Guide to the Index

Guide for Newcomer to my Electromagnetic Theory

Ivor Catt 30 December 2008

Rolling versus Heaviside

"Re cause and effect, the mathematician considers this as mere
interpretation and sticks to the equations." - Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson, below, on 14 December 2008 19:56:16

This is the key to the difference between "The Rolling Wave" and "The Heaviside Signal". Thus, the distinction between them is "a mere interpretation". Of course, we have to wonder why "the mathematician" suddenly appeared. Were we talking about physical reality, or about mathematics?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--On 13 December 2008 21:57:06 +0000 ivor catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote: "In Cambridge [in the 1950s], I had one lecture per week on electricity. It is probably fortunate that I received no teaching in electromagnetic theory. The diode and valve were not mentioned. I was never taught about the TEM Wave.

[Brian Josephson replied;] "On the other hand, I did Part II Physics in 1959-60, about the same time as you, and there we were I believe taught about TEM waves as a nice application of Maxwell's eqns. (I can't be quite sure as I picked up knowledge from all sorts of places).

I was referring there to transmission lines. Certainly we were taught the very basic soln. of M's eqns, corresponding to plane waves in a vacuum, and there E and H are transverse and in phase. I have heard of someone else who thought they were out of phase -- maybe an overgeneralisation from the case of acoustic waves."

* * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--On 13 December 2008 22:18:45 +0000 ivor catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote [to Brian Josephson]: "I gather that you were taught "the rolling wave", with E and H in phase. Kip, in his text book, says something like "H acts back on E". This is strange if E and H are in phase.

Brian Josephson's answer; "Perhaps you find it strange, but it's clear that that's what the equations, which differ from those for sound waves or waves on a string, imply. As our siblings on the other side of the Atlantic say, 'do the math(s)!'. - Brian"

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--On 14 December 2008 19:56:16 +0000 ivor catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote: "Brian, http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm . So you dismiss "The Heaviside Signal" as misguided. Please confirm that the equations imply "The Rolling Wave", with H causing E causing H. "that's what the equations, .... imply." - Brian Josephson

"I am very much interested in what you say." -Ivor Catt

"I don't know -- it all comes out of the maths. You can I believe
include pressure and momentum in the theory, but these are 2nd. order in the field strengths in contrast to the case of sound where it is first order. You say Heaviside oscillated between 2 theories but I'm not so sure these were different theories rather than different forms of description.

You are assuming a force is necessary to make the wave move, but a moving pattern is not the same as actual motion. This is different from a sound wave where gas is actually moving.

Re cause and effect, the mathematician considers this as mere
interpretation and sticks to the equations.

That quick response is about all I have time for, I'm afraid."

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--On 14 December 2008 23:28:40 +0000 ivor catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote: ""That quick response is about all I have time for, I'm afraid." - Brian Josephson.

"I very much need your considered reply" - Ivor

"Extra time would not have added significant extra wisdom. TQRIAAIHTF,IA!" - Brian