|
There’s a
huge gulf between me and everyone else because I have no clue what any of
these things mean:
1)
Electric
field – what is it? What does it represent? How can a piece of space have a
directional quality anyway, wouldn’t that imply instantaneous knowledge of
two things at the same time?
2)
Magnetic
field – no clue. Seems unreal since it can be derived from the electric
field and em wave direction, and doesn’t exist
without motion.
3)
Energy
current –is it a “thing”? Heaviside warned against giving pieces of it a
“personal identity”. It apparently moves at an unexplained fixed speed and
has an unexplained perpendicular directional quality (the electric field).
Two energy currents can pass through each other unmolested, apparently
independently of intensity. How? Nothing in nature behaves the same way,
except for waves in the linear domain of a medium.
My personal
view:
a)
All
em waves are associated with a “space current”, a
compression and motion of the medium containing the wave (i.e. a
simultaneous increase in permittivity and permeability of space). For an
isolated wave in free space, the em wave speed in
this compressed medium plus the medium speed equals the speed of light.
b)
When
two oppositely moving em waves intersect, the
medium stops moving but remains compressed. The em
wave speed in this region slows down due to the compression. At normal
field strengths, this slow down is negligible.
c)
At
ultra high intensities, intersecting electromagnetic waves interact due to
the increased compression. This results in noticeable changes in direction
and speed. This is most likely the explanation for the stability of matter.
There are no “particles”, e.g. billiard balls, distinct from compressed em waves.
d)
This
distinction between electromagnetic waves and the medium may simply be an
initial step in eliminating electric and magnetic fields as physical
concepts. They may end up as virtual quantities, like heat.
e)
This
space medium will have its own mechanical properties, distinct from
electromagnetism. Discovering and exploiting those properties will lead to
things we can’t even imagine right now. Probably won’t happen until long
after I’m dead and buried. I definitely not smart enough to figure it out!
This is all I
think about now (when I get time away from running my little company).
Nothing else in physics interests me. The key to getting a grip on this is to
look at the fringes of electromagnetic theory, where it breaks down.
Mike
From: Ivor Catt
[mailto:ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:38 AM
To: Forrest Bishop; mikegi@comcast.net
Cc: dswalton@plus44.net; 'Malcolm F Davidson'; 'John Raymond Dore'
Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside
I tend to think
that my views are identical with those near to me, but the lack of
communication can always cause misunderstanding. Emails by Mike Gibson and
Forrest Bishop during the last few days indicate gulfs between me and them.
Forrest has instantaneous action at a distance, and Mike Gibson has warped
space, both of which are anathema to me. If my paraphrasing of them above
is true, then these are fundamental differences in world-view.
I write the above
at the level that Dave Walton writes below;
"I quote
David Walton in Wireless World, November 1980;
"A moving
body continues to move because that is what moving bodies do; an
electromagnetic disturbance disturbance or energy
current, of whatever distribution, continues to move because this is what
energy currents do. In other words "energy current travels at the
velocity of light" is a primitive assumption in my theoretical
framework which requires no further explanation. In my framework the moving
energy current is the simple situation and 'static' electric and magnetic
fields are composite." - Dave Walton
This is not
really novel because Newton's First Law is similar. As Walton said earlier
in the same piece, "Aristotelians believed that a force was necessary
to keep bodies in motion." Today we don't think so. It follows that
the always moving TEM Wave of energy current should not be very strange to
us.
"what
the difference is between a slab and “empty” space" - Mike
The answer is that
the difference is the presence of energy. When you put things in your
suitcase, the suitcase does not have to do anythuing
like distorting to accomodate the thing you put
in it. Space is the ability to accomodate
energy."
I have an
approach which includes some things and excludes others as a starting
point. I have absolute, rigid 3D space, which Mike indicates now that he
does not. I have something like this definition of space; "Space is
that which prevents instantaneous action", which it appears Forrest does not.
Recently on the
phone to David Walton, wrestling with something (I regrettably forget what)
which arose as a result of the developoment http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm , Dave suggested
that some item or other perhaps "should be axiomatic". I think
that rigid space, and no instantaneous action at a
distance, come into this category for me. I suggest that coming down
on one side of the other of such "axioms" means that everything
which is then said probably has two different meanings for the two parties.
The extreme case3
of such a gulf is between me and Nigel Cook. I don't know which axiomatic
set he adheres to. It is not mine, and it is not Establishment Modern
Physics, because he thinks he advances beyond this with his own
"brilliant" work and insights. The result is that attempts to
communicate are futile. I am forced to wonder whether he really knows my
axiomatic set; my starting point.
One thing which
perhaps isolates me is that I have no particles in my world-view. I only
attempt to construct them out of energy currents. I wonder whether Mike
Gibson has that same view. I don't know, because of his recent emails.
