In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:16:32 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] >Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as >2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not >be "true" 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in >the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of "how >3-space and 2-space are connected" in the real world. > >Jones
My point is that an Angstrom = 100000 fm. Angstrom distances also exist within a monatomic layer, between the atoms of the layer. Nuclear distances are on the order of a few fm, i.e. tens of thousands of times less than the distance between atoms. That's why there is no surface to speak of at nuclear distances, and one of the major problems of the Lawandy approach. His contention is that mirror charges can hold protons(deuterons) in place at distances close enough to enable fusion, which implies distance much less than normal inter atomic distances, yet the concept of a charge mirroring that he relies on depends upon the existence of a surface, and as just explained, at the short distances required, there is no surface, because one is "between atoms". Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
