[Bored chemist]

You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?

[Yaniv (OP)]

You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?

To test conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?

To test conservation laws.

And, just to go round in circles again because you don't understand it.
We don't need to test them; they are mathematically true.
Also, we have already tested them.
We know they work- to an exceptional degree of precision. No experiment has ever shown any deviation from them.

What would you proposed test add?

All it would do would be to prove something that we already know; it would prove that you are wrong.

[Yaniv (OP)]

What would you proposed test add?

Falsifying conservation of mass.

[Bored chemist]

What would you proposed test add?

Falsifying conservation of mass.

So, the only purpose would be to (fail to) falsify the conservation of mass.
(As you repeatedly fail to accept, we know CoM is true for two reasons; the mathematical proof, and the countless observations)

Can you see why nobody wants to waste time and effort on that- especially when there are worthwhile things to do instead?

Or do you somehow think that you are so important that your opinion should hold sway over logic and experiment?

[Yaniv (OP)]

So, the only purpose would be to (fail to) falsify the conservation of mass.

You can't tell for sure without the results of the experiment.

Or do you somehow think that you are so important that your opinion should hold sway over logic and experiment?

I think I am the only person here adhering to logic and experiment. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.

Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?

In an absolutely strict sense, the answer is yes.
That's the sense in which we "need" to do your experiment

Good luck getting the funding.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.

Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?

This stupid analogy suggests there are countless of experiments in the literature showing weight does not change at increasing temperature.

[Bored chemist]

If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.

Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?

This stupid analogy suggests there are countless of experiments in the literature showing weight does not change at increasing temperature.

There are countless experiments in the literature that show the conservation of mass.
If your ideas say that the mass changes with temperature then demonstration CoM is the same as demonstrating that your idea is wrong.

I presume you are working on the mathematical refutation of Noether's theorem.
That will be interesting; If maths did Nobel prizes you would be in line for one if you could show she's wrong.
(Spoiler alert- you won't)

[Yaniv (OP)]

There are countless experiments in the literature that show the conservation of mass.

I don't know which experiments you are talking about.

 

If your ideas say that the mass changes with temperature then demonstration CoM is the same as demonstrating that your idea is wrong.

Mathematics isn't physics. If you don't believe me you may believe Richard Feynmann.

Your claim the experiment should not be carried out because your mathematics predicts the results of the experiment is ridiculous. The experiment should be carried out precisely to test your mathematical predictions.

I presume you are working on the mathematical refutation of Noether's theorem.
That will be interesting; If maths did Nobel prizes you would be in line for one if you could show she's wrong.
(Spoiler alert- you won't)

If Noether's theorem has anything to say about conservation of mass I will be happy to collect The Fields Medal in mathematics, too.

[Bored chemist]

I don't know which experiments you are talking about.

It shows.

If Noether's theorem has anything to say about conservation of mass I will be happy to collect The Fields Medal in mathematics, too.

It has; you won't.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/what-is-the-symmetry-which-is-responsible-for-conservation-of-mass

For what it's worth, you misunderstood Feynman too.
The experiment has been done many times (though, as you say, you don't understand this) and the maths predicts that the result will be the same as last time if you do your experiment- mass will still be conserved.

[Yaniv (OP)]

It's not necessary to test your hypothesis because it's already been falsified by existing data. I've shown via many different methods that photons cannot have any appreciable electric charge. Since your model requires light to be charged, your model has already been falsified.

I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.
https://www.edn.com/electronics-news/4199337/Transistor-laser-Kirchhoff
In my theory some electrons are lost as negative infrared particles.
Precision current measurements are required to test if this phenomenon extends to other light/heat emitting devices.

[Colin2B]

I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.

The article is seriously misleading and looks like a poor headline attention-grabber. If you use Kirchoff’s correctly there is no problem, we have used this analysis for years with leds and laser junction devices.
I think you need to learn more physics so you are not misled by the poor quality of the pop press who don't have time for full explanations.

In my theory some electrons are lost as negative infrared particles.
Precision current measurements are required to test if this phenomenon extends to other light/heat emitting devices.

Then you need to raise money to test your theory, it shouldn’t be too expensive and the rewards would be great. Why let others take all the credit and monetary rewards, if you do you will be penniless and unknown.

PS there are no such thing as negative infrared particles, or positive ones for that matter. You will need to prove their existence and show how they might be detected.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If you use Kirchoff’s correctly there is no problem

The problem here some of the current is converted to infrared radiation.

we have used this analysis for years with leds and laser junction devices.

I don't know if loss of current is also found in leds and other devices.
If it does it may be small enough to ignore for practical purposes.
Prof Holonyak said "The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals but until now its been dismissed in a transistor".
I can't tell if this sentence means current anomalies are found and ignored or not found at all in other transistors.
 

[Colin2B]

The problem here some of the current is converted to infrared radiation.

That isn’t a problem. You just account for it with a current sink.

"The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals but until now its been dismissed in a transistor".

IR and optical output from transistor junctions has been observed and accounted for for a long time and has not required a rewriting of textbooks. The article you quote was written in 2010 and has rewritten nothing.

This is a red herring for you. Unless you can show IR from a mass (above and beyond that which is known to occur due to heating) and resulting in a loss of mass, you are on a loser.
You also have a long way to go to demonstrate the existence of what you call ‘negative IR particles’ and show how you have detected them. Demonstrate that and you will get the prize.
Stop wasting your time and get fundraising otherwise someone else will beat you to that Nobel Prize.

[Yaniv (OP)]

That isn’t a problem. You just account for it with a current sink.

IR and optical output from transistor junctions has been observed and accounted for for a long time and has not required a rewriting of textbooks.

It's not a problem for practical applications but is a problem for the theory.

Unless you can show IR from a mass (above and beyond that which is known to occur due to heating) and resulting in a loss of mass, you are on a loser.

Demonstrate that and you will get the prize.
Stop wasting your time and get fundraising otherwise someone else will beat you to that Nobel Prize.

I am happy for anybody who weighs a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results to get the Nobel Prize. My name will be remembered for theorizing this prediction. 

[Colin2B]

... but is a problem for the theory.

Oh no it isn’t

My name will be remembered for theorizing this prediction. 

Oh no it won’t

[Kryptid]

I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.

Current is not charge. You can send increasingly larger amounts of current through a wire, but that won't change the number of electrons in the wire. Don't confuse the amount of electrical energy in a wire for the amount of electric charge in the wire. There is no violation of conservation of charge here.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Current is not charge. You can send increasingly larger amounts of current through a wire, but that won't change the number of electrons in the wire. Don't confuse the amount of electrical energy in a wire for the amount of electric charge in the wire. There is no violation of conservation of charge here.

I = C / t (I current in ampere, C coulombs, t time).
1 ampere = 1 C (6 ^ 18 electrons moving through a conductor) per 1 second.
Higher current entering than exiting the laser transistor implies more electrons entered than exited the transistor.
In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.

[Kryptid]

I = C / t (I current in ampere, C coulombs, t time).
1 ampere = 1 C (6 ^ 18 electrons moving through a conductor) per 1 second.
Higher current entering than exiting the laser transistor implies more electrons entered than exited the transistor.
In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.

Given that this article is seven years old, I take it that you will be able to supply us with news of subsequent developments from reputable sources that substantiate the claims in the article? Violation of charge conservation would be a very big deal. If it was confirmed, this would have been all over the news.