Ivor Catt
----- Original Message -----
From: Forrest
Bishop
To: Ivor Catt ; mikegi@comcast.net
Cc: dswalton@plus44.net
; 'Malcolm F Davidson' ; 'John
Raymond Dore'
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside
If gravity did not act 'instantaneously', or at least at a very high
multiple of c, like 10^8c, we would see the planets spiral away from the
Sun. This is not a theory, it is a direct observation. See T. Phipps, *The
Speed of Gravity*.
some definitions-
Force is F = ma
Energy is E = dF = dma
Action is A = tE = tdma
Instantaneous action, A, is not considered in the below, nor is energy, E,
transported at any speed other than c-
The TEM wave carries energy, E, in the forward direction at c while
exerting net force, F, in the transverse directions. The net force, vector
(E + H), is zero for a single TEM wave and only appears 'instantaneously'
when two TEM waves pass through each other. The non-zero net transverse
force, F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire transverse distance
spanned by the two opposing TEM waves. Therefore net transverse force, F,
is transmitted instantaneously, or rather gives that illusion.
Forrest
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Forrest,
I take issue with some of yours below. Two TEM Waves
travelling in opposite directions suddenly collide. They then overlap.
Macroscopically, we know that when they overlap, there appears a physical
force between the two guiding conductors. (Rather, we know that there is a
physical force on one conductor and a physical force on the other
conductor.) Now consider two areas of the overlap. First, a point in
space half way between the two guiding conductors. Between them, the two
energy currents create a lateral force which has no means of
expressing itself. Now take a region of space right next to the guiding
conductor. Between them, the two energy currents create a lateral force
which is expressed by a lateral force on the conductor.
If the effect were the same as putting a stretched elastic
band between the two conductors, there would be something going on
laterally. However, it is not like that. All we know is that if a section
of guiding conductor has two overlapping energy currents in the space
immediately adjacent to the conductor, the conductor experiences a lateral
force. How a force appearing in space half way between the two conductors
expresses itself is beside the point.
The conductor which experiences the lateral force does not
know anything about the other conductor. All it knows is that it is at the
edge of (1) one energy current, in which no force, or (2) at the edge of
two overlapping energy currents, in which case force on that conductor -
not force between the two conductors. The same thing occurs in the space
close to the other conductor. At every point in the space, the overlapping
energy currents create a lateral force in their vicinity. The only
"force" that we would detect is the force on something at the
edge of the energy currents, because we understand a physical force on a
piece of metal. As to the "force" which occurs half way between
the conductors, we do not understand it, but obviously it is there, because
the energy current situation is the same as near the conductor.
Forrest is coming up with lateral flow in a much more sophisticated way
than poor Nugel Cook does, but all the same he is
wrong. We do not fully understand Heaviside's
"slab of energy current", but that is no reason for inventing
additions which damage the platonic vision.
In a sense, Forrest's "The non-zero net transverse force,
F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire transverse distance spanned by
the two opposing TEM waves." is the problem. Two forces are felt, one
on one conductor and one on the other. Nothing is felt in between, and we
do not understand exactly what happens when there is a desire by physical rality to express a force where there is no means to
express it.
Ivor
23 Marcdh 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: Forrest Bishop
To: Ivor Catt ; mike gibson
Cc: Dave Walton ; Malcolm Davidson; 'John
Raymond Dore'
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: heaviside
Dear
Ivor,
My contention comes directly from the study of the contrapuntal
capacitor and such-
" The TEM wave carries energy, E, in the forward
direction at c while exerting net force, F, in the transverse directions.
The net force, vector (E + H), is zero for a single TEM wave and only
appears 'instantaneously' when two TEM waves pass through each other. The
non-zero net transverse force, F, is 'instantaneously' felt over the entire
transverse distance spanned by the two opposing TEM waves. Therefore net
transverse force, F, is transmitted instantaneously, or rather gives that
illusion."
This appearance of an instantaneous force spanning two wires is
illustrated in, for example, http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/THEORY_C_ANIMATIONS/OPENREFLECTIONb.avi
. Whne the reflected slab overlaps the incident slab
the two magnetic fields cancel and the two electric fields add. The
additions and cancellations are occurring over the entire wavefront simultaneously, in the plane perpendicular to
the propagation axes.
Take two identical straight sticks and place them parallel to
each other. Then bring them together until they touch. If they are exactly
straight and parallel, they will contact each other along their entire
lengths at the same instant, regardless of the speed with which they were
brought together.
Forrest
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0356.htm
The responses of my close
associates John and Mike are below. They are both in the trap I was in for
46 years.
