected the intro to say that the principle was stated for electrons in 1925 and all fermions in 1940 with the spin-statistics theorem. I have also added the original 1925 citation given above by V8rik at the end of the History section. Finally the answer who coined fermion is in the Fermion article - it was indeed Dirac, in 1945. However I don't think this information is needed in this article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pauli: Nuclear forces are anisotropic?

 * I am trying to understand how the four fundamental forces (strong nuclear, electromagentic, weak nuclear, gravity) relate to covalent bonding. The webpage I look at points at the Pauli exclusion principle and the haze of chemistry. In chemistry you learn that there are s orbitals, p orbitals, yadda yadda. Isnt all this just saying that nuclear forces are anisotropic or not isometric while electrostatic and gravitational forces are isotropic or isometric? Mrdthree (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pauli exclusion principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66YZ6UWkA?url=http://www.physics.kku.ac.th/estructure/files/Langmuir_1919_AEA.pdf to http://www.physics.kku.ac.th/estructure/files/Langmuir_1919_AEA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing Comma
Since nonrelativistically, particles can have any statistics and any spin, there is no way to prove a spin-statistics theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

Should this read "Since, nonrelativistically, particles can have any statistics and any spin, there is no way to prove a spin-statistics theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics."? Professor Bernard (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Um, where do you see this sentence in the article? Dirac66 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 * The sentence occurs further up on this talk page. Its punctuation has marginal relevance to improving the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantum system
The introduction has a link to quantum system, which links to quantum mechanics, which doesn't say what a "quantum system" is. Is there a better link to explain the term? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 * A quantum system is a system which obeys (the laws of) quantum mechanics. So I would suggest modifying the end of the first sentence to read "... cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously within a system which obeys the law of quantum mechanics." Dirac66 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Dirac66 (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pauli exclusion principle


text:
Talk:Colin Powell

error identifying war: I think the country South Viet Nam, not South Korea
As a lieutenant colonel commanding 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry in South Korea, Powell was very close to his division commander, Major General Henry "Gunfighter" Emerson, whom he regarded as one of the most caring officers he ever met. Emerson insisted his troops train at night to fight a possible North Korean attack, and made them repeatedly watch the television film Brian's Song to promote racial harmony. 2603:6010:62F0:240:A43B:7952:CC60:60E6 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-arranging the infobox template
I think personal details should be moved to the top. I understand he was notable for the positions he held, but having to scroll down to his D.O.B. and other details seems almost disrespectful. What are others views on this? MaximusEditor (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself two questions:

 * 1) What does the WP:MOS say?
 * 2) How are similar infoboxes constructed?
 * That's where you'll find solutions, or at least get closer. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good advice, thank you @Valjean MaximusEditor (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Word/Spelling Correction
In the second to last sentence in the second paragraph, it states “…many command and staff positions and riding to the rank of four-star general.” I believe the word “riding” should be edited to read “rising”. 2600:6C60:4D00:7BD:3187:F4FF:7D03:D72A (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅ ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit to text in segment concerning Powell's death...
"President Joe Biden and four of the five living former presidents issued statements calling Powell as an American hero."

Should be corrected to "calling Powell an American hero." Brad Parsa (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Colin Powell was not a “politician.” He never ran for any office. 2601:183:4880:EFC0:180A:1C5A:2980:C71A (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Colin Powell


text:
Talk:Greek mythology

Ancient feature of Incest
Incest is heriditarily had the human of present world.how was the scenerio of Incest in ancient age? 103.90.1.66 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023
At the beginning where it says "the lives and activities of deities, heroes, and mythological creatures, and the origins and significance of the ancient Greeks' own cult and ritual practices." 2600:1700:9580:845F:3D24:F30C:ABE0:76DB (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 73.70.236.52 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024
Citation 3 "Greek Mythology" leads to "Page not found". Removing the trailing slash from the link fixes it. Compare the original link with the modified one below: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Greek-mythology/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Greek-mythology Classic theory (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Fixed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Religion not mythology
Who called it mythology? It was their religion, their faith and their Gods the Greeks were praying to. It is wrong and unfair to call it mythology. 49.190.240.166 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The ancient Greek peoples, like many other ancient peoples, had both a set of more or less common religious practices, rituals and beliefs, which we call their "religion" (see Ancient Greek religion) and a set of more or less common myths, stories, folklore, and legends, which we call their "mythology". The latter is what this article is about. While there is some not inconsiderable overlap between the two, they are considered to be distinct. So as regards "their religion" we are not as you assert calling it mythology. Paul August ☎ 12:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085
— Assignment last updated by Irlandacruz (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greek mythology


text:
SVS

SVS may refer to:

