Feynman and the TEM Wave

 

 

Feynman and the TEM Wave

What follows is the key item among those quotes from Feynman very helpfully quoted by Forrest Bishop below. It is a clear statement of "The Rolling Wave". This subject is extremely well covered in my article http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm . The decription of "The Rolling Wave" in my article mirrors that of Feynman's TEM Wave.

RF: “Now let us ask what happens if we suddenly stop the motion of the charged sheet after it has been on for a short time, *T*…
“In short, we have a little piece of field- a block of thickness *cT*- which has left the current sheet and is traveling through space all by itself… The caterpillar has turned into a butterfly!
“How can this bundle of electric and magnetic fields maintain itself? The answer is: by the combined effects of the Faraday law, [curlE = -dB/dt], and the new term of Maxwell, [c^2curlB = dE/dt]. They cannot help maintaining themselves. Suppose the magnetic field were to disappear. There would be a changing magnetic field which would produce an electric field. If this electric field tries to go away, the changing electric field would create a magnetic field back again. So, by a perpetual interplay- BY THE SWISHING BACK AND FORTH FROM ONE FIELD TO THE OTHER- they must go on forever. It is impossible for them to disappear*. [*footnote- ‘well not quite’, they can be absorbed] They maintain themselves in a kind of a dance- one making the other, the second making the first- propagating onward through space.” [Note 1]--p 18-8, Vol II (emphasis added)

[Note 1. By Ivor Catt. But in the TEM pulse, or even more in the TEM step in Figure 9.4 , Feynman's "Suppose the magnetic field were to disappear." (above) cannot be supposed, because behind the step, for a very long time, E field and H field are constant. Do the E field and the H field suppose that the other might disappear? This is obviously nonsense in the context of a steady TEM step, as in Figure 9.4 .]

Feyman here extends from the sinusoidal TEM Wave to the narrow pulse, or spike, or "Dirac function" of TEM Wave. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
"material presented in a two-year introductory physics course given in the early 1960s by Feynman at Caltech."
He did not know the standard logic signal, step, or pulse, travelling from one high speed logic gate to the next. He was lecturing in the early 1960s, and high speed logic (ECL) was developed in the 1960s by Motorola. Also, he would never have read Heaviside, who was suppressed. Anyway, Heaviside only mentioned "energy current" twice in his five volumes. (The other mentions, pointed out by Mike Gibson, were in the early volumes, and did not treat the full concept "energy current" as Heaviside later developed it. In his first two or three volumes, "energy current" was a general term, not the specific one that I take from late Heaviside.
The TEM step, or pulse, destroys the "Rolling Wave" as propounded by Feynman, and discussed by me in http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm
I was isolated, and it did not occur to me that the TEM step, or pulse, would be uncertain in high places then and fifty years later. The nearest I have to pictures of the logic step is at http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp58.htm , where I was researching the much more difficult subject, crosstalk. However, the steady step can easily be seen (unseen by Feynman) travelling unchanged for 234 inches. 100 inches beyond the start of the step, there is no change of E or change of H, which is required in the Feynman TEM Wave, i.e. the Rolling Wave. So according to Feynman the TEM Step seen there cannot propagate because he requires change of E and change of H.
Of course, if we were sure that Feynman was at the top of the tree, to be taken seriously by all, it would be very worthwhile to study him in detail, as we are doing here. However, The Establishment, when one of its gurus comes under fire, can easily retreat from his pontification, demoting him to a lower level of The Establishment.
Ivor Catt 16 December 2008

----- Original Message -----
From: Forrest Bishop
To: David Tombe
Cc: icatt@btinternet.com ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; monitek@aol.com ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; knalty@io.com ; Ian Montgomery ; Jack Graham ; sraddhalu@auromail.net ; ernest@cooleys.net ; lukas.nemec@czi.cz ; krystof.nemec@czi.cz ; johnrdore@googlemail.com ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; jackw97224@yahoo.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; floylilley@bellsouth.net ; fredrothwarf@comcast.net ; temiles@cox.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; raetowest@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: You'll all get nowhere so long as you persist in confusing transmission line waves with TEM waves



Ivor, Bishop, and most of the Establishment appear to agree that a wireless, or free space, TEM wave (radio, light, etc.) is the same thing as a captured TEM wave propagating along wires. The Established are hard to pin down on this point, however. Catt and Bishop disagree with Tombe on this point.

