Semiconductors and Doping
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:12 pm
The paper is attached for your comments...
Advanced research into the Reciprocal System of theory
http://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/
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 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.
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.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?
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: 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.
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.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.
You're right, have corrected that.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.
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: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.
Sorry... have tried to clarify the diagrams. Is that better?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.
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: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.)
Yep.bperet wrote:3. Doping...
"0-0-1 displacement" -- is that the 1D version?
Corrected.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.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.
Tried to include all that... it does get complicated.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.
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.
Add endnote for this.
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 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 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.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.
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.
You do realize that "vibration 2" is Larson's attempt to deal with 2D motion?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.