Electron Spin, Holes and Electric Currents

[InnerSpace]

The electrical characteristics of semiconductors require there to be positive charge carriers, the positive ‘hole’. A positive hole is a temporal cation created by the removal of an electron from a neutral atom (typically a silicon atom within the semiconductor wafer) and it is temporal because at any stage a hole can acquire an electron to convert back into being a neutral atom.

However, although temporal, holes are static because they are locked within a rigid silicon crystalline structure. The Duplicit Electron (see link below to access a pdf copy of the Duplicit Electron) suggests that up-spin and down-spin electrons acting as the negative and positive charge carriers respectively, is more realistic than a combination of negative-electrons and static positive-holes.

The Duplicit Electron extends the spin-separation of electrons to explain electric field formation, magnetic induced currents, the Hall Effect and electricity within a range of semiconductor devices (diodes, photodiodes and transistors).

A recent pdf copy of the Duplicit Electron can be found on this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EeaEGG ... sp=sharing

It makes for interesting reading. Would anyone be interested in joining a discussion about this approach to electricity?

[crawler]

I would not be able to contribute much to any discussions, especially re semiconductor stuff.
Johnson's cetrons aptrons bitrons kintrons positrons wisps threads twists etc might be over my head when i get around to reading.

Johnson knows of Williamson's toroidal electron model (good), but doesnt mention it in his article (not good)(i like Williamson).

I would be interested in reading discussions about electric current.
Johnson doesnt mention Catt or Bishop (not good).
Electric current is not the movement of electrons in a conductor, it is Heaviside's energy current outside the conductor.

I would be interested in reading discussions about capacitors.
Johnson doesnt mention the need for Maxwell's displacement current (not good).
Johnson doesnt consider a capacitor with zero dielectric (not good).

I would be interested in reading discussions about radio waves.
Johnson seems to say that they are not simple photons or em radiation (good).

[InnerSpace]

Thanks for your response Crawler. I certainly hope that you and other readers of this post take the time to have a good look at this article.

Johnson's cetrons aptrons bitrons kintrons positrons wisps threads twists etc

This is a good summary of the jargon used in the article, although I don’t recognise twists (or turns for that matter).

Johnson knows of Williamson's toroidal electron model (good), but doesnt mention it in his article

There is a reference to Williamson (reference 8), but his modelling and maths have been lumped in with several other toroidal electron models.

Johnson doesn’t mention the need for Maxwell's displacement current

This is certainly an omission. However, just as the same-spin energy-fields of cetron-strands and aptron-strands is considered to generate the circular magnetic field around a current-carrying wire, the same-spin nature of threads between capacitor plates would be expected to generate a similar but less strong magnetic field around the gap between the capacitor plates: this field has been attributed by Maxwell to his so-called displacement current (which is widely accepted as not being a current at all). So the magnetic field can be explained without the need to define or infer a displacement current.

Johnson doesn’t mention Catt or Bishop

True, but the model presented for electricity is compatible with ‘energy current’, because although the electrons are moving relatively slowly, the energy-field of the strands (i.e. electrons) move at close to the speed of light to provide instant activation across an energised circuit. Possibly there are a lot more implications to the Catt, Bishop and/or Heaviside concepts than I am aware of: I must admit I do not know a lot about any of theses approaches.

[crawler]

This is a good summary of the jargon used in the article, although I don’t recognise twists (or turns for that matter).

Perhaps twists etc equates with curl etc.

Johnson doesn’t mention Catt or Bishop

True, but the model presented for electricity is compatible with ‘energy current’, because although the electrons are moving relatively slowly, the energy-field of the strands (i.e. electrons) move at close to the speed of light to provide instant activation across an energised circuit. Possibly there are a lot more implications to the Catt, Bishop and/or Heaviside concepts than I am aware of: I must admit I do not know a lot about any of theses approaches.

