And from the abstract for "Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields <http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913>":
As a matter of fact the Liénard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with *infinite velocity*. On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric-- > > I was taught many years ago that the energy bands are determined by > quantum mechanics of the semiconductor, a coherent system of particles with > electrons occupying discrete energy levels in that system. There is no > electrical wave that spreads throughout the semiconductor. It happens > instantaneously, if a new electron enters the system—no delay. > > If someone has an experiment that can sheds lighti on this question, I > would be interested, > > Bob > > > > *From:* Eric Walker <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2015 8:05 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Single-catalyst water splitter from Stanford > produces clean-burning hydrogen 24/7 > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In my concept elements of a system—a QM system—are entangled and act >> coherently and instantaneously. Any two systems whose elements couple in >> any way constitute a coherent, although weakly coupled system. For >> example, introduction of an electron into a semiconductor instantaneously >> changes the energy level of every other electron in that semiconductor no >> matter their distance from the new electron just introduced. > > > This seems mistaken. I would have expected there to be a wavefront for > the propagation of the new Fermi level along the semiconductor at some > speed up to the speed of light in a vacuum following upon the stimulation > of an electron. Also, I believe a typical semiconductor system has so many > electrons at so many energy levels that it is no longer useful to think of > it as a quantum mechanical system -- hence the treatment of the band > structure as a set of continuous ranges. Is this understanding incorrect? > > Eric > >