Technology

 * Advanced Space Vision System, a computer vision system for the ISS
 * OS/VS2 (SVS), a precursor of MVS
 * ScanScope Virtual Slide, a medical image file format (".svs" suffix)
 * Software Virtualization Solution, by Symantec
 * Supply Voltage Supervisor, an electronic protective device
 * Surround-View System, a synonym of omniview technology in assisted driving systems.
 * Synthetic vision system for aircraft

Organizations and companies

 * Second Viennese School
 * Society for Vascular Surgery
 * Sudbury Valley School
 * State Veterinary Service, UK
 * Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, US
 * Svenska Vitterhetssamfundet, Swedish publisher

Transport

 * Seven Sisters station, London, England, National Rail station code
 * Stevens Village Airport, IATA code

Other uses

 * Standard VIE Settings, of SubSpace video game
 * Specific Area Message Encoding, US emergency weather event code
 * S. V. Sahasranamam, Indian actor
 * Schwartz Value Survey, a personality test

title: SVS


text:
USS Mustin

USS Mustin may refer to:

 * USS Mustin (DD-413), was a Sims-class destroyer during World War II
 * USS Mustin (DDG-89), is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer guided missile destroyer currently in active service

title: USS Mustin


text:
Playwright

A playwright or dramatist is a person who writes plays which are a form of drama that primarily consists of dialogue between characters and is intended for theatrical performance rather than mere reading. Ben Jonson coined the term "playwright" and is the first person in English literature to refer to playwrights as separate from poets.

The earliest playwrights in Western literature with surviving works are the Ancient Greeks. William Shakespeare is one of the most famous playwrights in English literature.

Etymology
The word "play" is from Middle English pleye, from Old English plæġ, pleġa, plæġa ("play, exercise; sport, game; drama, applause"). The word wright is an archaic English term for a craftsperson or builder (as in a wheelwright or cartwright). The words combine to indicate a person who has "wrought" words, themes, and other elements into a dramatic form—a play. (The homophone with "write" is coincidental.)

The first recorded use of the term "playwright" is from 1605, 73 years before the first written record of the term "dramatist". It appears to have been first used in a pejorative sense by Ben Jonson to suggest a mere tradesman fashioning works for the theatre.

Jonson uses the word in his Epigram 49, which is thought to refer to John Marston or Thomas Dekker:

 * Epigram XLIX — On Playwright
 * PLAYWRIGHT me reads, and still my verses damns,
 * He says I want the tongue of epigrams ;
 * I have no salt, no bawdry he doth mean ;
 * For witty, in his language, is obscene.
 * Playwright, I loath to have thy manners known
 * In my chaste book ; I profess them in thine own.

Jonson described himself as a poet, not a playwright, since plays during that time were written in meter and so were regarded as the province of poets. This view was held as late as the early 19th century. The term "playwright" later again lost this negative connotation.

Early playwrights
The earliest playwrights in Western literature with surviving works are the Ancient Greeks. These early plays were for annual Athenian competitions among play writers held around the 5th century BC. Such notables as Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes established forms still relied on by their modern counterparts. We have complete texts extant by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. The origins of Athenian tragedy remain obscure, though by the 5th century it was institutionalised in competitions (agon) held as part of festivities celebrating Dionysos (the god of wine and fertility). As contestants in the City Dionysia's competition (the most prestigious of the festivals to stage drama), playwrights were required to present a tetralogy of plays (though the individual works were not necessarily connected by story or theme), which usually consisted of three tragedies and one satyr play.

For the ancient Greeks, playwriting involved poïesis, "the act of making". This is the source of the English word poet.

Despite Chinese Theatre having performers dated back to the 6th century BC with You Meng, their perspective of theatre was such that plays had no other role than "performer" or "actor", but given that the performers were also the ones who invented their performances, they could be considered a form of playwright.

Outside of the Western world there is Indian classical drama, with one of the oldest known playwrights being Śudraka, whose attributed plays can be dated to the second century BC. The Nāṭya Shāstra, a text on the performing arts from between 500BC-500AD, categorizes playwrights as being among the members of a theatre company, although playwrights were generally the highest in social status, with some being kings.