The essence of the Catt Question/Anomaly is that if an electric current in a wire propagates at c km/s then (some of) the electrons must move at c (or indeed at over c).
The analogy often used for sound in air is that sound travels very fast but individual air molecules dont (which is krapp).
Johnson says that bitrons move along a wire at say 40 cm/hr. And they vibrate at ?? km/sec. Hence it looks to me that Johnson would be classed as a Westerner in relation to the Catt Question.
Westerners have no explanation for how an electron knows what kind of insulation surrounds the wire (if plastic then we know that the electric current propagates at about 0.66c km/s)(in air almost c km/s)(in vacuum c km/s).
However Johnson's theory would probably allow an answer to that.

[InnerSpace]

Hi Crawler
I think I detect a slight warming to the Duplicit Electron approach, and it is interesting to see how you are trying to pigeon-hole it in respect to other theories.

The analogy often used for sound in air is that sound travels very fast but individual air molecules don’t

Not a good analogy. Air molecules and detritus particles are engaged in Brownian motion, with the velocity of individual molecules being far less speeds than sound-wave propagation. Sound waves are compression waves that transmit by the air molecules being momentarily pushed sideways to rebound off neighbours that in turn duplicate the action in domino fashion: effectively they end up vibrating as the sound wave moves through them. There is no net movement of molecules in the direction of the sound waves.

The electrons within strands are shunt-pushing each other along with zero vibration, although a little energy-core precession could be generated due to their dipolar nature. There would certainly be no compression wave, vibration or Brownian motion as for sound waves in air.

The essence of the Catt Question/Anomaly is that if an electric current in a wire propagates at c km/s then (some of) the electrons must move at c (or indeed at over c)…. Johnson says that bitrons move along a wire at say 40 cm/hr. And they vibrate at ?? km/sec.

I cannot see that electrons could possibly travel at close to the speed of light within a conductor or a semiconductor. And I cannot see that they need to. Should the spin or flow speed of an electron’s energy-core be close to the speed of light, then so is the flow rate of the field energy around the torus core. The combined central flow through a strand could also be expected to be travelling close to the speed of light, but the strand’s outer flow zone would result in considerably slower flow rates for several reasons: increased radius, the split of flow into a linear and circular component, and possibly a drag-effect (resistance).

Thus there would seem to be a three-level flow rate: the flow/spin rate of the core-energy; the linear flow of a strand’s inner flow field-energy; and the outer zone field-energy, which when split into circular and linear flow components, could make it a four-level flow-rate system.

And then there is the movement of the energy-cores within a strand that is much, much slower at around 40 cm/hr. And yes, the electron energy-cores may precess as they move within their strands, but certainly they would not vibrate.

Hence it looks to me that Johnson would be classed as a Westerner in relation to the Catt Question.
Westerners have no explanation for how an electron knows what kind of insulation surrounds the wire (if plastic then we know that the electric current propagates at about 0.66c km/s)(in air almost c km/s)(in vacuum c km/s).
However Johnson's theory would probably allow an answer to that.

Certainly plastic shielding would represent drag (i.e. resistance) for the energy field around a wire that would have a braking effect. I doubt that the electron’s brain, if it had one, would ‘know’ that the plastic is causing the problem. As an aside, Johnson resides in Western Australia, but I don’t think that’s the kind of Westerner that you are referring to.

[crawler]

Hence it looks to me that Johnson would be classed as a Westerner in relation to the Catt Question.
Westerners have no explanation for how an electron knows what kind of insulation surrounds the wire (if plastic then we know that the electric current propagates at about 0.66c km/s)(in air almost c km/s)(in vacuum c km/s).
However Johnson's theory would probably allow an answer to that.

Certainly plastic shielding would represent drag (i.e. resistance) for the energy field around a wire that would have a braking effect. I doubt that the electron’s brain, if it had one, would ‘know’ that the plastic is causing the problem. As an aside, Johnson resides in Western Australia, but I don’t think that’s the kind of Westerner that you are referring to.

