"Electronics
World", May 2009, p16
|
|
It was important in 2019 to not alter http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/91.htm , so this is the improved version. Ivor Catt 2019 The Catt Question Lord Martin Rees, Professor Martin
Rees, Sir Michael Pepper FRS, Brian Josephson , Professor Howie FRS, Dr Neil
McEwan, May Chiao |
|
What follows was published in "Electronics World", May 2009, page 16 Comment in 2019. It is unclear how much of the following was published in 2009, but this matters little now. Ivor Catt 2019 The Catt Question. In the October 2008 edition of Electronics
World, page 29, is an article written by John Ellis entitled;
"Transmission Line Model; An Introduction to the World of RF." His
transmission lines contain only sine waves. His article ends with a simulated
transmission line into which he injects a sine wave. He is not alone.
. The non-sinusoidal excitation is generally excluded from electromagnetic
theory by the use of the mantra; "Any (periodic) waveform can be broken
down into sine waves of various frequencies." Alternatively; "Any
(periodic) waveform can be represented by sine waves of various
frequencies," or even that physical reality consists of a series of sine waves. .
When I made the above statement recently to a Professor [Jack Dinsdale] omitting the word "periodic", he
corrected me. However, recently in an email to me Nobel Prizewinner Brian
Josephson wrote that for a non-periodic waveform we used the "Fourier
Integral". When I questioned him as to what that meant, he replied that
we could handle a non-periodic waveform if we repeated it! Josephson
introduces the idea of frequency (sine waves) when he discusses "The
Catt Question". ( "The Catt
Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
is as follows. When a voltage step travels down a transmission line at the
speed of light guided by two conductors, where does the negative charge come
from on the bottom conductor to terminate the electric field between the
conductors?) When he writes about "The Catt
Question", Sir
Michael Pepper , "knighted for services to physics", also
introduces frequency. Remember that "The Catt Question" is about a
single voltage step. There is a general idea, stated to me by
Professor Howie, then Head of the Cavendish, that "Physical reality is
composed of sine waves." http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.htm
The entrenched idea that classical electromagnetic theory refers only to sine
waves is very important, since it submerges "The Catt Question" in
complexity and confusion. The truth is that "The Catt Question"
exposes a fundamental problem for classical electromagnetism which has been
hidden by the general commitment to sine waves. It is very simple, and
discusses a single voltage step travelling at the speed of light guided by
two conductors. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
Unfortunately, experts in
electromagnetic theory cannot "see" a single step, but in their
brains they convert it into an array of sine waves. This makes it too
difficult for them to grasp the fundamental, simple problem, "The Catt
Question". [Further
comment.] For decades, none of the results of my
pioneering work on interconnecting high speed logic, beginning in the 1960s,
including the extensive material published in "Wireless World" and
later in "Electronics World" - a, b, c, d, e , has gained a foothold
in university text books, or college or university curricula. This includes
all of the content of seven books on websites, including the one
published by Macmillan and "Electromagnetism 1" . I decided to jettison my experience and ask
a very simple question about classical electromagnetism, now called "The
Catt Question". It took some years to get any response at all from
leading academic luminaries or from the relevant learned institutions, but in
the end I got response from Sir Michael Pepper FRS , and from Dr. Neil McEwan,
Reader in Electromagnetism, later replaced by Nobel Prizewinner
Brian Josephson.. Pepper and Josephson are both Professors at The
Cavendish, and both Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. In their replies,
they totally contradicted each other. Josephson said the negative charge came
from the west, and managed this somehow without any charge travelling at the
speed of light. Pepper said that charge from the west would have to travel at
the speed of light, which was impossible. He said that actually the negative
charge came from the south, from inside the conductor (thus contradicting
Gauss’s Law). I took this contradiction to the Master of
Trinity College, Lord Rees, asking him to do something about it in his
administrative capacity. He replied that "I shall however need to get
'up to speed' on the scientific question you raise before being able to
respond intelligently .... ". I replied that I
approached him in his administrative capacity, not in his technical capacity.
That was two years ago, and he has done nothing. (Now more than 30 years
ago.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw
I wrote to the President of The Royal
Society, who also happened to be Lord Rees, saying that two Fellows of the
Royal Society totally contradicted each other in their responses to "The
Catt Question". In that capacity, Rees has not replied. The behaviour of the IEE (now IET) and also
of the New York IEEE, was similarly irresponsible.