Aristotle's Poetics techniques
In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle wrote his Poetics, in which he analyzed the principle of action or praxis as the basis for tragedy. He then considered elements of drama: plot (μύθος mythos), character (ἔθος ethos), thought (dianoia), diction (lexis), music (melodia), and spectacle (opsis). Since the myths on which Greek tragedy were based were widely known, plot had to do with the arrangement and selection of existing material. Character was determined by choice and by action. Tragedy is mimesis—"the imitation of an action that is serious". He developed his notion of hamartia, or tragic flaw, an error in judgment by the main character or protagonist, which provides the basis for the "conflict-driven" play.

Medieval
There were also a number of secular performances staged in the Middle Ages, the earliest of which is The Play of the Greenwood by Adam de la Halle in 1276. It contains satirical scenes and folk material such as faeries and other supernatural occurrences. Farces also rose dramatically in popularity after the 13th century. The majority of these plays come from France and Germany and are similar in tone and form, emphasizing sex and bodily excretions.

The best known playwright of farces is Hans Sachs (1494–1576) who wrote 198 dramatic works. In England, The Second Shepherds' Play of the Wakefield Cycle is the best known early farce. However, farce did not appear independently in England until the 16th century with the work of John Heywood (1497–1580).

Playwright William Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted. Most playwrights of the period typically collaborated with others at some point, as critics agree Shakespeare did, mostly early and late in his career. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

In England, after the interregnum, and Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, there was a move toward neoclassical dramaturgy. Between the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the end of the 17th century, classical ideas were in vogue. As a result, critics of the time mostly rated Shakespeare below John Fletcher and Ben Jonson. This period saw the first professional woman playwright, Aphra Behn.

As a reaction to the decadence of Charles II era productions, sentimental comedy grew in popularity. Playwrights like Colley Cibber and Richard Steele believed that humans were inherently good but capable of being led astray.

Neo-classical theory
The Italian Renaissance brought about a stricter interpretation of Aristotle, as this long-lost work came to light in the late 15th century. The neoclassical ideal, which was to reach its apogee in France during the 17th century, dwelled upon the unities, of action, place, and time. This meant that the playwright had to construct the play so that its "virtual" time would not exceed 24 hours, that it would be restricted to a single setting, and that there would be no subplots. Other terms, such as verisimilitude and decorum, circumscribed the subject matter significantly. For example, verisimilitude limits of the unities. Decorum fitted proper protocols for behavior and language on stage. In France, contained too many events and actions, thus, violating the 24-hour restriction of the unity of time. Neoclassicism never had as much traction in England, and Shakespeare's plays are directly opposed to these models, while in Italy, improvised and bawdy commedia dell'arte and opera were more popular forms.

One structural unit that is still useful to playwrights today is the "French scene", which is a scene in a play where the beginning and end are marked by a change in the makeup of the group of characters onstage rather than by the lights going up or down or the set being changed.

Notable playwrights:

 * Pierre Corneille (1606–84)
 * Molière (1622–73)
 * Jean Racine (1639–99)

Cretan Renaissance theatre
Greek theater was alive and flourishing on the island of Crete. During the Cretan Renaissance two notable Greek playwrights Georgios Chortatzis and Vitsentzos Kornaros were present in the latter part of the 16th century.

19th century
The plays of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, and other Sturm und Drang playwrights inspired a growing faith in feeling and instinct as guides to moral behavior and were part of the German romanticism movement. Aleksandr Ostrovsky was Russia's first professional playwright).

Contemporary playwrights in the United States
Author and playwright Agatha Christie wrote The Moustrap, a murder mystery play which is the longest-running West End show, it has by far the longest run of any play in the world, with its 29,500th performance having taken place as of February 2024.

Contemporary playwrights in the United States are affected by recent declines in theatre attendence. No longer the only outlet for serious drama or entertaining comedies, theatrical productions must use ticket sales as a source of income, which has caused many of them to reduce the number of new works being produced. For example, Playwrights Horizons produced only six plays in the 2002–03 seasons, compared with thirty-one in 1973–74. Playwrights commonly encounter difficulties in getting their shows produced and often cannot earn a living through their plays alone, leading them to take up other jobs to supplement their incomes.

Many playwrights are also film makers. For instance, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock began his career as a playwright, winning awards for his play The Phoenix at both the New York International Fringe Festival in 1999 and the Route 66 American Playwriting Competition in 2000.