In air or vacuum the leading edge of the field would need to propagate at c or nearly, & hence the electrons in the leading edge of the pulse would have to move at an average of c or nearly, & for brief periods more than c. Electrons shunting other electrons. Electrons once overtaken by the pulse would be moving at say 40 cm per hr. Thats the Westerner explanation for electric current in a wire. The other camp being Southerners who talk of electrons migrating across the wire.
But the Westerner explanation doesnt work. It needs electrons to move at over c at the leading edge, whilst moving slowly behind the leading edge.
And the Westerner explanation doesnt work when one looks at a complete circuit with a battery. The counter-rotating leading edges & flows negate at the far side of the circuit, producing an unnatural current, a problem which isnt even raised by Catt & Co (only by myself).
But Johnson's theory is of course designed to explain counter-rotating electric currents, which act like a moving positron current, so he would have more chance of wriggling out of this problem, but the problem of electrons moving at more than c remains.

[InnerSpace]

Electrons once overtaken by the pulse would be moving at say 40 cm per hr. Thats the Westerner explanation for electric current in a wire. The other camp being Southerners who talk of electrons migrating across the wire.

The Duplicit Electron article’s approach would not seem to align with either your Westerner or Southerner approaches. It is a duplex approach with up-spin and down-spin electrons (charge carriers) moving in opposite directions within conga-line-like strands. The dynamic nature and speed of circuit energisation is due to the combined central energy-field flows within strands: it has a speed close to that of light, which corresponds to the spin speed of the central core-energy of the electrons. The torus-shaped electron energy-cores move more sedately (40cm/hr).

Around the wire conductor the left and right-hand chiral flows offset each other to produce an external circular magnetic field. That magnetic field moves around the wire, not along it, but us part of the outer energy flows of the strands, it causes a drag (resistance) effect on the energy-fields within the wire. A plastic insulation material increases such resistance: you seem to have evidence that this is of the order of 40%. (0.6*c).

There is no energy pulse that shoots ahead: the central energy-fields pass through the centre of the electrons within their respective strands as a continuous stream. With a break of circuit (e.g. a pair of probes or capacitor plates), the central energy-field flows extend into the air (or other dielectric material) to form an electric field (wisps and threads) and a low-strength circular magnetic field (displacement current related).

This is a model that provides good explanations for a range of electromagnetic phenomena including: The Electron g-Factor; The Nature of Electric Currents; Electric and Magnetic Fields; Chemical Battery Power Sources; Electromagnetic Induction; Electromagnetic (Motor) Force; Eddy Currents and the Hall Effect; Static Electricity (Electrostatic Charge); Capacitors and Inductors; Micro and Radio Waves; Semiconductors and the P-N Junction; Photovoltaic Cells, Photodiodes and LEDs; NPN and PNP Transistors. (These topics were copied from the index of the Duplicit Electron).

The Duplicit Electron would not seem to have an over-riding or hidden agenda, and what other approaches do you know of that can provide logical and consistent explanations covering such a comprehensive range of topics? Or, put another way, what evidence confounds and refutes the Duplicit Electron approach?

The closing remarks of the Duplicit Electron are possibly on the money: "The ramifications of the Duplicit Electron approach for Science, industry and education are significant. However, it runs counter to long and widely held conventional Science beliefs related to electricity and electromagnetism, which have become an important aspect of Science culture and education: herein lies a problem that could be more cultural than scientific when it comes to change."

[paladin17]

However, although temporal, holes are static because they are locked within a rigid silicon crystalline structure.

This is not the case. Holes are assumed to be moving (if there's a current) - in the opposite direction with respect to electrons.

Regardless, what are the advantages of this new approach? Does it allow to explain some phenomena that are not explained by regular semiconductor (or other) theory? Does it predict new phenomena that cannot exist in the framework of the current theories? Does it allow new devices to be built according to its principles?

