## Semiconductors and Doping

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
Gopi
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Semiconductors and Doping

Attachments
Semiconductors and Doping in the RS.pdf

bperet
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Semiconductors and Doping

Page 1

Items 1 and 2 should have references to temperature sensitivities and exponential resistance, as most electronics are used in controlled environments and this is not generally known.

Last paragraph, need reference to exponential relation between current and voltage.

Item 4, "flow of current" ... you should define that Larson uses uncharged electrons for current.

Endnote 2 should be after quote, not before. You should also consider using the word processor footnote/endnote function, as the square bracket notation went out with manual typewriters.

Page 2, 3rd paragraph from bottom:

Carbon monoxide is a poor example, because C can be either 2-1-4 or 2-2-(4); or clarify the displacement relationships used for CO in your reference.

The whole paragraph is unclear; a diagram would be very helpful here.

2nd para from bottom:

"Neutral valence" should have example. Of course, it also begs the question if the noble gas elements are natural semiconductors, since they have a neutral valence.

Need to explain why 8 units of electric displacement are equal to a magnetic displacement of two. Most students forget that magnetism is 4 units (solid rotation) versus electric 8 (planar rotation). 8 = 4x2. Also, how is it "in between" magnetic and electric? That does not make any sense. Perhaps better expressed as a duality?

Given it is "extremely crucial" to understanding your concepts, this paragraph should be expanded upon for clarity.

Page 3

Big problem: 0-0-1 is NOT a 2D magnetic displacement, ½-½-0 is. Larson's A-B-C notation is defined so A-B is the 2D portion, and C is the 1D portion.

Of course, ½-½-0 is also the neutron (atomic mass) or muon neutrino (massless neutron), depending on whether it is inside the time region, or outside it, respectively, and is a combination of a proton, 1-1-(1) and cosmic electron neutrino, (½)-(½)-1. I would also like to point out here, as I did to Nehru years ago concerning hydrogen, ONE of these two rotations must be charged, if the combination is to stay together as a particle. Otherwise t-t-s and s-s-t constitute motion in both aspects, and would fly apart in one natural unit of clock time. Since charge reverses the aspect, it would lock the two motions together.

As I've mentioned in comments to another one of your papers, the muon neutrinos are your "magnetic monopoles," with the "poles" being: ½-½-0 and (½)-(½)-0, analogous to the positron/electron poles: 0-0-1 and 0-0-(1). (You've been to Coral Castle... that is what Leedskalnin discovered.)

The "1D electric-state electricity flow" -- I think you mean "current flow." The terms are not interchangeable; they mean different things. "Electricity" refers to both charged and uncharged electrons, "current" refers to uncharged electrons only. "Static electricity" refers just to charged electrons. Of course, this is bass-ackwards from physics, where they believe everything is charged.

Which reminds me, the references to "charges" does not make sense when using current (uncharged electrons). Charged electrons are static electricity, which I assume you are not considering in this paper. I would also point out that the charged electron is negative, being a vibratory time displacement--that makes the uncharged electron, positive, the "hole." Since a "hole" has no observable structure, that means it is nonlocal to the material environment--it must be a spatial rotation, an uncharged electron.

The diagram could use better coloring, as I cannot distinguish the shading in the 1D arrows. Insufficient contrast for us old people. Also, is the vertical line supposed to connect to the left arrow at the bottom? Cannot really tell without a magnifying glass--you should increase spacing to make it obvious.

The use of p and n for positive and negative is confusing with the use of p for proton and n for neutron, particularly in light of the above.

Page 4

"In the case of electricity" should be "electric current," as you define it as rotational space.

I cannot follow how you got from equation #3 on the page, to #4 (exponent). (Perhaps you should also number your equations for easier reference.)

A number of your endnotes, such as [9], would be better off as footnotes, quoting the text you are referring to, rather than to have to grab the book and try to find it. Or, just include the relevant text inline.

3. Doping...

"0-0-1 displacement" -- is that the 1D version?

Readability note: you should use nonbreaking hyphens in displacements, without spaces before and after. That way they won't split across line breaks.

Page 5

First paragraph; excessive use of parenthesis is confusing. Larson uses parenthesis to identify spatial displacement, you should not use them around a displacement. Either omit them, or use another kind of bracket.

You will need to clarify positive and negative, as Larson got them backwards as compared to conventional electronics. Larson had time as positive, whereas electronics has it as negative* (see BPOM). You would be better off with "spatial" or "temporal."