New play development
Today, theatre companies have new play development programs meant to develop new American voices in playwriting. Many regional theatres have hired dramaturges and literary managers in an effort to showcase various festivals for new work, or bring in playwrights for residencies. Funding through national organizations, such as the National Endowment for the Arts and the Theatre Communications Group, encouraged the partnerships of professional theatre companies and emerging playwrights.

Playwrights will often have a cold reading of a script in an informal sitdown setting, which allows them to evaluate their own plays and the actors performing them. Cold reading means that the actors haven't rehearsed the work, or may be seeing it for the first time, and usually, the technical requirements are minimal. The O'Neill Festival offers summer retreats for young playwrights to develop their work with directors and actors.

Playwriting collectives like 13P and Orbiter 3 gather members together to produce, rather than develop, new works. The idea of the playwriting collective is in response to plays being stuck in the development process and never advancing to production.

title: Playwright


text:
Solidarity Electoral Action

Solidarity Electoral Action (Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność, AWS) was a coalition of political parties in Poland, active from 1996 to 2001. AWS was the political arm of the Solidarity trade union, whose leader Lech Wałęsa (also an AWS member), was President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, and the successor of the parties emerged from the fragmentation of the Solidarity Citizens' Committee.

The coalition was led by Marian Krzaklewski and Jerzy Buzek, who was Prime Minister of Poland from 1997 to 2001.

Today's main parties in Poland, Law and Justice and Civic Platform, came out from the ashes of AWS.

History
The AWS was formed in June 1996 as a coalition of over 30 Christian-democratic, conservative and liberal political parties, mostly from the Solidarity Citizens' Committee, the Solidarity trade union's political wing. Among them, there were the Christian National Union, the Party of Christian Democrats, the Centre Agreement, the Conservative People's Party (formed in January 1997), the Peasants' Agreement, the Movement for the Republic (until 1997), the Nonpartisan Bloc for Support of Reforms (until 1997) and the Confederation of Independent Poland (until 1998 and again since 2001). AWS's founding leader was Marian Krzaklewski, who was also the leader of the Solidarity trade union, having succeeded to Lech Wałęsa in 1991.

In the 1997 parliamentary election the AWS obtained 33.8% of the vote, 201 members of the Sejm and 51 of the Senate. After the election, AWS' member Jerzy Buzek formed a coalition government, which comprised also the liberal Freedom Union.

In December 1997 a new party, Social Movement (RS) was formed. It was joined by Krzaklewski, Buzek and several other non-party independents recommended by the Solidarity trade union and/or former members of the Solidarity Citizens' Committee. Consequently, the Social Movement soon became the largest faction within the coalition. The other factions were those associated with the Christian National Union, the Party of Christian Democrats and the Conservative People's Party. In 1998 the Confederation of Independent Poland and a group that would form the Polish Agreement were excluded from the coalition. From these groups, the League of Polish Families would later be formed. In 1999 the Party of Christian Democrats, the Centre Agreement and the Movement for the Republic merged into the Polish Christian Democratic Agreement.

Reforms relating to domestic affairs, the entry to NATO in 1999 and the accession process to the European Union led to conflicts within the coalition.

In June 2000 the Freedom Union broke its alliance with the AWS and Buzek continued to govern at the head of a minority government.

In the 2000 presidential election Krzaklewski was AWS' official candidate and won 15.6% of the vote, but a large chunk of the coalition, especially activists from the more liberal Conservative People's Party, had supported the independent candidate Andrzej Olechowski, who won 17.3% of the vote. As a result, Aleksander Kwaśniewski of the post-communist Democratic Left Alliance was elected president; Krzaklewski resigned from his position of AWS leader in December 2000 and was replaced by Buzek in January 2001.

Also in January 2001 AWS became a federation comprising the Solidarity trade union, the Social Movement, the Christian National Union, the Polish Christian Democratic Agreement and the Conservative People's Party. However, in March 2001 the Conservative People's Party withdrew from the AWS and most of it would later join Civic Platform, which had been established in January 2001 by Olechowski, AWS splinter Maciej Płażyński and Freedom Union's Donald Tusk. More importantly, in May the Solidarity trade union withdrew too. In June most of the structure of the Centre Agreement, which was originally a member of the AWS, along with right-wing dissidents from other AWS constituent parties formed Law and Justice, under the leadership of Jarosław Kaczyński and Lech Kaczyński. Between May and July the AWS had included the Movement for Reconstruction of Poland, which would later be associated with the League of Polish Families.

