[Bored chemist]

In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.

Can you show any evidence of the existence of these particles which exist in your hypothesis (it's still not a theory)?

If not, you are explaining something that doesn't happen in terms of something that doesn't exist- that's not science, it's gibberish.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

I have seen several papers discussing this current anomaly in transistor lasers and other transistors but I have not seen precision current measurements for other radiation-emitting devices. Is this another uncomfortable result suppressed in the literature ?

[Kryptid]

Is this another uncomfortable result suppressed in the literature ?

If you're going to cry "conspiracy", then you'd better get some good evidence that there is a conspiracy. We're not going to just take your word for it.

[Bored chemist]

I... I have not seen precision current measurements for other radiation-emitting devices.

That's because we don't need to do them.
Any physical device has a finite capacitance and if electrons entered it, but didn't leave then it would gain an overall negative charge.
That would create a voltage which, after a short while (probably nanoseconds or so)  would exceed the voltage from the supply and stop any current flowing (and thus stop the device working)

So, since the devices work, we know that the  input and output currents must be the same.

[Yaniv (OP)]

So, since the devices work, we know that the  input and output currents must be the same.

But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.

If you're going to cry "conspiracy", then you'd better get some good evidence that there is a conspiracy.

It is a conspiracy scientists are not interested to experiment conservation laws and publish the results.

[Kryptid]

It is a conspiracy scientists are not interested to experiment conservation laws and publish the results.

I take it that you don't know what a conspiracy is.

[Colin2B]

I have seen several papers discussing this current anomaly in transistor lasers and other transistors

You may have seen them, but have you read and understood them?
All the papers mentioning a rewriting of Kirchhoffs laws are written by 2 people Feng and Holonyak and from your comments can only assume you haven't read them.

But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.

Please provide details of the paper which states this - not a press article.

I quote Holonyak on transistor lasers “Kirchhoff’s law takes care of balancing the charge, but it doesn’t take care of balancing the energies”
So charge is balanced. However, Kirchhoff’s law was never about balancing energies, so it is not violated.
Neither is it applicable in all circumstances - remember it is a tool for use in very specific circumstances.
I quote Wiki on Kirchhoff’s law and current/charge(as previously pointed out by @Kryptid):
“Kirchhoff’s Current Law (KCL) is valid only if the total electric charge, Q, remains constant in the region being considered. In practical cases this is always so when KCL is applied at a geometric point. When investigating a finite region, however, it is possible that the charge density within the region may change. Since charge is conserved, this can only come about by a flow of charge across the region boundary. This flow represents a net current, and KCL is violated.”

So, as I've said before there is no problem here. Neither current, charge nor energy are disappearing.

Also, this is completely irrelevant to W=mg as no mass is being lost either. A transistor laser is a complex construct of junctions and quantum wells, it is not a simple piece of homogeneous mass, there is no comparison with the subject of this topic. Red herring.

Overall your theory lacks any credibility. No one is going to test a theory based on the idea that light consists of electrons of different speeds. It’s a unicorn theory. Not worth our spending time on.

[Bored chemist]

But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.

Says who?
Show me the measurements.

[Yaniv (OP)]

You may have seen them, but have you read and understood them?
All the papers mentioning a rewriting of Kirchhoffs laws are written by 2 people Feng and Holonyak and from your comments can only assume you haven't read them.

I didn't read the paper because I can't get access from my computer. But I read several press articles and seen this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c).

I quote Holonyak on transistor lasers “Kirchhoff’s law takes care of balancing the charge, but it doesn’t take care of balancing the energies”
So charge is balanced.

If input current is higher than output current and a photon is not an electron charge is not balanced. In my theory input electrons equals output electrons plus radiated electrons so charge is balanced.

Also, this is completely irrelevant to W=mg as no mass is being lost either. A transistor laser is a complex construct of junctions and quantum wells, it is not a simple piece of homogeneous mass, there is no comparison with the subject of this topic.

This has nothing to do with conservation of mass and the title of this thread. Only another prediction of my theory.

[Bored chemist]

" this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c)."
Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?

Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?

[Bored chemist]

Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?

Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?

It's far from clear.

[Colin2B]

Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?

LOL All bipolar transistors have 3 legs. Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that?

Conventionally, and more correctly, we refer to the laser output as an output port rather than a leg. For example an led diode is still a 2 leg device.

this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c).

That's the way transistors work, as @Bored chemist says you have to take account of the base current.

However, you have misread the diagram, Ic is to the right of the band diagram, Ie to the left, so Ic>Ie

A conventional bipolar transistor can be modelled as 2 diode junctions. In this case you can use Kirchhoff directly because Ib+Ic+Ie=0 - remember what I said about point junction?