I agree with Tombe, Feynman, et al, that a newly-generated free-space TEM wave propagates sideway from a wire, which is therefore acting as an antenna. Feynman explains this generation process, sort of, while showing where the sacred equations have left him in a state of confusion. He can't make up his mind where E causes B, and vice versa or not, so here is a sort of hybrid between the Rolling Wave and the Slab Wave He never put this all on a single page in the vaunted Feynman Lectures, I had to do that for him:


Subject: Feynman on the TEM Wave- "a terrible confusion"
From: Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:13:49 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
To: David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>, etc


The Dancing Swishing Wave


Ivor Catt wrote:

Thank you for the clarification below. Here you have absolutely clear evidence of the chaos in the Establishment view, as propounded by Feynman. It remains for us to dissect his statements.
...
Using my two articles; "Maxwell's Equations Revisited" and "The Hidden Message in Maxwell's Equations", we can show how it all went wrong. The bit we now write has to be attached to the www editions of those two Catt articles. The implications, theoretical and political, are massive. We show how the love of mathematics blinded the whole of the Establishment to physical reality.

We can see (what we suspected before) the massive historical importance of the fact that those two Catt articles were published 20 years ago (worldwide circulation 60,000) and then ignored. This means that at the very heart of the mathematicisation of physics lies confusion and nonsense. It is most important to show that the mathematical physicists are not using maths in a scholarly way, but rather as a talisman. The Emperor has no clothes. --IC

We have all that is necessary to go forward with a concise thesis. This will be different from the analysis in the Catt article "Displacement Current" and in "The Catt Question", which start with statements by Catt. In the case under discussion here, we start with statements by Establishment figures, and show that in their own terms, with no reference to Catt, they are hoodwinking themselves and us. --IC


=============
Richard Feynman on the TEM Wave (selected excerpts)

FB: [bracketed item below are FB additions. Feynman establishes that the E and B fields are transverse to the propagation direction, and mutually orthogonal. p20-6, Vol II]

FB: Ode to Maxwell; equations govern reality; ignoring crucial experiments:

Chapter 18, “The Maxwell Equations”-

RF: “It was not yet customary in Maxwell’s time to think in terms of abstract fields… Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the [aether] model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false. This is answered by doing experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell’s equations… He brought together all of the laws of electricity and magnetism and made one complete and beautiful theory.
“Let us show that the extra term [displacement current] is just what is required to straighten out the difficulty Maxwell discovered…” --p 18-2, Vol II

FB: Heaviside energy-current slab:

RF: [when an infinite current sheet is suddenly turned on] “after the time *t*, both [vectors] E and B are uniform out to the distance [x = ct], and zero beyond. THE FIELDS MAKE THEIR WAY FORWARD LIKE A TIDAL WAVE, with a front moving at a uniform velocity which turns out to be *c*…” --p 18-6, Vol II, (emphasis added)

FB: The Feynman Dancing, Swishing Wave is caused by the equations:

RF: “Now let us ask what happens if we suddenly stop the motion of the charged sheet after it has been on for a short time, *T*…
“In short, we have a little piece of field- a block of thickness *cT*- which has left the current sheet and is traveling through space all by itself… The caterpillar has turned into a butterfly!
“How can this bundle of electric and magnetic fields maintain itself? The answer is: by the combined effects of the Faraday law, [curlE = -dB/dt], and the new term of Maxwell, [c^2curlB = dE/dt]. They cannot help maintaining themselves. Suppose the magnetic field were to disappear. There would be a changing magnetic field which would produce an electric field. If this electric field tries to go away, the changing electric field would create a magnetic field back again. So, by a perpetual interplay- BY THE SWISHING BACK AND FORTH FROM ONE FIELD TO THE OTHER- they must go on forever. It is impossible for them to disappear*. [*footnote- ‘well not quite’, they can be absorbed] They maintain themselves in a kind of a dance- one making the other, the second making the first- propagating onward through space.” --p 18-8, Vol II (emphasis added)

FB: Confusion with math when visualizing the TEM Wave:

Chapter 20, “Solutions of Maxwell’s Equations in Free Space”-

RF: “I’ll tell you what I see. I see some kind of vague shadowy, wiggling lines- here and there is an *E* and *B* written on them somehow, and perhaps some of the lines have arrows on them- an arrow here or there which disappears when I look to closely at it. When I talk about the fields swishing through space, I have a terrible confusion between the symbols I use to describe the objects and the objects themselves…” --p 20-10, Vol II

Reference-
Feynman, Richard Phillips, *The Feynman Lectures on Physics*, Vol I-III, (Commemorative Issue), (1989, 1964), Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., ISBN 0-201-5104-9 (v. 2)

=============
----- Original Message ----- From: "Forrest Bishop" <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Ivor Catt" <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>; <ivorcatt@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: The Swishing Wave (Re: electron and other)

Ivor Catt wrote:
...
"Even Feynman Himself (EFH), Nobel for quantum electrodynamics, appears to be a rolling-wave proponent (!). EFH is not entirely clear about this,
though. He waffles around about causality in the Feynman Lectures, Vol 2. EFH goes on about visualizing a TEM wave, and says he isn't able to." - Forrest

"not entirely clear about this" is an extremely important statement. Please supply complete reference. It needs to go on my website.