In the 2001 parliamentary election the AWS was formed mainly of four components: the Social Movement, the Christian National Union, the Polish Christian Democratic Agreement and the Confederation of Independent Poland. The coalition won 5.6% and no seats, as the electoral threshold was 8%.

Most of the remaining AWS members later joined either Civic Platform (these included both Krzaklewski and Buzek; the latter has been a member of the European Parliament since 2004 and was its President in 2009–2012) or Law and Justice. In 2002 the Polish Christian Democratic Agreement was merged into what remained of the Conservative People's Party. In 2004 the latter and the Social Movement were replaced by the Centre Party. The Conservative People's Party was revived in 2007 and lasted until 2014, when it became part of Poland Together. The Christian National Union, most of whose members had joined the League of Polish Families, was active until 2010. Poland Together was transformed into Agreement in 2017.

International relations
The International Republican Institute, a United States federal government-funded organisation loosely associated with the United States Republican Party, claims credit for having played a major role in uniting the different political parties which came together to create the AWS. It claims to have provided training in political campaigning, communications training and research which helped organise and create the AWS. It also states that once the AWS was in government, it organised an advertising campaign for the Polish government in order to stop the AWS splitting up over internal tensions: "IRI initiated a post-election program that emphasized media and communications training for Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek's chancellory and cabinet".

title: Solidarity Electoral Action


text:
Polish People's Party

The Polish People's Party (Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe, PSL) is an agrarian political party in Poland. It is currently led by Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz.

Its history traces back to 1895, when it held the name People's Party, although its name was changed to the present one in 1903. During the Second Polish Republic, the Polish People's Party was represented by a number of parties that held its name. They were all supportive of agrarian policies, although they spanned from the left-wing to the centre-right on the political spectrum. It was reformed to the People's Party shortly after the Sanacja regime took power. It took part into the formation of Polish government-in-exile during the World War II, and after the war it was again reformed into the Polish People's Party, and soon after into the United People's Party. During the existence of the Polish People's Republic, it was seen as a satellite party of the ruling Polish United Workers' Party that promoted rural interests. After the fall of communism, it participated in the governments led by the Democratic Left Alliance. In the mid-2000s, it began shifting more to the centre-right and it adopted more conservative policies. It entered in the government again following the 2007 parliamentary election, and since 2015 it has served in the opposition.

Today, it is positioned in the centre and leans towards the centre-right,  and besides holding agrarian and conservative views,  it is also Christian democratic,  and supports Poland's membership in the European Union. It currently has 19 seats in the Sejm and two seats in the Senate. On national level, it heads the Polish Coalition and on European level, it is a part of the European People's Party.

Before 1945
The party's name traces its tradition to an agrarian party in Austrian-controlled Kingdom of Galicia, which sent MPs to the parliament in Vienna. The party was formed in 1895 in the Polish town of Rzeszów under the name Stronnictwo Ludowe (People's Party). The party changed its name in 1903 to what it's known as now. The party was led by Wincenty Witos and was quite successful, seating representatives in the Galician parliament before the turn of the 19th century. In the Second Polish Republic there were a few parties named PSL (Polish People's Party "Wyzwolenie", Polish People's Party "Piast", Polish People's Party "Left" and others) until they were removed by the Sanacja regime (see also People's Party).

During this time, there were two parties using the term "Polish People's Party", namely Polish People's Party "Piast" and Polish People's Party "Wyzwolenie" (which were merged into People's Party with Stronnictwo Chłopskie). During World War II, PSL took part in forming the Polish government in exile.

Under the communist regime
In June 1945 after the war Stanisław Mikołajczyk, a PSL leader who had been Prime Minister of the Polish government in exile, returned to communist-dominated Poland, where he joined the provisional government and rebuilt PSL. The party hoped to win the Yalta Conference-mandated elections and help establish a parliamentary system in Poland. However, the party soon found itself targeted with intimidation, arrests and violence by the communist secret police.

The communists also formed a rival ersatz 'Peasants' party' controlled by them, in order to confuse voters. The January 1947 parliamentary election was heavily rigged, with the communist-controlled bloc claiming to have won 80 percent of the vote. The PSL were said to have won just 10 percent of the vote, but many neutral observers believe the PSL would have won the election had it been conducted fairly.

Mikołajczyk was soon compelled to flee Poland for his life in October 1947. The communists then forced the remains of Mikołajczyk's PSL to unite with the pro-communist People's Party to form the United People's Party. The ZSL was a governing partner in the ruling coalition.

