4755 NW 120 Drive

Coral Springs, FL 33076

20 MAR 2022

Ivor Catt

121 Westfields

St. Albans AL3 4JR

Dear Ivor Catt:

I have been trying to understand your ideas about electromagnetic theory for several months

about their validity. I believe that you label your current theory ”theory D”. According to my

understanding, theory D hypothesizes that there are either no electrical currents (i.e, currents

of electrons) or that any electrical currents are completely inconsequential to EM theory. That

is, any possible electric currents are a ”side effect” of ”energy currents”, and certainly not the

cause of any power transfer. ”Energy currents” are the entities which transfer power in EM sys-

tems.

If possible, please send me a document clearly outlining the main tenets of your theory – theory

D – as you have constructed it. I make this request in order to make further progress in under-

standing your theory. ( I would appreciate it if you would supply one and only one document

that explains your theory, and not a collection of websites that each address a particular issue of

your theory. ) In particular, I request that you address the following issues.

ivorcatt.co.uk/d.htm

1.      What is the reference frame necessary for theory D to be true?

2.   All my work is in a fixed 3D frame, not 4D. There are no observers travelling at different velocities.

3.       Since theory D involves speeds

( in particular lightspeed ), we must know the reference frame in which these speeds are being

measured. If you say a lab frame fixed to the earth, then you are introducing fictitious forces

like Coriolis forces.

I ask this for the following reason.

Newton’s theory, i.e., his three laws of motion, are only valid in an ”inertial” reference frame. I

began to realize 20 or 30 years ago that there is a circularity involved here. Newton’s three laws

require an inertial reference frame but what is an inertial reference frame? An inertial reference

frame is a reference frame in which Newton’s three laws hold true !!! So there is circular rea-

soning going on here.

Actually Newton defined an inertial reference frame as one at rest with respect to absolute space

but such a definition is in my opinion ( IMO ) impossible to implement. That’s when Mach

started criticizing Newton’s mechanics. IMO it is impossible to define any type of reference

frame without specifying a piece of matter which can serve as the origin ( and axes ) of its coor-

dinate system.

But I’ll accept your answer of using a reference frame fixed to the earth since the vast majority

of researchers in electromagnetic theory used such a reference frame without examining the

implications of the presence of fictitious forces in such a frame.

Of course, if you want to bring in general relativity, you can say that any reference frame is suf-

1

ficient for theory D as long as a suitable metric is used.

2. What are the basic building blocks of theory D?

It is an axiom that energy exists. It cannot be created or destroyed. Under Theory D, it can only travel at the speed of light, which of course is energy. Since there is no instantaneous action at a distance, energy does not exist, only energy density, at a point.

I understand that theory D encompasses certain fields such as ”energy current” fields. It also

seems to include electric and magnetic fields as I have seen references to this energy current

field as an E~ × H~ field. I have also seen this field called a TEM wave.

In a 3D universe, energy density exists at a point, travelling at speed c in the z direction. This energy density has two dimensions in the x and y directions, called E and H.

What is the source of this energy current field ? Is it true that this energy current field is com-

posed of both electric and magnetic fields?

Does your theory D also include electrons and protons? No particles. If theory D does not encompass elec-

trons and protons, what causes the energy current field ? Energy exists. It is not caused. Its direction can be changed. ( That is, what causes the electric and

magnetic fields There is only one field, ExH which compose the energy current field? )

This is a very important question that needs to be addressed since I have heard you mention

”phlogiston died 200 years ago in earlier phone conversations with me. Is phlogiston a building block of your the-

ory? Electricity died in 1967.

3. Physicists equate in their minds a traveling ( or oscillating ) EM field with radiation. And in

their minds, radiation implies accelerating charges. What charges there are no particles are accelerating to produce

the energy current field of theory D?

