hmmm...at the scale of the nucleus the surface of the cathode is not a monolithic structure like the plate in the diagram... so in reality would the image charge be as localised as the one depicted in the diagram?
harry On 21/4/2008 6:32 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > Not really a point charge of course. I meant a highly localized charge such as > that of a nucleus, by opposition to the widely spread-out charge of an > electron (due to the quantum uncertainty of its position). > > For most purposes, slow and massive nuclei can be treated as classical point > charges, whereas fast moving lightweight electrons require quantum treatment > and are best considered as charge density. > > What I find interesting in the case of an approaching nucleus's image charge > is that the fast fuzzy induced surface electron "synthesizes" the slow highly > localized _look and feel_ of a symmetrical "virtual negative nucleus" inside > the cathode, coming to meet the nucleus at the time and place of impact. If an > actual deuteron desorbs there at the same time... guess what can happen? ;-) > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) > like a point charge... > > >> Even within classical physics the existence of a point charge is >> problematic. >> (as well as point masses.) Do you mean charge density at a point? >> >> Harry >> >> On 20/4/2008 6:49 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: >> >> (HUP = Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle). >> >> Back to my DIESECF (Desorbing vs Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed >> Fusion) speculation for a moment, forwarding a post I made to the CMNS group >> today, in response to a sensible objection by X (names hidden). >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Michel Jullian <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: X >> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:56 AM >> Subject: CMNS: Re: Question to X (was Re: Apples and Oranges) >> >> Thanks for your reply X. >> >> Y made the same very sensible objection some time ago. My lame response at >> the time was: "if screening occurs, it has to be at the negatively charged >> cathode surface, there is no better place... something must escape us in the >> physics". >> >> And then the other day I discovered the image charge concept. It does >> provide a mechanism whereby the (induced) lightweight fast moving -e (single >> electron charge) spread out all over the place, as illustrated by the minus >> signs on the cathode surface in Feynman's figure below (Lectures on Physics >> vol.2 p. 6-9)... >> >> >> ..."conspires" to be perceived by the (inducing) +e charged incident >> hydrogen ion ("+" ball on the right), and by the rest of the world on the >> same side of the cathode, as a mirror image (and, as such, equally punctual >> and slow moving) -e charge ("-" ball on the left) >> >> This tentatively suggests that there is no QM law preventing a properly >> uncertainty-spread electron to _look like_ a classical point charge... does >> this make any sense? >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: X >> To: "CMNS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:13 PM >> Subject: CMNS: Re: Question to X (was Re: Apples and Oranges) >> >> ... >>>> Do you think that Coulomb screening by the negative surface charge induced >>>> by >> an impinging deuteron (electrostatically equivalent to a mirror image -e >> charge as discussed recently) can significantly improve its chances to fuse >> with a simultaneously desorbing deuteron, wrt to chances when both are >> inside or outside the cathode? >>>> >>> [snip] the screening electrons being very light will be >>> spread out a lot through quantum uncertainty so it will not work very >>> well >> >> >> >> >