[InnerSpace]

However, although temporal, holes are static because they are locked within a rigid silicon crystalline structure.

This is not the case. Holes are assumed to be moving (if there's a current) - in the opposite direction with respect to electrons.

As your comment indicates, it is ASSUMED that holes do move: the whole point is that they do not move as required. As temporal cations, holes can be created by the loss of an electron from a neutral atom; and they can be removed (i.e. be fixed and thus disappear) by acquiring another electron, but they do not represent charge carriers (particles that can carry a charge from point A to point B). In recognition of this fact, holes are often referred to as quasi-particles (which is double-speak indicating that they are not particles at all) whereas there is nothing quasi about electrons or the charge they carry.

Conventional Science confirms that drift and diffusion together are responsible for the electrical characteristics of diodes, and that both the positive and negative charge carriers within semiconductor are needed to support these mechanisms. In low concentration such as within semiconductors, random collisions between electrons can result in Brownian motion which is a pre-requisite for diffusion. Even should hole appearance and disappearance be considered to be random, it does not represent charge movement, let alone Brownian motion, and thus holes cannot and do not support diffusion.

what are the advantages of this new approach? Does it allow to explain some phenomena that are not explained by regular semiconductor (or other) theory?

I personally would like to know the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, rather than to live a lie. The truth here is that positive and negative charge carriers are required to explain electric current flow, particularly in the semiconductor context. The lie is that positive holes can move and act as positive charge carriers when holes are in fact just the revealing of an existing positive nuclear charge by the removal of an electron and their subsequent elimination by the acquisition of another electron. There is negative charge movement (electrons) but no positive charge carrying movement attributable to holes.

Thus when it is pointed out that there are two types of electron (up and down spin) that can act as real positive and negative charge carriers, then I am interested, not to predict anything new or to build new devices, but to simply arrive at a better version of the truth. And should that approach provide feasible logical explanations for other electromagnetic phenomena, then I am more than interested. Let’s bag the Duplicit Electron approach if it can be proven to be blatantly wrong: otherwise let’s check it out and give it a good shake.

It is good that you use the term ‘explain’, because Physics tends to describe, to quantify by experiment and mathematics, to theorise, to parametrise, and sometimes to predict; but rarely does it provide satisfactory explanations. In this case, regular semiconductor theory describes diffusion and drift and provides the appropriate equations, but fails to explain how positive holes can provide the mobility and charge-carrying characteristics attributable to electrons needed to allow them to act as positive charge carriers.

The Duplicit Electron provides an explanation for electric fields, explains the difference between electric and magnetic flux, provides an explanation for how electric current can flow in opposite directions as required by common-pin configurations for transistors. Then there is the calculation of the g-factor of the electron and the explanations for capacitor charge and discharge, radio and microwave generation, electromagnetic induction and motor force and the implications for REDOX reactions. This is a reasonably good list of credentials - I feel exhausted just typing them up. And yes, most of the listed items are not explained by regular semiconductor theory.

Does it allow new devices to be built according to its principles?

The building of new devices according to the principles put forward does not seem to be a stated intention of the Duplicit Electron, but there is nothing stopping that becoming a future eventuality. And certainly practitioners working in a research area such as applied Chemistry, including the rapidly developing fields of Nanoscience and Biochemistry, or those trying to develop a more energy-efficient power source, would see an advantage in knowing exactly what is happening at the electron-level rather than to continue with a flawed model.

Should the Duplicit Electron approach be correct, it would require a major re-education process and involve the re-writing of many text books and technical papers related to the electron, electricity and electromagnetism. And then there are the possible implications for other areas of Atomic Theory - a Pandora's box.

[Higgsy]

Thus when it is pointed out that there are two types of electron (up and down spin) that can act as real positive and negative charge carriers, then I am interested, not to predict anything new or to build new devices, but to simply arrive at a better version of the truth.

Since electrons with measured spin up and spin down are deflected in the same direction by an electric field, it is trivial to show that they have the same charge. Nothing more need be said to invalidate this model.

