Bob Higgins wrote:
A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens
of co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error,
and can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known
physics in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors
and it is a mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience.
If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the
notion of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower
Hamiltonian than H2, I want to hear it.
OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the
opposite correlation appears to be operative.
The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not
important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many
particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles
- at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system
where the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest,
presents the opportunity for an annihilation event.
The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a
function of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you
want it to be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for
"Coulomb explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian
for the quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more
coupling - not less.
Otherwise, you've got nothing.
You are going to have to do far better than that ...