Diagram has part of equation under box.

5. Band-gap

This is where the "meat" of the paper is, even for a vegan. You need to spend more time with the explanation here.

I would not use "conductance," as it is not used elsewhere and your typical RS student won't know what it is, anyway. You've been using resistance, so you should say, "the 1D state where resistance is low," not "where conductance is high," just to match the precedence you and Larson use earlier.

The "field strengths - 1" ... is that a -1, or a "dash 1"? A negative number should not have a space between the dash and number.

Page 6

You should clarify that E,e = s and M,m = t, since you refer to the natural units right under the equation.

Also, introduce a function around your square root, to show that it is a "magnitude only" effect, such as the real() function to extract the scalar from a complex vector. Or maybe abs(), absolute value, as that tends to convert a vector to a scalar. You're the math whiz... there must be some function or notation for the extraction of magnitude only.

And I still have not figured out how you derived that equation; it is not obvious from your paper. There are hints of it scattered around, but no logical development from those to this.

With all the conditionals in the table, V2, V22, 1/3, 2/3... it looks like you are just curve-fitting the results. You need to include WHY these states are chosen for the respective combinations.

Overall, the 1D-2D dimensional "band gap" idea is good and I agree with your findings. But you have not clearly identified the components going into it, particularly the concepts of "hole," "positive" and what is charged and what isn't. An electron can flow through the A-B rotation and a positron through the C rotation; a monopole (muon neutrino) can flow through its inverse aspect, ½-½-0 through C and (½)-(½)-0 through A-B. So you have both bidirectional 1D and 2D current (sort of "current" and "solid current")--as well as a 2D-2D relationship that was unaddressed. As to whether all four are playing a role in semiconductors--I do not know. Perhaps further discussion will reveal what parts are doing what.
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Re: Semiconductors and Doping

