On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to [email protected]'s message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:11:31 > -0400 (EDT): > Hi, > [snip] >>Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find. >> >>I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all 3-dimensions. >> This is probably not what was intended. It is easy to find papers >>describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy >>particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only >>confined in one or two dimensions. High energy particles do not >>necessarily break the lattice structure. >> >>-- LP > > What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic energy of > 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it appears I > got > something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is 2.57 fm > for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron. > > However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think the > energy > of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think the > measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as their > actual > energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure, not a > change in the actual properties of the particle itself. > IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Harry