==========
Richard Feynman on the TEM Wave

Chapter 18, “The Maxwell Equations”-

FB: Ode to Maxwell; equations govern reality; ignore crucial experiments:

“It was not yet customary in Maxwell’s time to think in terms of abstract fields… Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the [aether] model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false. This is answered by doing experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell’s equations… He brought together all of the laws of electricity and magnetism and made one beautiful and complete theory.
“Let us show that the extra term [displacement current] is just what is required to straighten out the difficulty Maxwell discovered…” --p 18-2, Vol II

Heaviside energy slab:

“[when an infinite current sheet is suddenly turned on] “both [vectors] E and B are uniform out to the distance [x = ct], and zero beyond. THE FIELDS MAKE THEIR WAY FORWARD LIKE A TIDAL WAVE, with a front moving at a uniform velocity which turns out to be *c*…” --p 18-6, Vol II, (FB- emphasis added)

The Feynman Dancing, Swishing Wave is caused by the equations:

“Now let us ask what happens if we suddenly stop the motion of the charged sheet after it has been on for a short time, *T*….In short, we have a little piece of field- a block of thickness *cT*- which has left the current sheet and is traveling through space all by itself… The caterpillar has turned into a butterfly!
“How can this bundle of electric and magnetic fields maintain itself? The answer is: by the combined effects of the Faraday law, [curlE = -dB/dt], and the new term of Maxwell, [c^2curlB = dE/dt]. They cannot help maintaining themselves. Suppose the magnetic field were to disappear. There would be a changing magnetic field which would produce an electric field. If this electric field tries to go away, the changing electric field would create a magnetic field back again. So, by a perpetual interplay- BY THE SWISHING BACK AND FORTH FROM ONE FIELD TO THE OTHER- they must go on forever. It is impossible for them to disappear*. [*footnote- ‘well not quite’, can be absorbed] They maintain themselves in a kind of dance- one making the other, the second making the first- propagating onward through space.” --p 18-8, Vol II (emphasis added)

Confusion with math terms when visualizing the Swishing TEM Wave:

Chapter 20, “Solutions of Maxwell’s Equations in Free Space”-
“I’ll tell you what I see. I see some kind of vague, shadowy, wiggling lines- here and there is an *E* and *B* written on them somehow, and perhaps some of the lines have arrows on them- an arrow that disappears when I look to closely at it. When I talk about the fields swishing through space, I have a terrible confusion between the symbols I use to describe the objects and the objects themselves…” p 20-10, vol II

Feynman, Richard Phillips, *The Feynman Lectures on Physics*, Vol I-III, (Commemorative Issue), (1989, 1964), Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., ISBN 0-201-5104-9 (v. 2)

==========

Forrest

David Tombe wrote:
No Ivor, you are wrong. Real TEM waves do radiate out into distant space wirelessly. Your conversation with Professor Josephson is pathetic. You are both having a little exclusive Trinity College Cambridge old boys chat, and neither of you know what you are talking about. I am drawing attention to the distinction between the near field and the far field, and you are both behaving like a couple of children. You with your pathetic one line response below, and Professor Josephson with his blatant refusal to respond at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: icatt@btinternet.com
To: epola@tiscali.co.uk; etc.
Subject: Re: You'll all get nowhere so long as you persist in confusing transmission line waves with TEM waves
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:18:38 +0000


"Real TEM waves radiate perpendicularly out from a wire into distant space." - Tombe
Dreadful stuff.
Ivor

From: David Tombe
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 AM
To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; etc.
Subject: You'll all get nowhere so long as you persist in confusing transmission line waves with TEM waves


Dear Professor Josephson,
&a mp;a mp;n bsp; I've already explained this to the circulation list on a number of occasions.

& ; ;nbs p; &a mp;a mp;n bsp; (1) The wave that propagates alongside a transmission line is not a TEM wave. It's E and H vectors are out of phase by 90 degrees. It is a near field linear polarization wave. It is a capacitance phenomenon.

&am p;am p;nb sp; & amp; amp; nbsp; ; ; ; (2) EM radiation is an inductance phenomenon and the E and H vectors are always in phase. Maxwell's wave equation only applies to this scenario. Maxwell's wave equation does not apply to the near field transmission line waves that you have all wrongly been referring to as TEM waves. Real TEM waves radiate perpendicularly out from a wire into distant space.

&a mp;a mp;n bsp; This seems to be the source of the never ending confusing. You are refusing to segregate two distinct phenomena. And I have no doubt that there will be some on the circulation list who will continue to make this error.

&a mp;a mp;n bsp; Yours sincerely
&am p;am p;nb sp; & amp; amp; nbsp; ; ; ; David Tombe