Professor
Brian Josephson on the Second Question .
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:54 PM
To: Brian Josephson
Subject: Second Question
Dear Brian,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson
Wonderful.
It is very rare, and very difficult indeed, to get
a clear enough exposition
on fundamentals from someone whose career and
reputation are partly based on
classical electromagnetism.
However, first there remains the problem of making
sure of what you mean.
It would be better if you confirmed this, but even
if you don't, I feel your
comment below is clear enough.
The displacement current is in a vertical
direction. This causes magnetic
field in a horizontal plane, some of it lateral, some of
it in the forward
direction.
Concentrate on the forward direction.
We are dealing with a Transverse Electromagnetic
Wave, which by definition
only has magnetic field in a transverse direction.
Thus, we must either
remove displacement current from classical
electromagnetism, or remove the
TEM Wave.
If would be extremely valuable for the future of
science if you, Brian
Josephson, commented on this.
Ivor Catt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Subject: Re: Second Question
--On 22 March 2012 16:10:17 +0000 Ivor Catt
<icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> Dear Professor McDonald,
> I have a very simple question for you (called
"The Second Question"),
> which Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson refuses to answer. He merely
> tells me to investigate some mathematics.
>
> In the animation at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , there is a
> changing (increasing) electric field dE/dt at the step and therefore
> a displacement
current dD/dt. Does this
displacement current generate
> a magnetic field?
That is, does the ninth circular B field exist on
> the right as shown in
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf ?
That is easy to answer at least. curl H is proportional to the sum of
the ordinary current and the displacement
current, so the latter must
be associated with a magnetic field if
Maxwell's equations are correct.
Brian J.
This is the smoking
gun. Nobel Prizewinner Professor Brian Josephson (as
usual for him) talks confusingly of curls and divs,
but he does say that the Displacement Current dD/dt at the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field.
This is the first time we get an admission from anyone that the displacement
current in the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field. However,
indulging as he does in curls and divs, he is unable
to see its significance. The significance is that by definition a TEM step ( = transverse electromagnetic) cannot have magnetic field in the forward
direction. So the definition of a TEM Wave is incompatible with displacement
current. – Ivor Catt 21 May 2012
-----
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson
:::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave,
Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax:
+44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
For the next reply from Josephson, go to the end of
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
In this reply, Josephson makes the extraordinary
statement;
“This is
the problem if you work with simplified physics rather than follow the maths.”
His statement is totally anti-science. In physics in
particular, we deal with the simplest possible physical case. Having mastered
that, we gradually build up complexity. Mathematics comes at a late stage, as a
shorthand expression of the statements about the physical world.
The simplest case, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, has perfect conductors and perfect dielectric. Imperfections can be added later.
Mathematical manipulations can be added later. However, the fundamentals are in
the physics, not in the mathematics. Examples of features missing from the
maths are causality (only the = sign) and superposition – can two physical
situations be superposed?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:09 PM
To: Brian Josephson ;
David Tombe ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com
Subject: dD/dt
Dear Professor Josephson,
You were first introduced to these field patterns
at school, when you
remember you did an experiment with a magnet and iron
filings on paper.
Admittedly, the key field pattern was only
published in one text book in the
20th century, and I have transposed it to Figure 5
in my recent paper
http://www.ivorcatt.org/x121.pdf
. To do my work in high speed logic, I
needed a good grasp of such fields. I assumed that
professors and text book
writers were familiar with these field patterns, but there
is no reason why
they should be, because they are not in the literature.
My assumption that
they were well known led to my only publishing part of
this pattern in my
1995 book ,
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_1.htm Figure 2 , and not at all in
my 1979 book. http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm
Extraordinarily, the key fields, such as shown in
my papers, cannot be found
with a Google search for "curvilinear
squares", which gives 3,000 hits, but
I don't find the key field patterns.
The fact that these field patterns are missing from
the literature is only a
small part of the general malaise, where so many of the
key precepts in
today's (digital) electromagnetic theory are not in the
literature and are
not known by lecturers or taught. Another void is the
omission of the key
formulae, shown in my 1979 book at
http://www.ivorcatt.org/image/page95xtra-large.gif . These are crucial, but
not available to students or lecturers. Also missing
is the Synchroniser
problem http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97sglit5.htm . The gap
is filled with some
bizarre, inappropriate mathematics. No wonder the student
numbers are
falling fast in Britain and the US.
Ivor Catt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:04 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; David Tombe ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: a reply of sorts
--On 24 March 2012 16:00:04 +0000 Ivor Catt
<icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> If Josephson has a good grasp of the subject,
he will be able
> immediately to answer
my question. [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23r.pdf -
> are the two field patterns the same? ]
Sorry -- not good enough to be able to answer immediately, and I have
more important things to use my time on.
-----
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson
:::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
8:56 AM (10 minutes ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
On 27/05/2018 22:53, Ivor Catt wrote:
That was because the noise was not a group of sine waves.
Really? Why should
Fourier analysis not apply to noise?
bdj