(Fig.1) ↓ Swap two electrons → minus atom ? = Pauli ?
In fact, quantum mechanics failed in describing Pauli exclusion principle.
Pauli exclusion principle is an vague concept where two same electrons cannot occupy the same space. This "space" means hydrogen atom's orbitals.
The same electron means two electrons have the same spin, so helium must consist of two different electrons (= up-down spins ) in the same 1s hydrogen orbital.
In lithium, the third electron is kicked out to the outer 2s orbital of higher energy level. So this electron needs to be repelled by strong Pauli exclusion repulsion.
The problem is quantum mechanics does Not admit this repulsive force of Pauli principle to be real force. = Still No physical explanation about Pauli exclusion force ( this p.6, this p.3 ). This is the origin of confusion.
Old quantum mechanics just says Pauli principle is expressed as mathematical (= nonphysical ) antisymmetric wavefunction where if two electrons are exchanged, the sign of the total atomic wavefunction becomes the opposite.
In materials, more rough approximation is needed. Each electron is expressed only as nonphysical math symbol (= a†, b†, c† .. ) with No physical figure.
Pauli principle is expressed as abstract, nonphysical "anticommutation" where if two electrons are swapped, the entire sign becomes the opposite ( this p.3 ).
In these cases, when two electrons are the same wavefunction ( or symbol ), the total wavefunction becomes zero. This is the origin of Pauli exclusion force ?
There is No realistic picture here. The detailed mechanism of Pauli principle is still unknown. Quantum mechanics has avoided deeper mechanism for 100 years !
First of all, electron spin lacks reality. It needs faster-than-light rotation to generate observed magnetic field which is coincidentally equal to Bohr magneton of Bohr model.
Electron spin generates magnetic field. But quantum mechanics says Pauli exclusion force is Not force such as magnetic or electric forces. It needs "other" things.
Actually, magnetic energy by spin-spin interaction is too weak to cause strong Pauli repulsion, and more than two electrons can occupy the same orbital along the spin magnetic field. So magnetic or Coulomb force cannot explain Pauli exclusion force.
But it is unnatural and unrealistic that this strange Pauli exclusion force is not produced until we deliberately "swap" two electrons ?
Almost nobody knows Pauli principle is so nonphysical and counter-intuitive, because the current physics is full of fake news which try to make useless, unreal physics look useful and state-of-the-art. In fact, basic science made No progress for 100 years !
This old, nonphysical Pauli principle was invented 100 years ago. Quantum mechanics can solve only one-electron hydrogen atom.
In other multi-electron atoms such as helium, physicists can only choose fake approximate solution with freely-adjustable parameters, and integrate it instead of solve it (= becaue they cannot solve ).
The most rough approximation of these fake solutions is to use one-electron hydrogen orbitals also in other atoms.
In lithium, they use hydrogen 1s, 1s, 2s orbitals ( this p.7 ). When all these three electrons have the same 1s orbitals, the entire antisymmetric wavefunction becomes zero ( this p.3 ) This is the origin of Pauli exclusion principle ?
But these hydrogen solutions (= 1s, 2s ..) are Not true solutions of other multi-electron atoms.
If multi-electron atoms have the exact solutions (= though impossible ), the total energies E of symmetric and antisymmetric wavefunctions become the same, and Pauli exclusion energy is Not generated.
Only when we use unrelated hydrogen solution (= orbital ) also in other atoms as fake approximate solution, this nonphysical Pauli exclusion energy appears as exchange energy by integrating it as overlap integral.
So Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics is illusion generated by wrong physics and math.
In the current nonphysical quantum model, physics is useless, and science news need to be fake news to deceive readers.
In the second paragraph from the last of this news, they just say "There is still so much we don't know about .., We are nowhere near .. " ← still useless, nothing is realized.
This research just described some graphene using nonphysical math model with No physical shape ( this p.18 ), so meaningless research.
(Fig.2) ↓ Weyl, exciton = unreal quasiparticles. 
Quantum mechanics, which was invented 100 years ago, cannot deal with multi-electron atoms, so it has to rely on fictitious model with unreal quasiparticles with fake mass and charge.
Quantum mechanics is useless, so it needs to create "imaginary target = quantum computer" to deceive taxpayers and governments.
No progress in research on fictional quantum computer, which is said to be faster (← No proof ! ) using parallel-world computing.
If you carefully read each quantum technology news, you will notice they make No progress, just using misleading phrases to get your hopes up.
"A step towards", "aims to", "could lead to", "could revolutionize", "new path ?" All these vague phrases say only about "imaginary future", Not now.
This title consists of vague phrases "unique properties ?" "quantum material ?", which means nothing is realized now. Still useless.
They try to use unreal Weyl quasiparticle to explain some material.
The current physics tries to apply unreal quasiparticle to solar cell in vain. The last of this news just says "The researchers plan to .. ?" "scientists will be able to .. ?" ← still useless, nothing is realized.
Quantum entanglement is illusion, can send nothing faster-than-light. So the last of this news just says "We don't yet know .." "an important first step .. ?" ← still useless.
The last of this news just says "This is exactly what future quantum simulators need ?" ← Just talking about "imaginary" future, still useless now.
The first paragraph of this news just says "which could help model systems .. ?" ← still useless. They don't say a quantum computer is realized.
So all these latest researches are meaningless, realized nothing now.
2019/8/9 updated. Feel free to link to this site.
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
