|
Version in Electronics World 2011
The end of electric
charge and current as we know them.
“It doesn't make any difference
how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it
disagrees with real-life results, it is wrong. That's all there is to
it." Richard Feynman -Nobel Prize winner
Crimestop means the faculty of
stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous
thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to
perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they
are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or
repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
direction. Crimestop, in short, means
protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn.,
p225
“ .... scientists tend not to
ask themselves questions until they see the rudiments of an answer in their
minds. Embarrassing questions tend to remain unasked or, if asked, to be
answered rudely.” – P B Medawar, “The Future of
Man” [BBC Reith Lectures 1959], pub. Basic Books Inc., N.Y., 1960, p62
Ivor Catt.
25 June 2010
This document is also here
Some of the research into
censorship by the IEEE
This follows "an attempt to introduce
the layman to the developments over the last three weeks" . Since
I wrote it, the situation has clarified significantly. The article is based
on my 1967 paper .
Under Faraday’s Law, v = -d(phi)/dt , which forbids superposition but whose mathematics
permits it, we end up with two electric currents travelling in opposite
directions down the same conductor.
|
|
|
About classical electrodynamics
The
109 Experiment
I used Faraday's
Law of induction, that changing magnetic flux
through a surface causes a voltage around the periphery of the surface. I
placed an observer half way down two parallel conductors, Figure 36 . He used Faraday’s
Law and mathematics to prove that a step (or any signal) travelling down a
coaxial cable or twisted pair must have only one velocity c, and one
voltage/current ratio Zo. I then applied the same mathematics to a system
of four symmetrical coductors, Figure
37 . I placed an observer half way down a symmetrical array of four
conductors, Figure 38 .
Again starting with Faraday’s Law, the observer proved that only two
possible patterns of voltage and current could travel down the set of four
wires. All of this is dealt with at the following point in my 1995 book .
At this point it needs to
be agreed that theory, photographs and physical reality apply equally to
the case of Figure 37 ( here ) , or two wires and a voltage plane
.
The key
error is in the last paragraph of that section of my 1995 book .
There, I say;
“Our
initial assumption was that a stable waveform passed the observer; that is,
a TEM wave which was in equilibrium. Following that
assumption, we concluded from our calculations that no other waveform may
pass the observer. However, superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes]
are permissible, as are seen in photographs in the literature.
For instance, a step travelling between AA' and BB' with no voltage visible
between P and Q must be a combination of equal amplitudes of EM and OM,
which cancel at P (for instance if P has been shorted to ground). As
another example, if P is open circuit so that no electric current enters P,
then the sum of currents in the EM and OM must be zero.
The cited photographs in
the literature are at 1
and 2 .
Here we
have to distinguish between time-hallowed scientific theory, or laws, and
physical fact. In 1995 I continued to have confidence in Faraday’s Law, one
of the primary laws which underpin established electromagnetic theory.
Using Faraday, I proved the two modes were the only permissible modes. The
photographs showed that in the real world they could be superposed. I
failed to notice that under Faraday’s Law superposition was illegal, as it
created a third, illegal mode ( Figures 7 and 8 ).
“However,
superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes] are permissible, as are seen
in photographs in the literature.”
The superposed combinations
are permissible (because they occur) in fact, as the photographs show us,
but impermissible under Faraday’s theory.
Seeing the facts, I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that the theory
permitted superposition. There it remained for the next 43 years.
Perhaps
the best example to start with is the photographs, Figures 35 and
36
, when a
very narrow spike is introduced into the top left hand (active) line A
with the
passive line P shorted to ground, or the passive lines P and Q (Figure
37) ( here on the right ) shorted
together. This short ensures zero voltage at the start of the passive line
P. The signal can only proceed in a balanced mode, so its initial short
ensures that it must contain even and odd modes of equal voltage amplitude.
However, in conductors on the surface of a printed circuit board, these two
(approximately TEM) signals travel at different velocities, and so separate
out, as we see in the later second and first traces in Figures 35 and 36
. After
separating out, the slower, even mode has electric current travelling in
the forward direction in the right
hand passive line , but before it, the odd mode signal had electric
current travelling backwards, out of the paper. In the third trace,
therefore, before the signals separated out, there were two equal and
opposite electric currents in the passive line, each correlating with
(Biot-Savart might say causing) its own magnetic field, as drawn in the diagrams . (Also, slightly to the left of the right hand
passive line, in the green square, the two fields locally are upside down
to each other, with voltage in the odd mode left to right and voltage in the
even mode from right to left.) Further, in the case of
conductors buried
between voltage planes inside a printed circuit board , the two modes
travel at the same velocity and do not separate out. Thus, in Figures 7 and 8 , the signal
continues for ever in an unbalanced third mode, with electric currents in
both directions in the passive line. This idea, of two equal and opposite
electric currents travelling through each other in a conductor is
revolutionary, and undermines the conventional view of the nature of
electric current. Also, the surface of the passive line has equal and
opposite charges, each terminating its own electric field (even and odd mode).