The transistor laser is a region device and as I explained Kirchhoff can’t be used to model currents in these devices. However, the charge/current still adds up, but you have to take Ic to be the sum of:
- the re-supply of holes by the Franz-Keldysh photon-assisted tunnelling;
- the re-supply of holes via the direct tunnelling of electrons;
- the usual base minority carrier current transport of injected electrons that do not recombine and are collected

This has nothing to do with conservation of mass and the title of this thread. Only another prediction of my theory.

Even if the predictions of your theory are correct it does not prove your theory, there would be far more plausible theories.

The problem is that your theory is based on unicorn premises which we already know are untrue - proven by experiment. Eg:

- Light is not composed of electrons moving at different speeds
- Red light and blue light do not propagate at different speeds
- There are no disc shaped electrons to explain polarisation
- Your theory denies the existence of relativity which is well proven

Again, I stress you need to learn some basic physics before trying to rewrite it and show where current experimental results support your theory - particularly on the above 4 where evidence is strongly against you.

[Yaniv (OP)]

LOL All bipolar transistors have 3 legs. Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that?

I know electrical transistors have 3 legs.

That's the way transistors work, as @Bored chemist says you have to take account of the base current.

Transistor laser is a semiconductor device that functions as a transistor with an electrical output and an optical output as opposed to the two electrical output - Wikipedia. The transistor laser functions like a typical transistor but emits infrared light through on of its outputs rather than electricity - Wikipedia. As I understand this the base current is replaced with infrared light.

Even if the predictions of your theory are correct it does not prove your theory

True. But disproves conservation laws of traditional physics.

there would be far more plausible theories.

All theories welcome. Let experimental results decide which is best.

The problem is that your theory is based on unicorn premises which we already know are untrue - proven by experiment. Eg:
- Light is not composed of electrons moving at different speeds
- Red light and blue light do not propagate at different speeds
- There are no disc shaped electrons to explain polarisation
- Your theory denies the existence of relativity which is well proven

I heard red light travels faster than blue light in glass, water, air and vacuum of space. Red light from supernova explosions arrives a few seconds before blue light. So please send references of experiments showing red and blue light travel at the same speed.
P.S. weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves the existence of relativity.

[Kryptid]

I heard red light travels faster than blue light in glass, water, air and vacuum of space. Red light from supernova explosions arrives a few seconds before blue light. So please send references of experiments showing red and blue light travel at the same speed.

You heard wrong. An attempt to detect differences in speed between high energy electromagnetic radiation and low energy electromagnetic radiation generated by a distant gamma ray burst failed to find any such difference: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/

[Yaniv (OP)]

You heard wrong. An attempt to detect differences in speed between high energy electromagnetic radiation and low energy electromagnetic radiation generated by a distant gamma ray burst failed to find any such difference: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/

I read the link you provided. I don't understand a key observation was a single photon produced by a gamma-ray burst. The question is if the data collected is interpreted correctly. I read something about timing assumptions and wonder what other assumptions were used to interpret the results ? relativity ? quantum physics ? Weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves all assumptions. The results will have to be interpreted differently.

[Kryptid]

I read the link you provided. I don't understand a key observation was a single photon produced by a gamma-ray burst.

It wasn't just a single photon:

The 31GeV gamma ray has the sort of energy needed to see a difference between it and some of the lower-energy photons detected at the same time, and the event was short-lived, with most of the high-energy photons arriving within a single second of each other. If high energy photons moved at a different speed, we should be able to detect it.

They found no detectable difference in arrival time between those lower energy photons and the high energy one.

The question is if the data collected is interpreted correctly. I read something about timing assumptions and wonder what other assumptions were used to interpret the results ? relativity ? quantum physics ?

If two photons from the same event traveled the same distance and arrived at the same time, they must have been travelling at the same speed. Relativity and quantum physics have nothing to do with it. It's elementary school level math, plain and simple.

Weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves all assumptions.

It would have no effect on how we calculate an object's velocity.

The results will have to be interpreted differently.

Speed is distance divided by time. There is only one correct way to interpret it.

[Yaniv (OP)]

They found no detectable difference in arrival time between those lower energy photons and the high energy one.

If two photons from the same event traveled the same distance and arrived at the same time, they must have been travelling at the same speed.

How can you tell this single photon was not a background photon originated somewhere else along the direction of the burst and happened to arrive at the same time as the lower energy photons from the burst ?

[Kryptid]

How can you tell this single photon was not a background photon originated somewhere else along the direction of the burst and happened to arrive at the same time as the lower energy photons from the burst ?

Its extremely high energy. Background photons are microwave photons, not gamma ray photons. It would also be an inconceivably precise coincidence to think that two such photons from sources light-years apart happened to arrive within the same millisecond at the exact same detector.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Background photons are microwave photons, not gamma ray photons.

There is also a cosmic gamma ray background radiation. The sun produces gamma rays and so most if not all other stars and galaxies.

It would also be an inconceivably precise coincidence to think that two such photons from sources light-years apart happened to arrive within the same millisecond at the exact same detector.

How many gamma rays are detected by Fermi satellite each second ?