🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 22, 9:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> You don't know much about PN junctions or FETs, do you?

He may not, but I do -- and much more than you.

> the transistor was [sic] found by accident rather than design.

The FET was patented in Canada by the physicst Lilienfeld in 1925 (and
was also published as US Patent 1745175 in 1930 January 28). A second
patent for the FET was issued by the German physicist Dr. Heil in
1934. The Lilienfeld device (as first seen in the 1990's) is not only
operational but gives substantial gain.

There was nothing accidental or incidental about the emergence of
these technologies in the 1920's and 1930's. They're the outgrowth of
the investigations of physicsts working in quantum theory.

> I can assure you that they have NOTHING to do with [sic] Einstein's
> [sic] crank theories

Special Relativity is not Einstein's "crank theories". It's a product
of a LARGE number of people, independent of Einstein. Likewise for
Quantum Field Theory, which is the amalgamation of Special Relativity
and Quantum Theory.

The relevant effect is the Quantum Hall effect and, more generally,
the issue is that of the physics of semiconductors -- which is an
integral part of quantum field theory. QFT resides firmly within the
relativistic world. There is no well-known classical (i.e. non-
relativistic) variant of quantum field theory, and certainly none
known that can encapsulate the mechanism underlying the Cooper pair
effect.

Among other things, you'd have to write down a non-relativistic
variant of the Dirac equation. Other than myself, there are few people
in this world who even know how to do such a thing. Then you have to
account for (and explain) why the differences between the non-
relativistic and relativistic versions of the corresponding 2nd
quantized field theories (particularly the absence of any matter-
energy conversion processes) seem to all favor the relativistic
variant when compared with actual results (e.g. of particle collision
experiments, of electromagnetic theory, itself, which resides firmly
in the relativistic world).

On the latter point: the electromagnetic field is an essential part of
the quantum field theory model of the electron. What is the non-
relativistic version of the Lorentz relations
   D = epsilon_0 E, B = mu_0 H
or the corresponding effective relations determined by quantum field
theory:
   D = epsilon E + theta B, H = epsilon c^2 B - theta E.

To make THIS work in a non-relativistic setting (i.e. in conformity
with Galilean invariance), one would lose epsilon and the constitutive
law would reduce to
   D = theta B, H = B/mu - theta E.
Then there's no way to account for the D <-> E relation and there's no
wave equation.

The other way is to break Galilean invariance (as Maxwell did) with
the addition of a reference velocity G. Then the relations become
   D = epsilon (E + G x B) + theta B
   H = B/mu - theta (E + G x B)
with epsilon and mu independent. The presence of G in the field law
would lead to differences in the corresponding quantum field theory
that would easily have been seen by now, at our present stage of
technology (especially, in the context of space flight).