bperet wrote:Page 1
Items 1 and 2 should have references to temperature sensitivities and exponential resistance, as most electronics are used in controlled environments and this is not generally known.
Last paragraph, need reference to exponential relation between current and voltage.
Item 4, "flow of current" ... you should define that Larson uses uncharged electrons for current.
Endnote 2 should be after quote, not before. You should also consider using the word processor footnote/endnote function, as the square bracket notation went out with manual typewriters.
Added all of that in. I wrote the paper trying to get all the ideas in my head in written form, just as they were forming, so it is a bit chaotic. I will change the footnote/endnote structure at the end... had gotten used to the regular journal referencing, which is required to be square brackets to this day.
bperet wrote: Page 2, 3rd paragraph from bottom:
Carbon monoxide is a poor example, because C can be either 2-1-4 or 2-2-(4); or clarify the displacement relationships used for CO in your reference.
The whole paragraph is unclear; a diagram would be very helpful here.
2nd para from bottom:
"Neutral valence" should have example. Of course, it also begs the question if the noble gas elements are natural semiconductors, since they have a neutral valence.
Need to explain why 8 units of electric displacement are equal to a magnetic displacement of two. Most students forget that magnetism is 4 units (solid rotation) versus electric 8 (planar rotation). 8 = 4x2. Also, how is it "in between" magnetic and electric? That does not make any sense. Perhaps better expressed as a duality?
I have explained this in more detail with diagrams, and the CO example is picked straight from NBM pg. 226, so that there is a clear reference.
Since we are discussing 1D <--> 2D transitions here, this transition needs a "door", and that is what the neutral valence provides. Noble gases cannot have neutral valence since they do not have any valence to begin with, which can then be neutralized. Although I suspect that changes when they are converted into charged state (plasma).
bperet wrote: Big problem: 0-0-1 is NOT a 2D magnetic displacement, ½-½-0 is. Larson's A-B-C notation is defined so A-B is the 2D portion, and C is the 1D portion.
My mistake, I meant to indicate the 0-0-1 to ½-½-0 transition, and forgot to put that in. It's corrected now.
bperet wrote: Of course, ½-½-0 is also the neutron (atomic mass) or muon neutrino (massless neutron), depending on whether it is inside the time region, or outside it, respectively, and is a combination of a proton, 1-1-(1) and cosmic electron neutrino, (½)-(½)-1. I would also like to point out here, as I did to Nehru years ago concerning hydrogen, ONE of these two rotations must be charged, if the combination is to stay together as a particle. Otherwise t-t-s and s-s-t constitute motion in both aspects, and would fly apart in one natural unit of clock time. Since charge reverses the aspect, it would lock the two motions together.
I had looked into that before writing this, and it looks like it can be formed as a combination of proton and electron neutrino, but it is also possible for it to exist by itself without the combination. For instance, the first sentence in Nehru's paper on Lifetime of the Neutron specifies that. Also, the basis for his calculation is that there is a different rotational base for each, which is incompatible for the two components, making them fly apart.
Such issues would not occur for a ½-½-0 motion that is piggy-backing on the existing atomic structure and is moving through the space provided by either the 2D electrons or, through a transition, a 1D (c)-displacement. It was thought earlier that massless neutrons are not observed... perhaps they do, and since they were being looked for in cosmic ray decay and nuclear physics, they might have been missed in solid state physics. Another supporting fact is that the electron-hole combo (exciton) shows a spectrum remarkably like the hydrogen spectrum, which requires a solid rotation.
bperet wrote:The "1D electric-state electricity flow" -- I think you mean "current flow." The terms are not interchangeable; they mean different things. "Electricity" refers to both charged and uncharged electrons, "current" refers to uncharged electrons only. "Static electricity" refers just to charged electrons. Of course, this is bass-ackwards from physics, where they believe everything is charged.
You're right, have corrected that.
bperet wrote:Which reminds me, the references to "charges" does not make sense when using current (uncharged electrons). Charged electrons are static electricity, which I assume you are not considering in this paper. I would also point out that the charged electron is negative, being a vibratory time displacement--that makes the uncharged electron, positive, the "hole." Since a "hole" has no observable structure, that means it is nonlocal to the material environment--it must be a spatial rotation, an uncharged electron.
I am using only uncharged systems here... I added that note into the paper. Since both electrons and holes are seen in their bulk behavior, i.e. in the interior of the solid, and not as surface behavior, that would imply that both are uncharged. And the reason for choosing a solid rotation for holes instead of the uncharged electron structure is because of the plethora of magnetic effects that the presence of holes usually entails... that I described earlier in the Hall Effect paper (attached). I have seen it now in about a dozen different places. Similarly, where the 2D version of the electron shows up, you have the presence of "spin" and the opening up of a whole new field: spintronics.
bperet wrote:The diagram could use better coloring, as I cannot distinguish the shading in the 1D arrows. Insufficient contrast for us old people. Also, is the vertical line supposed to connect to the left arrow at the bottom? Cannot really tell without a magnifying glass--you should increase spacing to make it obvious.
Sorry... have tried to clarify the diagrams. Is that better?
bperet wrote:Page 4
"In the case of electricity" should be "electric current," as you define it as rotational space.
I cannot follow how you got from equation #3 on the page, to #4 (exponent). (Perhaps you should also number your equations for easier reference.)
That is a standard result of calculus, the only place where it is applied correctly... I could go into it a lot more by connecting exponentials to the change from projective to euclidean, but I kept it aside for this paper.
bperet wrote:3. Doping...
"0-0-1 displacement" -- is that the 1D version?
Yep.
bperet wrote:Page 5
First paragraph; excessive use of parenthesis is confusing. Larson uses parenthesis to identify spatial displacement, you should not use them around a displacement. Either omit them, or use another kind of bracket.
You will need to clarify positive and negative, as Larson got them backwards as compared to conventional electronics. Larson had time as positive, whereas electronics has it as negative* (see BPOM). You would be better off with "spatial" or "temporal."
Diagram has part of equation under box.
Corrected.
bperet wrote:5. Band-gap
This is where the "meat" of the paper is, even for a vegan. You need to spend more time with the explanation here.
I would not use "conductance," as it is not used elsewhere and your typical RS student won't know what it is, anyway. You've been using resistance, so you should say, "the 1D state where resistance is low," not "where conductance is high," just to match the precedence you and Larson use earlier.
The "field strengths - 1" ... is that a -1, or a "dash 1"? A negative number should not have a space between the dash and number.
I fleshed it out some more... and changed the conductance and -1 notation. Actually it was just a hyphen pointing to the ratio 1:c.
bperet wrote:Page 6
You should clarify that E,e = s and M,m = t, since you refer to the natural units right under the equation.
Also, introduce a function around your square root, to show that it is a "magnitude only" effect, such as the real() function to extract the scalar from a complex vector. Or maybe abs(), absolute value, as that tends to convert a vector to a scalar. You're the math whiz... there must be some function or notation for the extraction of magnitude only.
And I still have not figured out how you derived that equation; it is not obvious from your paper. There are hints of it scattered around, but no logical development from those to this.
Clarified those details. As I said, I was trying to put together everything in one place, my notes have grown quite a lot.
bperet wrote:With all the conditionals in the table, V2, V22, 1/3, 2/3... it looks like you are just curve-fitting the results. You need to include WHY these states are chosen for the respective combinations.
I tried explaining that as well in the text... it is the same pattern as what Larson uses for his interatomic distances in BPOM. When the magnetic displacement gets big, it jumps to vibration 2 in the primary or the secondary (V2 or V2^2). The 1/3 or 2/3 factors come in due to the inactive dimensions.
bperet wrote:An electron can flow through the A-B rotation and a positron through the C rotation; a monopole (muon neutrino) can flow through its inverse aspect, ½-½-0 through C and (½)-(½)-0 through A-B. So you have both bidirectional 1D and 2D current (sort of "current" and "solid current")--as well as a 2D-2D relationship that was unaddressed. As to whether all four are playing a role in semiconductors--I do not know. Perhaps further discussion will reveal what parts are doing what.
Tried to include all that... it does get complicated.
Attachments
Hall Effect.pdf
Semiconductors and Doping in the RS_2.pdf

