Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- From: Luke Campbell <lwcamp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:42:39 -0700
On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, "n...@xxxxxxx" <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:39 pm, "Logan Kearsley" <chrono.sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In RL we can still consider the "strange saturation level" of a
given nucleus which will determine its mass as well. Also strange
atoms ought to hold on to their electrons (and muons if present) more
firmly than their mundane versions, affecting their EM absorption,
reflection, and so on properties, probably upshifting all the relevant
frequencies.
Why's that?
The raise in EM absorption/reflection frequencies? The stronger the
bond, the more energy it takes to break it, no?
If by mundane versions you mean the normal nucleus with the same
electric charge, then all electronic transitions should be identical
to within at least one part in one thousand. For the purposes of
finding the electronic structure of an atom, the nucleus can, to a
good approximation, be considered a stationary point charge.
The vibrational transitions will have decreased frequencies because of
the heavier atoms (the frequency is SQRT(K/M), where M is the mass and
K is the restoring force. K is determined by the chemical bonding,
or, equivalently, the electronic structure, and thus depends only on
nuclear charge and not on mass).
Luke
.
- References:
- Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- From: Logan Kearsley
- Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- From: nunya@xxxxxxx
- Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- From: Logan Kearsley
- Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- From: nuny@xxxxxxx
- Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- Next by Date: Re: Yeast question
- Previous by thread: Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- Next by thread: Re: Strange Atoms and Strangelet Fusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