[InnerSpace]

Thus when it is pointed out that there are two types of electron (up and down spin) that can act as real positive and negative charge carriers, then I am interested, not to predict anything new or to build new devices, but to simply arrive at a better version of the truth.

Since electrons with measured spin up and spin down are deflected in the same direction by an electric field, it is trivial to show that they have the same charge. Nothing more need be said to invalidate this model.

You seem to be missing the point that the electric field generated by an electron is its energy-field , and that the electric field of an up-spin electron has different chirality to that of a down-spin electron.

Within a semiconductor an external emf sends them in opposite directions: this is drift. Within a wire conductor, they move in opposite directions within strands as an electric current, and their combined central energy flow generates an electric field at a break in circuit (e.g. a capacitor or a pair of probes), and we say that the probes (or plates) represent positive and negative electric charge. The Duplicit Electron view is that positive and negative electric charges, and their associated fields, are due to the interactions between the different chiral forms of the same type of field-energy, rather than a positive and a negative form of energy that is intrinsically different to each other (the conventional view).

Have a (re)read of ‘The Nature of Electric Currents’ chapter (page 19) and the ‘Electric and Magnetic Fields’ chapter (page 25), where this is clearly explained.

[antosarai]

How does chirality apply to a field, how can a field be chiral?

[InnerSpace]

How does chirality apply to a field, how can a field be chiral?

Screws (the wood-working type, not those in a prison) have either left-hand or right-hand chirality (or helicity if you prefer), because, from their head along their length, the thread turns clockwise or anti-clockwise. A left-hand screw is thus incompatible with a right-hand screw.

An electron’s energy-field is polarised and thus has both a linear and a circular flow component as can be clearly seen in figures 14 and 15 of the Duplicit Electron. Thus an electron’s energy-field has chirality, with the chirality of up-spin electrons being different to that of down-spin electrons, resulting interactions with each other and the outside world that we refer to a negative and positive fields respectively. It is that simple.

[Higgsy]

You seem to be missing the point that the electric field generated by an electron is its energy-field , and that the electric field of an up-spin electron has different chirality to that of a down-spin electron.

And you seem to be missing the point that electrons with measured up-spin and down-spin are deflected in the same direction in an externally applied electric field, otherwise CRTs, oscilloscopes and streak cameras would not work. This consideration on its own shows that your hypothesis is wrong.

[InnerSpace]

You seem to be missing the point that the electric field generated by an electron is its energy-field , and that the electric field of an up-spin electron has different chirality to that of a down-spin electron.

And you seem to be missing the point that electrons with measured up-spin and down-spin are deflected in the same direction in an externally applied electric field, otherwise CRTs, oscilloscopes and streak cameras would not work. This consideration on its own shows that your hypothesis is wrong.

Can’t agree more that free electrons 'are deflected in the same direction in an externally applied electric field, otherwise CRTs, oscilloscopes and streak cameras would not work'. But free electrons, such as those generated by electron guns, are all up-spin electrons (cetrons), which require about a quarter of the kinetic energy required by down-spin electrons (aptrons) to escape their host medium(see the Positrons and Kintrons chapter). Free down-spin electrons are positrons, which require high energy impact for their release (high energy lasers or particle colliders such as those at CERN).

Within a metal or semiconductor host medium, up-spin electrons act as negative charge carriers and down-spin electrons act as positive charge carriers. When they have been ejected from their host medium, down-spin electrons are called positrons, whereas up-spin electrons retain the electron name (the Duplicit Electron uses the term Kintron to minimise ambiguity).

Please provide a reference to any experimental evidence that confirms your claim ‘that electrons with measured up-spin and down-spin are deflected in the same direction in an externally applied electric field’ as you have stated. But please let it not be the Stern-Gerlach Experiment that involves Silver atoms (not free mixed-spin electrons). The challenge is back to you.