This undermines the conventional view of electric charge.
Now
conventional electromagnetic theory is dualistic, with electric current and
charge in/on conductors and electric field in non-conductors. The two
aspects of the theory correlate, with formulae giving the correlation. Here
we see a breakdown, not of the whole of traditional theory, but of the
charge/current element. The electric currents and charge required to
correlate with the fields which we see in the photographs are incompatible
with the requirement, for instance, that only one electric current exist at
one point. Heaviside’s forgotten “We reverse this .... “ that field caused
charge and current rather than the opposite, is beside the point. Either
way, the electric currents which we know must match up to the fields which
are clearly demonstrated by our photographs are impossible.
The
dilemma is resolved by moving from both conventional theory (Theory N),
that electric current and charge cause fields, and also from Heaviside
(Theory H), that field causes current and charge, to Theory C, discovered
by Catt in 1976, that electric charge and current do not exist. See 1 , 2 , 3 . In the same way as
the slope of a hill does not exist, having no materiality, although the
hill itself exists, being made up of physical material, so electric charge
and electric current become merely the results of mathematical manipulation
of the edge of a field (or more accurately of an ExH Energy Current). Also
see from "The Death
of Electric Current" , page 2 , “Although a
cloud cannot exist without edges, the edges
of a cloud do not exist. They have no width, volume or materiality.
However, the edges of a cloud can
be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and mathematically.
The same is true of the so-called ‘electric current.’”
Electric
current and charge were already shown to be not fit for purpose by "The Catt Question"
in 1982, thirty years ago. Also, Faraday's
Law breaks down when we introduce a TEM Wave entering one side of a
transformer at the speed of light.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
My point of view, that of a single velocity universe,
that everything can only travel at the speed of light, that only
electromagnetic field exists, not isolated electric or magnetic field, that
when a battery lights a lamp electric current and charge are not involved
(Theory C), is very far removed from the Conventional Wisdom, or
Establishment Physics. Ivor Catt 25 June 2010
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The rest of this document
is on The Politics of
Knowledge
Later analysis in August 2010
The Rise and Fall of Bodies of
Knowledge
The Clever take
the Brilliant
The Scientific Referee System
To Jim Calder, Managing Editor, Proc. IEEE
Dear Mr. Calder,
I have not received a reply to my 20th
March email and letter to the Editor of "IEEE Transactions on
Computers".
Ivor Catt
27 June 2010
Second copy sent by email and by airmail to
Lombardi on 27 June 2010. Web address altered from http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm to
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: For publication in
IEEE Transactions on Computers
To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115 phone: +1
617.373.4159
Lombardi@ece.neu.edu
For
publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.
@@@@@@@@@@
Even and Odd Modes
My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in
Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained
an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was
based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the
two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.
The
error is fully discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .
Ivor Catt
Ivor Catt is at
+44 (0)1727 864257
121 Westfields,
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England
www.ivorcatt.co.uk
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear
J. Calder, Fabrizio Lombardi,
Editors of Proc. IEEE and
Transactions on Digital Computers.
I refer to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm ,
which is a major disclosure. At present it is a confidential orphan, and so
is available for you to provisionally accept for publication. However,
should you accept, I will have to restructure it away from http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm ,
which is appropriate when disclosed on the www, not in a learned
journal. Note that the IEEE welcomes request from authors for advice on how
to best produce their writing. In this case, you would say it was
acceptable if restructured to publish in a journal.
The reason why I approach you this way is that I have
a very extensive record over decades of having all papers rejected by
learned journals worldwide, and have lectured and published on censorship.
In the present case, the significance of the disclosure in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm is
so major that it is important to establish that it was rejected for
publication by refereed learned journals. I think that you will have little
difficulty in rejecting, just by reading the title of the article. You
will know that neither you nor your referees would risk advising
publication of material with such major claims. Polanyi
and Kuhn would say that you could not possibly accept. Your names will be
in the historical record of what happened to this major scientific advance.
My
close colleagues agree that it is futile to attempt to get a scientific
advance of the magnitude of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0620.htm published
in a refereed learned journal. However, I want to complete the historical
record. It will be valuable for future researchers to learn about the
response of learned journal editors.
Your past records are as follows. Calder rejected an
important paper in the usual manner. However, he rejected another important
paper which will disclose the results of a crucial experiment, before the
experiment has even been conducted. In the case of Lombardi, he does not
reply to my approaches by email and letter. These cases give interesting
new instances of the procedure of censorship for the student of
censorship which go far beyond the traditional,
assumed procedure. The traditional, assumed procedure is immediate
rejection or the sending out of the paper to referees, followed by
acceptance or rejection based on the referees' reports.
Ivor Catt
6 July 2010
+44 (0)1727 864257
|