Post-communist period (1990–2003)
Around the time of the fall of communism several PSLs were recreated, including Porozumienie Ludowe, Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe-Odrodzenie, and Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe (Wilanów faction). In 1989 most merged into one party and took part in forming the first postwar noncommunist government in Poland with the Solidarity grouping, and in 1990 changed its name to PSL.

It remained on the left of Polish politics in the 1990s, entering into coalitions with the postcommunist Democratic Left Alliance. In the 2001 parliamentary elections, PSL received 9% of votes and formed a coalition with the Democratic Left Alliance, an alliance which later broke down. Since then, PSL has moved towards more centrist and conservative policies.

Opposition years (2003–2007)
The party ran in the 2004 European Parliament election as part of the European People's Party (EPP) and received 6% of the vote, giving it four of 54 Polish seats in the European Parliament. In the 2005 general election, the party received 7% of votes, giving it 25 seats in the Sejm and two in the Senate. In the 2007 parliamentary elections, the party placed fourth, with 8.93% of the vote and 31 out of 460 seats, and entered into a governing coalition with the victor, the centre-right conservative Civic Platform. In European parliament elections PSL received 7.01% of votes in 2009. In the 2011 national parliamentary election, Polish People's Party received 8.36% votes which gave them 28 seats in the Sejm and two mandates in the Senate.

Coalition government (2007–2015)
After the parliamentary elections in 2007, PSL won 8.91% of the popular vote and 31 seats, it joined the government coalition led by Civic Platform. Waldemar Pawlak was appointed deputy prime minister, Marek Sawicki was appointed as agriculture minister, and Jolanta Fedak was appointed as labor minister. In the 2009 European Parliament election, it won 3 seats. After the Smolensk air disaster, presidential elections were held in which Pawlak placed fifth, winning 1.75% of the vote. In the second round they didn't state their support for anyone.

In the 2010 local government elections, PSL obtained 16.3% of the votes in the elections to voivodship assemblies, in which it received 93 seats. In the Świętokrzyskie sejmik, the party received the most seats. In all parliamentary assemblies, PSL found itself in ruling coalitions with the PO, in four voivodeships receiving the positions of marshals. In the elections to poviat councils, the PSL committee obtained 15.88%, and in the elections to municipal councils 11% of the votes. The PSL won the largest number of village leaders (428) and mayors in the country, and in Zgierz, the party's candidate won the presidential election. In 2011, a PiS senator defected to PSL.

In the parliamentary elections of 2011, PSL obtained 8.36% of votes on the list of candidates for the Sejm. The party also won two seats in the Senate. Eugeniusz Grzeszczak became the deputy speaker of the Sejm on behalf of the PSL. PSL again became a partner of the PO in the government coalition. On December 7, 2011, as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Arkadiusz Bratkowski, a PSL politician, assumed a mandate in the European Parliament.

In July 2012, Stanisław Kalemba replaced Marek Sawicki as the minister of agriculture and rural development. Pawlak was defeated during the presidential election by Janusz Piechociński. Two days later, Waldemar Pawlak announced his resignation as deputy prime minister and minister of economy. He was dismissed from both functions on November 27. On December 6, both these offices were taken over by Janusz Piechociński.

In January 2014, PSL decided to establish cooperation with SKL and Samoobrona, but SKL already in February announced that Jarosław Gowin joined Poland Together, and the PSL talks about a joint election campaign with Samoobrona did not end with an agreement. In March, MP Andrzej Dąbrowski left PSL. The party's candidate in the 2015 presidential election was the marshal of the Świętokrzyskie Province, party vice president Adam Jarubas. He placed 6th, obtaining 238,761 votes. Before the second round, PSL was involved in the campaign of the then-incumbent President Bronisław Komorowski.

In Opposition (2015–2023)
At the 2015 parliamentary election, the PSL dropped to 5.13 percent of the vote, just barely over the 5 percent threshold. With 16 seats, it was the smallest of the five factions in the Sejm.

Since then PSL has lost even more support to PiS during the 2018 Polish local elections when they lost 87 seats and dropped to 12.07% unlike the 23.9% they got at the last local elections. After this, the party became a junior partner in coalition with the Civic Coalition and SLD.

In 2019 European election, PSL won 3 seats as a part of the European Coalition.