bperet
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Semiconductors and Doping

Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
I will change the footnote/endnote structure at the end... had gotten used to the regular journal referencing, which is required to be square brackets to this day.
Physics is a bit behind the times... I got a copy of the ENDF isotope data--it is still distributed in 80-column punched card format from the 1960s. Not exactly compatible with modern databases.
Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
I have explained this in more detail with diagrams, and the CO example is picked straight from NBM pg. 226, so that there is a clear reference.
Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
Since we are discussing 1D <--> 2D transitions here, this transition needs a "door", and that is what the neutral valence provides. Noble gases cannot have neutral valence since they do not have any valence to begin with, which can then be neutralized. Although I suspect that changes when they are converted into charged state (plasma).
I am unclear on the difference between zero and neutral, since 8-0 = 8. How are you making the determination of neutrality? Is this similar to Keely's works with the neutral?
Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
I am using only uncharged systems here... I added that note into the paper. Since both electrons and holes are seen in their bulk behavior, i.e. in the interior of the solid, and not as surface behavior, that would imply that both are uncharged. And the reason for choosing a solid rotation for holes instead of the uncharged electron structure is because of the plethora of magnetic effects that the presence of holes usually entails... that I described earlier in the Hall Effect paper (attached). I have seen it now in about a dozen different places. Similarly, where the 2D version of the electron shows up, you have the presence of "spin" and the opening up of a whole new field: spintronics.
I was just rereading your Hall Effect paper the other day. My basement experiment is all about manipulation of "holes" rather than electrons... what I am calling "neutrino current." It is THAT current hat matches Tesla's experiments--not electric current.

What I have concluded through experiment is that the current flowing is based on the c-muon neutrino, (½)-(½)-0, the 2D version--it interacts as a quaternion, but because the displacement is on the other side of the unit speed boundary, all we observe is the complex relationship of a "positive electron." Of course, this is my RS2 model, not Larson's original--outside of his mechanical structure of the atom.

But there are also many problems with seemingly random displacement currents. Once you start moving mass (2D structures comprise "mass"), all the EM effects start up--except that they are not just material--they are also cosmic. But all we observe is the "shadow" of those complex projections--the actual interaction must be inferred (or done in a computer model... waiting on SoverT for that!)

As you may recall, I developed a new electrical model based on pressure, not force (voltage). It finally hit me the other day that we SEE force because all we can see is the shadows of electrical interaction--they are all cosmic structures, so they appear as a 1D, complex quantity: speed (current) and force (voltage). But that is not actually what is going on inside the wiring!
Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
Clarified those details. As I said, I was trying to put together everything in one place, my notes have grown quite a lot.
We do need a function for the transmission of effect across a unit boundary, that "magnitude only" stuff that shows up so many places. SoverT will need it for his simulations, as well.

What happens is that any multi-dimension motion can be projected on to a 1D shadow as a "scalar dimension" (a ratio of two numbers, similar to a complex quantity)--BUT--the numbers are not of constant magnitude--they vary as a function in clock time. The projected scalar dimension is not something like 2/3, but fnA(2,c)/fnB(3,c), where both functions produce cyclic waveforms across clock time (c). Some of the simpler projections CAN result in rotations, but odds are, not many.

