Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment

1,006 bytes added, 16 July
/* Abuse of a quotation */ new section
So, no, I'm not going to require a "demanding and rigorous extrance exam, naturally, to be determined by [me]". I believe you are fully qualified to discuss relativity. (You certainly have the vocabulary for it :-) So ignore the perceived entrance exam, and go straight to the two bullet points I listed above. And accept my apology for suggesting that some special expertise is needed. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:46, 8 January 2015 (EST)
== Abuse of a quotation ==
"''As Stuewer (1993) has suggested, Cockcroft and Walton use mass-energy equivalence to confirm their hypothesis about what happens when <sup>7</sup>Li is bombarded by protons. Hence, '''''it does not seem we ought''''' to regard this experiment as a confirmation of E<nowiki>=</nowiki>mc&sup2;. '''''However''''', if we take some of the other evidence that Cockcroft and Walton provide concerning the identification of the products in reaction p + <sup>7</sup>Li → α + α as sufficient to establish that the products are indeed α-particles, then we can interpret this experiment as a confirmation of mass-energy equivalence, which is how this experiment is often reported in the physics literature.''"
Omitting the sentence starting with "however" - which shows that the assumption made in the sentence "it does not seen we ought..." is indeed not entirely correct - misleads the reader! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:36, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
Block, SkipCaptcha, edit, rollback