Barriers to Advance
Catt 11th April 2009
Ivor Catt 11th April 2009
Only recently did I realise the depth of the ossification of electromagnetic theory. I had been too muchv engrossed in my revolutionary theory and the problem caused by its comprehensive suppression to look at the fate of mundane advances in electromagnetic theory that should have been made as a result of the sudden change of the field of electronics from analog (sinusoidal, steady state) to digital. Whereas in 1950, 99% of electronic equipment in the world was analog, thirty years later 90% was digital. Today perhaps 98% is digital.
There has now been a very long time, fifty years, for engineers, text book writers and academics to investigate insights gained from digital electronics. My astonishing discovery is that none of these insights, even the most minor, have been absorbed into text books or college or university courses.
Here we could usefully distinguish between, io the one hand, insights, or discoveries, with a sting in their tail; insights which lead to the discrediting of key elements in classical theory, and on the other hand insights which appear innocuous, not leading to broad theoretical repercussions. I shall call these "innocent insights".
The best of these "innocent insights" is perhaps the Catt, or Contrapuntal, model for a charging/charged capacitor. When a capacitor is being charged, the energy enters it at the speed of light and reciprocates from end to end of the capacitor, gradually accumulating as more and more energy comes in. The pattern is a series of steps, which appears on cursory examination to be an exponential, but is not. It is really a series of voltage steps which more or less follows an exponential. There is no mechanism, or loss, enabling the reciprocatiing energy to slow down. This was published under the title "Disoplacement Current" in 1978, with the closely matching exponential and stepped graphs on the second page.
Today, thirty years later, not only is the new, correct theory omitted from all text books, and from all relevant college courses. No test book writer or professor today knows about the step model.
The failure of this correction to the theory that the voltage rise in a capacitor charged up through a resistor is an exponential, where it is really a series of steps, justifies analysis. Why do no professors, lecturers or text book writers know about the new model, thirty years after it was published in a journal with a circualtion of 60,000 at the time?
A second example of the avoidance of the imperatives of digital electronics is the Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM Wave). This is the basic building block for a system of digital electronics. Although admittedly within an integrated circuit distances are too small for a full understanding of the TEM Wave to be necessary, there must be many engineers throughout the world who are working on the USB interconnection between modules, where distances are large enough for an understanding to be important.
There is a dichotomy at the heart of theory of the TEM Wave, first published 30 years ago as "The Heaviside Signal" in a journal with a worldwide circulation of 60,000. Yet today, no text book writer or lecturer knows about this dichotomy, or at least will admit to knowing about it. The problem goes deeper, however, as given on the www as "The TEM Wave; a lost concept." . This is the second hit out of 12,000 in a Google search for "tem wave", and the fourth hit out of 5,000 in a Google search for "transverse electromagnetic wave". It follows that no lecturer or text book write has done a Google search for either, or admits to having done so. Resolution of this dichotomy is crucial for the proper design of USB and other cable connections between computer modules.
I am reminded of the observation made to me by a politician who once spoke from the same platform as Livingstone, ex mayor of London; "It is important for a politician to not understand something which it is in his interest to not understand."
Does the same epigram apply to scientists? I think it does. Note that under the 1890 classification system of Frazer, before "Modern Physics" existed, into three classes; Magic, Science and Religion, "Modern Physics" clearly falls with the classification "Religion", not "Science". With the introduction of "Modern Physics", science was replaced by a religion called "Modern Physics".
Again, comparison with medaeval religion is useful. The church had an "index", and believers were not allowed to read material which was on the index. Unfortunately for the new religion called "Modern Physics", its hypocrisy, of pretending to be science rather than religion, prevents it from instituting a scientific Index, guiding true "Modern Physicists" as to what they must not read, when the illicit material is so obviously available to them on the www.
Note that all parties agree that with the introduction of "Modern Physics" there was a revolution in science. What we are not told is that "Modern Physics", a meta-religion, replaced Science.
If we think in terms of medaeval religion, it is easy to see why a text book writer or lecturer cannot afford to have heard of the Contrapuntal Model for a charged.charging capacitor. Any cleric, or even laiety, who even heard of heresy was in peril, as is a text book sriter of lecturer who admist to having heard of the contrapuntal model for a charged capacitor.
We note that in the past, lecturers and text book writers only read refereed articles, and so were protected from unrefereed material, for instance in "Wireless World". However, the www has changed that. We can easily see that the highest reaches of academia and science use the www. The result is beautifully illustrated if you do a Google search for "pepper frs", where Hi Science, for instance The Royal Society, finds itself cheek by jowl with dissident, or suppressed science like "The Catt Question" , which is resolutely ignored by High Science. The first four Google hits out of 400 for "pepper frs" relate to "The Catt Question", with "The Royal Society" relegated to seventh hit.
At this point, when obviously those who in the past restricted themselves to reading refereed (that is, censored) material, we have to ask whether they ever do Google searches in their speciality. Will they have to claim that they do not?