– We know that closing and opening a switch produces self- inductance effects which lead to

sparks, burnt out light bulbs, etc. (See article on self- inductance induced sparking.) Wouldn’t

it be more accurate to describe the waveform seen on suddently discharging a capacitor – or

connecting a wire to a voltage source like a battery – a ”pulse” (surge) of current rather than a

TEM wave? No To me, the presence of a TEM wave implies an oscillating dipole or other source

of radiation. IMO, connecting a wire to a battery – like opening or closing a switch – would

produce a surge (pulse) of current electric current does not exist which might describe what Wakefield and Malcolm Davidson

saw in their experiments.

4. Is your theory D a quantitative theory? If so, what are the equations that characterize this

theory and make it a quantitative theory? Non compris

5. Is theory D based on historical facts and historical electromagnetic laws such as

• Coulomb’s force law between charges No charges

• Ampere’s force law between current elements no current

• The Lorentz force law I ignore Lorenz – never mentioned by anyone I ever works with.

F~ = q

E~ + ~v × B~

where F~ is the force on an electron with velocity ~v.

Do you accept any of these basic laws? If not, which one(s) do you reject?

6. Is theory D based on (or rather, consistent with) the the Heaviside - Maxwell equations?

At what point in time does theory D diverge from the historical development of electromagnetic

theory?

Heaviside’s work has been silenced. Maxwell’s work is a mess. Nobody reads him; they only worship him. (Nobody reads the Bible.)

2

Is theory D consistent with the ballistic emission theory of Walther Ritz ? (Walther Ritz and

7. Theory D seems to denigrate the existence of ”displacement current”. Now since IMO no one

really believes that there is an actual current flowing between the plates of a charging capaci-

tor, it seems to me that the idea of displacement current is really used as a substitute ( or surro-

gate ) for the idea that a changing electric field can induce a magnetic field. ( No one believes in

Maxwell’s idea that a displacement current represents strains / stresses in a mechanical ether. )

Does theory D (with its denigration of displacement current) thus imply that a changing electric

field does NOT induce a magnetic field? That is, does theory D state that one should not add the

second term in the following equation:

× H~ = − J~ −

∂D~

∂t

. (1)

where the second term represents the displacement current ? If so, how does one derive the

equation for propagation of EM waves?

DIGRESSION: I do not accept the ”modern” derivation of displacement current using the the-

orems of vector calculus because interrupting a cirucit with a capacitor would cause the current

to be ”non- constant”. IMO Ampere’s cicuit law1 only applies to constant currents. But that is

another story for another day. Read our 1978 paper.

8. Does theory D acknowledge or deny the basic validity of the Heaviside - Maxwell equations? They have no content. Read my papers on Maxwell Eqns.

9. Is theory D an instantaneous action- at- -a distance theory? Or do electromagnetic effects

propagate at the speed of light c? In my world, there is no instantaneous action- at- -a distance

10. If electromagnetic effects in theory D propagate at the speed of light c, why do these effects

propagate at such a speed? What equation explains the value of light speed c? They propagate at such a speed by definition, axiomatic.

11. Please provide a clear explanation of the Wakefield experiments and the Catt questions.

( Many scientists and engineers I have corresponded with do not understand what the Wakefield

experiment shows. Many people do not understand the three Catt questions. )

It would be nice to see an actual video of the Wakefield experiments. It would also be nice to

have a complete description of the experimental results of Malcolm Davidson.

12. Does your theory utilize the Poynting theorem on energy flow? If so, how do you handle

the criticisms of the Poynting energy flow theory and the observation that it is difficult if not

impossible to accurately pinpoint the location of energy storage in an electromagnetic system?

( See the attached article. Or rather the article sent along with this letter as I could not get LaTex

to add the article as an appendix to this letter, probably due to a problem with permissions. )

13. You claim that batteries are not surrounded by electric fields, i.e., that batteries do not have

1From Wikipedia: In classical electromagnetism, Ampere’s circuital law (not to be confused with Amp  ́ ere’s `

force law that Andre-Marie Amp  ́ ere discovered in 1823) relates the integrated magnetic field around a closed loop  ́

to the electric current passing through the loop. James Clerk Maxwell (not Ampere) derived it using hydrody-  ́

namics in his 1861 published paper ”On Physical Lines of Force” In 1865 he generalized the equation to apply to

time-varying currents by adding the displacement current term, resulting in the modern form of the law, sometimes

called the Ampere–Maxwell law, which is one of Maxwell’s equations which form the basis of classical electro-  ́

magnetism.

