Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That
gives ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is
13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller.
2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
I've a problem with the WL theory. I read
I mean 50V/(bohr radius)
2012/1/31 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That
gives ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is
13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller.
2012/1/31 Gigi
can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author.
maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
is it corrected in a newer version?
i confirm the computation
beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
maybe
They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
That seems correct.
Giovanni
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
author.
maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
is
I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn
more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand
their main content.
I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing
in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is
Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an
atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
working function of a metal.
2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi
for srivastava paper, equation (25) is not clear about a value
but for the 2006 w-l papers (25) they preted a value of a which does nor
match the result...
a=50nm (about bohr radius), but the computation seemes to use around a
femtometer (proton size).
anyway now all the papers, seems coherent if
We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is
what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would
oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over
the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton.
Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation
of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a
proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside
a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the
Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But
what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make
sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus.
Giovanni
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the
electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius,
~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M.
2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand
Ok,
Daniel you are right.
The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11
V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this
situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
misunderstood what the paper was discussing.
Gigi, did
: Re: [Vo]:WL
Ok,
Daniel you are right.
The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11
V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this
situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
misunderstood what the paper
Gigi,
The criticism in the link you gave doesn't seem very strong to me. The main
point was that the fields involved are two strong to be realistic. I maybe
missing something but the field density implied in the paper is about 1
electron per Bohr atom. It is true that to have such density in
’…
-Mark
** **
*From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:WL
** **
Ok,
Daniel you are right.
The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is
10^11 V
15 matches
Mail list logo
