About classical electrodynamics
The
109 Experiment
We need a thorough
analysis of the work I did on crosstalk in the 1960s, the mathematics I
developed to prove the limitation to two modes, and the photographs showing
a third, illegal mode.
In my paper "Crosstalk (Noise) in
Digital Systems" I wrote on page 761 , Appendix I;
“Assume that a current
voltage step i, v, is travelling down the [pair
of] parallel lines from left to right .... ” .
Note that I did not say “Assume a single
current voltage step .... ” [Note 1]. I was
trapped in the reigning framework, deriving from Faraday’s Law, which I
proceeded to base the argument and the mathematics on. I concluded that
only one wavefront pattern could travel in such a way at only one
velocity. Then on page 762
I used similar arguments giving “Proof that only two types of wavefront
pattern can be propagated down a system of two wires and a ground plane
[i.e. a symmetrical four wire system].” I (wrongly) began; “Now assume that
a [single] wave front involving current steps i_{a}
and i_{p} is travelling down the lines
with a velocity c.” Note the missing, but implied, word “single”. Here is
the fatal flaw in the whole discussion (leading to the fatal flaw in
Faraday’s Law, which assumes a single field at one point), leading to the “proof” by the pictures .
However, close inspection of the pictures shows
us that although traces 2 and 1 appear to confirm the calculations, and
thus Faraday’s Law, traces 3 disprove it by showing a third (asymmetric)
mode, which is not permitted under "Theory N" , but
acceptable under "Theory
C" .
Of course, an apologist
for Establishment Electromagnetic Theory may want to argue that the small
spike in the bottom trace of Figure 9.3 is not
the combination of two spikes which separate out later in traces 2 and 1.
But only a “scientist” deeply committed to defending theory a century old
would do so. That means, of course, virtually every one of today’s
scientists. However, it is likely that, rather than defending archaic
theory, they will merely ignore the whole of this matter – both the
mathematics and the pictures.
The inadequacy of
mathematics as a language, and the too great faith in it by myself as well
as others, for instance in my 1967 paper , is
discussed by me in my book at 1 and 2 . Elsewhere
I illustrate the multifarious problems by taking x, squaring it, finding
the square root and deducing that the value is now x or –x. Even within
mathematics there are obscurities, even when mathematics is divorced from
physical reality. It is not surprising that I fell into a trap in 1964 when
they were combined.
Note 1. I did not have to
say “Assume that a single current
voltage step i, v, is travelling down the [pair
of] parallel lines” because under Faraday’s Law two steps in the same place
at the same time would be illegal. I was then and for decades later a
conscientious follower of Faraday. Now the truth is that if two pulses
travelling in opposite directions down a coaxial cable pass through each
other, there are then two current voltage pulses at the same point for a
time, admittedly not both travelling “from left to right”. Thus, such a
situation already defies Faraday’s Law, and nobody has ever noticed. (Elsewhere
I assert that no professor or text book writer has ever considered {and
never mentioned} two pulses travelling through each other, of course, so
they could not confront this defiance of Faraday’s Law. One can only think
about what one thinks about.)
