Exnihiloest wrote:ABC2019 wrote:that's what I'm saying, the cross section has little to do with the de Broglie wavelength ... your extract does not say the opposite (for example in the extreme case "hard sphere" and if lambda << R the cross section is constant (Pi R ^ 2) and INDEPENDENT of lambda).
He says the opposite. Interference is a result of coupling, and interference is wavelength dependent. When the De Broglie wavelength becomes less than the mesh size or the mean travel time
uh ... a wavelength shorter than a travel time, that doesn't mean anything ...
, then you have to call on the QM to know how the interaction will be done. This indicates that a surface like that of the monoatomic layers of graphene can promote this coupling. It becomes a matter of engineering to make it efficient therefore to improve the apparent cross section.
no, but I know very well that quantum effects involve the Broglie wavelength, thank you! I'm just telling you that the value of the cross section found is not directly related to the wavelength, quantitatively. For example the scattering cross section of a photon by an electron (the Thomson cross section) is linked to its "classical radius", which is neither the wavelength of the photon, nor the Compton wavelength. of the electron (it is independent of the lambda of the photon, and 137 times smaller than the compton wavelength of the electron, it is the ratio of the two that defines the fine structure constant)
In short, the effective section is not just "the Broglie squared wavelength" or something like that.
but no, a structure like graphene is a structure based on electromagnetism, like all chemistry. And the neutrino not being charged does not "see" this structure.
I did not speak of an electrical effect. The electron has a mass. It can therefore be impacted by the kinetic energy of another mass. He can "see" neutrinos.
yes by the weak interaction which is billions of billions of times smaller than electromagnetic.
If the mass of the neutrino is considerably lower than that of the electron, on the other hand this does not prevent a large number of neutrinos, as long as the system favors their coupling, could significantly boost an electron.
well it's not impossible ... but that does not happen except extremely rarely, if not once again the neutrinos would have much more effect!
This is of course speculative, but no more speculative than asserting the impossibility of phenomena a priori theoretically possible.
no, but you pretend we don't know anything about the physics of neutrinos, there are certainly mysteries such as the origin of their mass, but the interaction with electrons is well known, there is no " 'surprise' to wait.
But natural neutrinos have no energy peak ... so a possible resonance would have no effect.
Neutrinos exist in a considerable range of energies, thus also of De Broglie wavelength. It depends on each one. To see their energy distribution and wavelengths associated with those received on earth.
that's what I'm telling you, suddenly the resonance (if there was one) would only concern a tiny part of them. A resonance by definition is an amplification of a VERY NARROW range of frequencies (or energies here). And so the power in this resonance would be tiny, unless we concentrated the population of neutrinos at precisely this frequency - which is what we do when we produce a coherent radio signal, precisely to be able to detect it easily - but which does not take place. to be for a natural noise of neutrinos.
I repeat that
a) if an electrical power could be extracted, it would first manifest itself by a perfectly measurable heating
...
You repeat, and so do I. Your assertions are far too simplified and generalist for them to be claimed to demonstrate impossibilities.
no that's basic thermo.
Demonstration:
An electric current can circulate indefinitely in a superconductor and it represents an energy which can be extracted, without "first" a measurable heating.
it does not give a POWER - a "one shot" energy is not a power!
If there is such a craze for graphene, it is because it has astonishing prospects for electrical energy, there it is not from neutrinos but from thermal effects:
https://physicsworld.com/a/rippling-gra ... al-energy/
Graphene exhibits bizarre and counterintuitive quantum effects but it is NOT a source of energy, it never has been and it never will be.
Your reference is always the same Paul Thibado who is the Montagnier du graphène, we have already discussed the pages and pages with eclectron on the subject