The simple projection is just complex, linear speed (real) and spin (imaginary). It makes for a challenge in computer programming, as one has to pass back a function as the result of a function, not a number.
Gopi wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:21 am
I tried explaining that as well in the text... it is the same pattern as what Larson uses for his interatomic distances in BPOM. When the magnetic displacement gets big, it jumps to vibration 2 in the primary or the secondary (V2 or V2^2). The 1/3 or 2/3 factors come in due to the inactive dimensions.
You do realize that "vibration 2" is Larson's attempt to deal with 2D motion?

Nobody really understood that "vibration 2" concept--not even Larson!
Every dogma has its day...

bperet
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Semiconductors and Doping

Since physics LIKES to make things overly complicated and confusing, I think you need a bit more introduction where you clarify some of the terms, particularly the difference between conductor, conductance and conductivity, versus insulator, resistance and resistivity--and what they mean as RS concepts. (You use all these terms on just the first page!)

Also, what "current" is in the RS, and why it is composed of uncharged electrons--since conventional physics is always talking about charges. (Move the first 2 sentences of "Semiconductors in the RS" to the Introduction, so the section focuses on semiconductors, not electric current.) You should also mention Larson's atomic structure, perhaps a simple diagram like I use here.

Since you also discuss voltage and temperature, then later use "heat" in the diagram, they should also be defined in RS concepts. Voltage is commonly accepted as force, but heat is very different in the RS than in conventional thought, being a property of the atom, not the aggregate.

"either an 8 unit or an 18 unit displacement" -- As you are following the 2n2 relation, this should also hold true for 2 and 36 unit displacements. 2 unit displacements may not be applicable as they only occur at the subatomic level, but 36 should work.

RS2 note: I use uppercase for displacements, A-B-C, instead of Larson's a-b-c, to make it stand out a bit more from conventional, lowercase variables. In computer work, uppercase names are constants--so seemed appropriate for fixed magnitudes, since they are the "primary magnitudes are absolute" of motion. That, and it is to easy to confuse the dimension "a" with the word, "a."

"The magnetic valence, which is always positive" ... perhaps footnote with the comment, "Magnetic valence is always positive for material (conventional) atoms and always negative for cosmic (antimatter) atoms." -- to avoid the misunderstanding that they are positive for everything.

"1. Electron-hole currents" -- Should grab a definition from somewhere for a short explanation of what a hole current is, then proceed to correct the misunderstanding using the concepts you are developing.

"As already brought out in a previous paper [9]," ... this is in the top 5 complaints I get about Larson's books... "as previously discussed," "as already mentioned," "as discussed in Chapter 12" (where Chapter 12 is 80 pages long...), etc., having to dig through other books or papers to get a bit of information that usually turns out to be a single sentence, to understand what is going on. It is much more readable to just quote the paragraph you are referring to (as Nehru does), or put it in a footnote at the bottom of the page (like --daniel does). (#1 complaint is the lack of diagrams and figures.)

"With a supply of energy, an uncharged electron transitions from 1D => 2D." -- this may not be true. It takes NO energy to move between units of motion (speed/energy--see the papers on the Kirk/Nehru argument over this). Moving from the 2nd to 3rd unit (energy to inverse speed) also moves to the 2nd scalar dimension--which takes no energy to accomplish, and is effectively a transition from 1D to 2D.

"electrons (n) and holes (p)" -- I assume you are using n and p for the dope type? Perhaps you should indicate that, as it looks like neutrons = protons, which is a very common equation is conventional physics.

Only half way through, but got to run... more later.

Note: If you are using OpenOffice or LibreOffice, there are a bunch of built-in macros that make typesetting scientific papers very easy. For example, type in "fn" then hit F3 -- it will generate an automatically-numbered equation for you. Figures and diagrams also auto-number, as do footnotes (at the bottom of the page, quotes and additional details) and endnotes (at the end of the document, references). The "insert cross-reference" allows you to make references to other pages, titles, numbered lists, footnotes and endnotes that automatically keep track, so you never have to worry about page numbering or enumerations. There are also built-in character styles for formatting the superscripts appropriately. And if you use the same format for all your papers, you can make a template of the layout (this is what I do for all the RS papers I've typeset, for each author, since they all have their distinct styles).
Every dogma has its day...