3

surface charge on their terminals. Is this in fact true? You state that there is an oscillating en-

ergy current in the battery being constantly reflected between the terminals.

14. You claim that electric energy current fields oscillate between the end plates of a fully ”charged

capacitor. If this is true, what keeps the energy current fields localized in space, i.e., why do

they not eventually diverge into the free space surrounding the capacitor?

Furthermore, what keeps the energy current field from penetrating slightly into the plates of the

capacitor (or coaxial cable) that confines the fields and which produces the reflections? In my

opinion ( IMO ), such a tiny penetration would heat up the underlying electrons and eventually

cause the energy current field to die down to nothingness.

15. What is the mechanism of propagation of this energy current field? Does the changing elec-

tric field produce the magnetic field and vice versa? Are the electric and magnetic fields of this

energy current field in phase? (If they are out of phase, what is the phase angle between the

two?)

16. What is the relationship between matter and energy in theory D? Can matter be converted to

energy and vice versa?

building blocks of your theory early in our phone conversations. )

17. What is the origin of the magnetic field in theory D ? In classical Maxwellian electromag-

netic theory, magnetic fields are produced by currents. The currents that produce the magnetic

force may be either macroscopic or microscopic (i.e., atomic). But since theory D denies the

presence of currents, an alternate explanation is needed for magnetic forces.

18. It appears that theory D is based (at least in part) on the ideas of O. Heaviside. Now Heav-

iside was a Maxwellian who accepted J. Clerk Maxwell’s conception of an electromagnetic

aether2

. Does theory D postulate / rely on the presence of an electromagnetic ether to support

the electric energy current wave it postulates? If so, are Maxwell’s mechanical models useful to

explain the functioning of this aether.

19. Does theory D incorporate any aspects of modern quantum mechanics? In particular, does

theory D recognize that matter exhibits both wave and particle aspects? Could the results of

quantum mechanics explain any of the results of the Wakefield experiments?

In particular, could the Casimir effect explain the result of the Wakefield experiments? ( See

article accompanying this letter. )

Is theory D consistent with the idea that electromagnetic radiation is composed of particles

called photons?

20. What is the nature of causality in theory D? What is causing what in the theory?

Is it possible to list the basic postulates of theory D in a logical order?

21. Is theory D only applicable in the realm of digital electronics, i.e., in very small scale elec-

tromagnetic systems? Furthermore, one might wonder if theory D is only applicable when

2

I use the terms aether and ether synonymously.

4

quantum mechanical considerations begin to become more and more pronounced.

22. Can theory D explain Lewin’s circuit paradox ? ( See article accompanying this letter. )

23. You have stated that theory N is the normal theory of classical EM, i.e., what the vast ma-

jority of most students and professors in engineering schools believe and are taught today. What

exactly are the propositions of theory H, i.e., how does it differ from theory N? What, in your

opinion led Heaviside to jump from theory N to theory H ? That is, what experiment(s) or the-

oretical consideration led Heaviside to make this shift? He obviously did not have access to the

results of the Wakefield experiments ...

24. What exactly are the propositions of theory C? What experiment(s) or theoretical considera-

tion led you to make the transition from theory H to theory C?

25. How does theory C differ from theory D ? What exactly are the propositions of theory D?

What experiment(s) or theoretical consideration led you to make the transition from theory C to

theory D?

26. Extra credit question. Can theory D explain the limitations of Kirchoff’s law in plasmonic

circuits? ( See article accompanying this letter. )

Well, these are just some of the questions I could think of. I’m sure I could think of more ques-

tions if given more time.

Thanks for any effort you spend in enlightening me and explaining to me more about theory D.

Sincerely,

David M. Bower

CC: Malcolm Davidson