For parliamentary elections in the same year, PSL decided to create a centrist and Christian-democratic coalition called the Polish Coalition. The Polish Coalition, apart from PSL, consisted of Kukiz'15, Union of European Democrats and other liberal, catholic and regionalist organisations. The coalition managed to get 30 Sejm members elected, 20 of whom were members of PSL.

In November 2020, PSL decided to end coalition with Kukiz'15 due to differences on negotiations on EU budget.

Before 2023 parliamentary elections Polish Coalition formed a broader alliance with centrist Poland 2050 of Szymon Hołownia.

Coalition government (2023–present)
After the parliamentary elections in 2023, Third Way block won 14.4% of the popular vote and 65 seats, it joined the government coalition with Civic Coalition and The Left. Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz was appointed as the deputy prime minister and as a Minister of National Defense, Czesław Siekierski was appointed as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dariusz Klimczak was appointed as Minister of Infrastructure	and Krzysztof Hetman as Minister of Development and Technology. Because of the electoral succes (65 MPs) Third Way block has also participated in 2024 local getting 12.07% of the votes in the elections to voivodship assemblies, in which it received 80 seats.

Ideology
The Polish People's Party adhered to principles of social democracy and agrarian socialism during the 1990s, although it has moved towards Christian democracy in the 2000s. It was positioned on the left-wing on the political spectrum during that period. As late as 2011, the party was still described as "a left-wing party, representing an agrarian socialist agenda, although it is also known for its social conservatism". Up to 2008, the party also opposed liberalism, denouncing it as "primitive social Darwinism and warning against a liberal state where "people are subordinated to the market". After 2008, the Polish People's Party started drifting towards centrism, abandoning its criticism of economic liberalism and its agrarian socialist vision of Polish economy.

The origin of the party's pivot was in late 2000s, as the party's anti-liberal slogan was overshadowed by the one of right-wing populist Law and Justice, while agrarian socialism became the staple of the far-left Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland, which would form an anti-liberal government together with Law and Justice and League of Polish Families in 2005. PSL started cooperating with the Civic Platform at this time - a party based on liberal and conservative ideas; this forced PSL to tone down its rhetoric as to avoid attacking the anticipated future coalition partner. Political analysis of the party's rhetoric in 2006 found that the party would increasingly embrace liberalism in place of its hitherto economically left-wing program, which placed the party closer to the Civic Platform and other centre-right parties. This was in stark contrast to a fellow agrarian party Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland, which espoused conservatively socialist views.

The party's platform is strongly based on agrarianism. On social and ethical issues, PSL is attached to more social conservative values, as it opposes abortion (although it is against its criminalization, defending the current abortion law in Poland ), legalisation of same-sex marriage, euthanasia, death penalty, and soft drug decriminalisation. The party is in favour of maintaining religion lessons in public education. In 2019, the party adopted (as part of an agreement with Kukiz'15) in the party's platform direct democracy's postulates, including introducing single-member districts, electronic voting and obligatory referendums.

Moreover, during the leadership of Kosiniak-Kamysz, who took over after 2015 elections, PSL has visibly started leaning towards economic liberalism in order to gain voters in bigger cities. Kosiniak-Kamysz himself has described party's ideology as "moderately centrist" and Christian democratic.

Support
The Party's traditional support base consisted of farmers, peasants and rural voters. Voters are generally more social conservative than voters of Civic Platform. Its main competitor in rural areas is the national conservative Law and Justice (PiS).

In the 2010s the party started to lose support between rural voters (especially in southeast of Poland, e.g. Subcarpathian Voivodeship). In 2019 election PSL gained surprisingly significant support in cities and won mandates (e. g. in Warsaw and Wrocław).

Leadership
Chairman:
 * Roman Bartoszcze (1990–1991)
 * Waldemar Pawlak (1991–1997)
 * Jarosław Kalinowski (1997–2004)
 * Janusz Wojciechowski (2004–2005)
 * Waldemar Pawlak (2005–2012)
 * Janusz Piechociński (2012–2015)
 * Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz (2015–present)

title: Polish People's Party


text:
Labour Union (Poland)

Labour Union (Unia Pracy, UP) is a minor social-democratic political party in Poland. It was a member of the Party of European Socialists (PES) until April 2022.