John,
I used Faraday's Law and
the law of conservation of charge to prove that there were only two (not
three) possible patterns for a TEM Wave guided by four symmetrical
conductors. See Appendix II at http://www.ivorcatt.org/x0330.jpg for
mathematical "Proof that only two [not three] types of wave-front
pattern can be propagated down a system of two wires and ground plane.". In my pictures at http://www.ivorcatt.org/x0324.jpg the
third traces in Figures 28 and 29, from the oscilloscope, show a third
pattern. Unlike the other two it is not symmetrical. Thus the pictures show
that use of Faraday's Law produces an invalid result, because it makes the
third traces illegal. Faraday did not have the concept of two changing
magnetic fields at the same point in space at the same instant in time, and
neither had anyone else until now. However, the two second traces, and the
two first races, do not invalidate Faraday's Law. This is because by
now the two fields have separated out, and do not superpose.
Both I and Faraday talk
about physical reality, not about maths. Maths is supposed to follow
physical reality, not alter our fundamental principles, like the principle
that at any point in space we have electric field density and direction,
and magnetic field density and direction. If someone has in the past
proposed that one point in space can accomodate
two fields, please tell me who he is and where he said it. Talking about
mathematics is irrelevant.
"Theory C" does
not have a problem with this problem, because under Theory C there is no
electric current - the starting point for
Faraday's discovery. Heaviside proposed
"Energy Current", and did not assert that only one energy current
(TEM Wave) can exist at one point in space at one instant in time.
----- Original Message
-----
From: John
Raymond Dore
To: ivor catt
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: Faraday vs Ivor
Ivor
I believe in vector maths
It has served the electrical engineering world well.
There is only one net vector field which is changing.
Faraday holds true
Stick with real problems rather than generating red herrings!
John
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0356.htm
(Also see http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0360.htm )
I believe that if you do
all the vector math you’ll find that Faraday’s Law
will hold under any circumstances, including when two em
waves overlap. That’s why vectors are so popular for analyzing physics
problems.
Mike
From: Ivor Catt [mailto:ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:33 PM
To: John Raymond Dore
Cc: mike gibson ; Malcolm F Davidson; dave walton ; oudewaal; Darren
Subject: em
http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp57.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0362.jpg
The above are the two key pictures,
deriving from http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm and
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0357.htm
What is proven is that at one point in space there are two electric field
density and directions, and also two magnetic field densities and directions. This is totally revolutionary, and I should
have noticed it 46 years ago. Dave Walton on the phone today confirms
that he did not notice this either. The two fields are derived using
Faraday's Law, and proven mathematically by me in my paper "Crossdstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems, which can be
reached at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0357.htm .
In that paper I then (wrongly) assume that superposition is permissible,
and I show superposition at http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp57.htm .
But
Faraday's Law does not permit
superposition. You cannot have two changing magnetic fluxes in the same
surface causing two different voltages around the periphery of the loop.
Under conventional theory, you cannot have two electric fields or two
magnetic fields at one point in space at the same instant in time.
Then I realised that we already had
this many years ago when we sent two pulses from opposite directions down a
coax, when they overlap. However, the case from crosstalk, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0362.jpg ,
when both travel in the same directon, is more
grotesque (under classical theory). In contrast, Theory C makes no
assertions for or against over this.
Ivor
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I
put my reply to John and Mike on the www at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0360.htm
I
do this because I feel the situation is of historic importance, and part of
its historic significance is the responses of Dave Waltion,
Mike Gibson and John Dore. It helps to explain
why Dave Walton and I did not notice my 1967 error, although Dave is very
familiar indeed with the material involved.
The
idea of both Mike and John that "Vector maths" or some such is
relevant when I point out my error in my 1967 paper is very
important, particularly since there are two of them. This indicates a
general confusion in the matter, which confusion affected me for 46 years.
(My 1967 paper was actually 1964, publication blocked for three years.)
In
Appendix II at http://www.ivorcatt.org/x0330.jpg I
began with the law of conservation of charge and Faraday's Law of
Induction. I then proved that only two types of wave-front pattern were
possible down a symmetrical four wire system. I then made the false
assumption that these two legitimate wavefronts
could be superposed. But this new "solution" was not one of the permissible
solutions.
Note
that Mike is a true sceptic; "Electric field – what is it?
What does it represent? How can a piece of space have a directional quality
anyway, wouldn’t that imply instantaneous knowledge of two things at the
same time?". Yet still he has too much faith in
mathematics.
The key point
about mathematics is that it is a very restricted language with much
ambiguity. Properly, every line of mathematics needs to be surrounded by a
great deal of text discussing the validity and applicability etc. of
the equation. This is not done. The most grotesque example is that in maths we use the = sign and lose causality while
chemical equations retain causality with the arrow instead of the = . In electromagnetism we cannot discuss whether charge
causes electric field or is co-existent, or field causes charge, because of
the ambiguity of the = sign
In one of my
books on Forrest Bishop’s website I discuss the limitations of mathematical
discourse.
Ivor Catt 29 March 2010
|
