0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Is this another uncomfortable result suppressed in the literature ?
I... I have not seen precision current measurements for other radiation-emitting devices.
So, since the devices work, we know that the input and output currents must be the same.
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.
I have seen several papers discussing this current anomaly in transistor lasers and other transistors
But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.
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 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.
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.
Does it say what I b is?Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/12/2017 11:30:07Does 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 ?
Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?
this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c).
This has nothing to do with conservation of mass and the title of this thread. Only another prediction of my theory.
LOL All bipolar transistors have 3 legs. Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that?
That's the way transistors work, as @Bored chemist says you have to take account of the base current.
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
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/
I read the link you provided. I don't understand a key observation was a single photon produced by a gamma-ray burst.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.