On 4sep95, Professor Secker, chosen by the Chief Executive of the IEE to deal
with "The Catt Question", wrote "....The favoured explanation
aligns with the statement to which you refer, attributed to Professor Pepper,
....", but seven weeks later, on 25oct95, he wrote; "Dr. McEwan
really has the answer; ....". Thus, he was backing both the views whose
contradiction was the cause of Catt writing to Secker's boss in the first
place, and his boss instructing Secker to reply! Further, although on 4sep95
[the Chief Executive] in the IEE chose him as the appropriate expert to
reply, after seven weeks of repeated pontification and obfuscation, Secker
wrote on 26oct95; "I should explain that I am no expert in the area to
which the 'Catt Anomaly' refers....". The Chief
Executive refused to supply a replacement for Secker. [9] As I wrote to Lord Rees, it appeared that
he and the rest had four options ; "1 Say that you have no relevant
administrative duties or power in The Royal Society. In which case, please
advise me as to who has administrative responsibility. 2 Say that you regard the matter as
unimportant 3 Say that the two parties, Josephson and
Pepper, or in the case of The Royal Society Howie and Pepper, have told you
that either (a) they do not in fact disagree, or (b) the matter is
unimportant. 4 Say that a Conference is required." This has been reiterated to all
administrators concerned for more than a decade. Obviously, a conference is
required. (I noted that G De Santillana,
in his book "The Crime of Galileo", pub. 1955, writes that the main
mistake in handling Galileo [the earth moves] was to approach it
administratively, which is your mistake over The Catt Anomaly. ".... if
a decision had to be taken, a council was in order. To deal with the question
on an administrative level was not only an arbitrary procedure; it was an
inexcusable mistake, which is the necessary premise to the graver mistake of
the trial sixteen years later...." - De Santillana,
p137) Even the mere announcement of a Conference
would give courage to such as May
Chiao, who so far will not answer my letters,
let alone publish something about "The Catt Question" in her
journal "Nature Physics". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/64maychiao.htm For decades, the same fear, leading to
suppression, has been demonstrated by all other journal editors throughout
the world. [A few decades later, see http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311a.htm
] The decades-long exercise called "The
Catt Anomaly" arose because it is impossible to publish advances in electromagnetic
theory. The referee system ensures that. Referees are wedded to the status
quo, which is the basis for their careers and reputations. Had it been possible to publish advances in
electromagnetic theory resulting from the experience of interconnecting high
speed logic 40 years ago, the need for "The Catt Question" exercise
would not have arisen. So what is the major advance, "Theory C"? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cbwash.htm
Traditionally, under "Theory N",
when a battery is connected via two wires to a resistor or lamp, the battery
delivers electric current/charge into the wires. Once the wires gain
current/charge, they create magnetic and electric fields between the two
wires. Now more than a century ago, when confronting a challenge similar to
that of interconnecting high speed logic, Heaviside said; "We reverse
this .... ". [Theory H]. The battery delivers
electromagnetic field between the connecting wires. In its turn, the field
causes electric current/charge in/on the wires. He called the field,
travelling at the speed of light, "energy current". However,
Heaviside's work on electromagnetic theory disappeared from the record. He
was unreferenced in any text book for more than half a century. There the matter rested for a century,
until Catt realised that the core problem was for the battery to deliver
energy/power to the resistor or lamp. If the battery delivered the
electromagnetic field, it was generally agreed that the field carried the
energy/power directly into the resistor or lamp. (After all, sunlight is
"Energy Current".) Under the new "Theory C", electric
current/charge played no role in the key activity, that of delivering
energy/power from battery to resistor or lamp. So, under "Theory C", what are electric current and electric charge? What is the role
of the interconnecting wires? The answer is that when travelling along in the
dielectric between the wires, some of the energy current (or electromagnetic
field) penetrates
into the wires. Since the dielectric constant of copper or any other
conductor can be
shown to approach infinity , the velocity of penetration, which depends
on the inverse of the dielectric constant, approaches zero. Also, the impedance
of a conductor approaches zero, so that very little of the energy current
enters the conductors (in the same way as, if we have large and small
resistors connected in series, very little power is dissipated in the small
resistors.) Maxwell's Equations link field and electric current/charge, and
the so-called (but non-existent) current and charge are merely mathematical
manipulations of the electromagnetic field. Now let us analyse the situation that has
developed. Today's Electromagnetic Theory remains as if digital computers and
high speed logic never existed. It is frozen in around 1950. My work on high
speed logic interconnection in the 1960s and beyond could have been expected
to bring new insights into electromagnetic theory, and it did. However, none
of these insights could be published, including all of the contents of my two
books now on the www. They failed to get past journal referees, who are all
are frozen in the era before digital electronics. Now the rejection for publication of any of
this new material is not an administrative matter, since the decision as to
whether such material is valuable or not is technical. However, we then come the "The Catt Question", which is about
classical theory, not Catt theory, the contradictory replies show that the
old, pre-1950 Electromagnetic Theory which controls academia is not fully
specified. It follows that something has to be done administratively.
Following the analysis of Galileo by De Santillana,
it is clear that a conference is required. But here we arrive at the core
problem, which extends far beyond electromagnetic theory. Lord Rees,
Josephson, Sir Michael Pepper have no inkling that with reputation comes
responsibility. They have no grasp of the fact that given their high
reputation and administrative responsibility, they have a duty to do
something to resolve the problem which has arisen, that leading experts
totally contradict each other on a rudimentary detail of electromagnetic
theory. More generally, there exists within the
scientific community no functioning adminstrative
structure capable of dealing with the problem. All of those who we expect to
be responsible, merely rest on their laurels,
basking in fame. The behaviour of all our institutions when
confronted by "The Catt Question" delivers a bleak message for the
future of science. Institutionalised failure to deal with "The Catt
Question" and other fundamental lacunae threatens the survival of
science. Letters in reply in the June issue of "Electronics
World". Power
versus Scholarship in Cambridge @@@@@@@@@ Copy sent to May Chiao , Associate Editor, The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, on 6 July 2009 "To May Chiao,
Associate Editor. Nature Physics, I have mailed to you the letter in
"Electronics World" which refers to you. Ivor Catt http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/66e.htm @@@@@@@@@ |
|
|
|
|