History
Labour Union was formed in June 1992. The party contested the 1993 parliamentary elections, obtaining 7.28% of the popular vote and had 41 representatives elected to the lower house (Sejm). In the following parliamentary elections of 1997, UP received only 4.74% of votes, thereby falling short of the required 5% threshold for election to the Sejm. At the 2001 parliamentary elections, UP entered into an electoral alliance with the major Polish social-democratic party Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), and managed to get 16 of its members elected to parliament. Some of those members subsequently left UP to join the newly created Social Democracy of Poland (SDPL), a splinter group from the SLD. In May 2004, UP signed an alliance with SDPL, in which both parties agreed to jointly contest the following parliamentary elections under the SDPL banner, and to support the candidacy of Marek Borowski in the 2005 presidential election. At the 2005 parliamentary elections, SDPL gained only 3.9% of the vote, which was insufficient for the alliance to achieve parliamentary representation.

In 2006, UP joined SLD, SDPL and the liberal Democratic Party – demokraci.pl to form a centre-left electoral alliance named Left and Democrats (LiD) for the upcoming local elections. This electoral alliance was maintained for the 2007 parliamentary elections, and LiD came in third place with 13.2% of the vote, which saw 53 of its candidates elected to the Sejm. Unfortunately for UP, the party was the only one of the four component parties of the LiD alliance not to have any of its candidates elected.

In the 2011 parliamentary elections, its candidates joined the electoral lists of SLD. Again, none of them were elected.

They managed, however, to win one seat on the European Parliament elections in 2004; the party held it in the elections in 2009 and 2014.

In July 2015 the party joined the Zjednoczona Lewica (United Left) electoral alliance for the 2015 parliamentary elections. The alliance received 7.6% vote of the vote in the elections, below the 8% electoral threshold leaving it with no parliamentary representation. The alliance was dissolved in February 2016.

In the 2019 parliamentary election, Labour Union candidates ran on the Civic Coalition’s electoral lists; again, none of their candidates managed to get elected.

Leaders

 * Waldemar Witkowski
 * Marek Pol

Members of European Parliament

 * Adam Gierek (2004–2019)

Important former members

 * Ryszard Bugaj, left in 1998
 * Zbigniew Bujak, until c.1997
 * Tomasz Nałęcz, left in 2004 to newly created Social Democracy of Poland
 * Aleksander Małachowski, died January 26, 2004
 * Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka, left in 2005, founded Union of the Left

title: Labour Union (Poland)


text:
User talk:Omenge

Please try to avoid entries for acronyms--UP, for example, can stand for many things (my first thought was the Upper Peninsula of Michigan).

Welcome to the 'pedia! I took a look at your PSL article and made some changes to make it conform better to wikipedia guidelines on stub (i.e. short) articles. If you have time, could you use the PSL article as an example and convert over the other Polish pollitical parties articles? BTW, it usually isn't a good idea to have article names that are acronyms such as PSL, since there are a good many things with the same acyonym. I suggest naming this Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe and then providing what we call a link page with a link to that article on it with a very short definition. Also, take a look at the wikipedia help article on Naming conventions to get you started. Hope this helps. Cheers! --User:maveric149

Messages on youtr other talk page
Hi Olver, I've moved a message from January 2006 from the title "User talk:Oliver Menge" to User talk:Omenge/From Oliver Menge talk page. Hope you don't mind. I've also registered the Oliver Menge account. Graham 87 01:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Omenge


text:
User:Petan~enwiki

This is a userpage of user who isn't active on wikipedia anymore, if you are looking for petan from freenode network, please keep in mind that it's User:Petrb here

AKA Neo or Peter or Boyakasha!!!

title: User:Petan~enwiki


text:
UW

UW, U.W., Uw, or uw may refer to:

Canada

 * University of Waterloo, Ontario
 * University of Windsor, Ontario
 * University of Winnipeg, Manitoba

United States

 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington Bothell
 * University of Washington Tacoma
 * University of Wisconsin System
 * University of Wisconsin–Madison
 * University of Wyoming

Other countries

 * University of Warsaw, Poland
 * University of Wuppertal, Germany
 * University of Würzburg, Germany

Other uses

 * uw (digraph)
 * Uw, the international symbol for relative humidity
 * Unconventional warfare
 * Unconventional warfare (United States), a United States-specific definition of unconventional warfare used by its Department of Defense
 * Unia Wolnosci (Freedom Union), a former Polish political party from 1994 to 2005

title: UW


text:
User talk:Petan~enwiki

Well hello there newcomer! Welcome to the 'pedia. I made some minor changes to the Oulu and Marisil articles you created so that they more closely resemble standard short (aka stub) wikipedia articles. Hope this helps in the future. Cheers! --User:maveric149

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Petan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Petan~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Petan~enwiki