In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] >-----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com > >> As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have >been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because "close" is much >smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) >surface to speak of. > >You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. >Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D.
That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There are no ideal surfaces. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
