[Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF

[Michel Jullian]

Forgive my obstinacy Robin, but admitting the proper frame should be the CMF, 
shouldn't this be the CMF of all particles involved, i.e. including those of 
the Pd "anvil"? After all, the target is not really D, but Pd(n)D, isn't it? 
And who is Charles Cagle?

"hand waving" mode: quite appropriate for a wavelength ;) Frame dependence of 
kinetic energy...good point... maybe we must use an inertial frame for COE 
(KE+PE=constant) to be applicable, which BTW points again to including the 
cathode for the center of mass frame, the CMF of just the two deuterons is 
decelerated at impact time isn't it, so you can't do proper physics in that 
frame.

Michel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus 
Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF


In reply to  Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:28:56 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>But thermal energy is actual kinetic energy isn't it, so it doesn't resolve 
>the dilemma. 

There is no dilemma to resolve.

>Infinite times a short (but finite) period of time would be infinite... no, 
>this is definitely unclear, there must exist a correct, accepted

Infinite DBW does not imply infinite chance of a reaction. If you look at QM
texts, you will see that the DBW is mostly used in "hand waving" mode.
One of the reasons for this is that it is frame dependent, and hence has an
infinite number of different values concurrently, depending on the frame of
reference (just like kinetic energy or magnetic field energy - because it is
based on velocity, which is of course frame dependent).

> way to compute these things, we just haven't found it yet, and don't have the 
> skills to tell a correct approach from an incorrect one. I don't suppose we 
> have a QM wizard on this list?(*)
>
>Regarding the frame of reference, shouldn't it be that of the cathode? We are 
>not just dealing with an isolated pair of deuterons here. The cathode is a 
>major actor in DIESECF, as the target dispenser, cooler and screener, and as a 
>massive "anvil", isn't it?

If you have one of the particles "stuck" on the cathode, then the frame of the
cathode and that particle are nearly identical. Nevertheless the proper frame
should still be the CMF. Charles Cagle is AFAIK the only person on Earth that
has figured this out so far.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.