About classical electrodynamics
I used Faraday's
Law of induction, that changing magnetic flux
through a surface causes a voltage around the periphery of the surface. I
placed an observer half way down two parallel conductors, Figure 36 . He used Faraday’s
Law and mathematics to prove that a step (or any signal) travelling down a
coaxial cable or twisted pair must have only one velocity c, and one
voltage/current ratio Zo. I then applied the same mathematics to a system
of four symmetrical coductors, Figure
37 . I placed an observer half way down a symmetrical array of four
conductors, Figure 38 .
Again starting with Faraday’s Law, the observer proved that only two
possible patterns of voltage and current could travel down the set of four
wires. All of this is dealt with at the following point in my 1995 book .
At this point it needs to
be agreed that theory, photographs and physical reality apply equally to
the case of Figure 37 ( here ) , or two wires and a voltage plane
error is in the last paragraph of that section of my 1995 book .
There, I say;
initial assumption was that a stable waveform passed the observer; that is,
a TEM wave which was in equilibrium. Following that
assumption, we concluded from our calculations that no other waveform may
pass the observer. However, superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes]
are permissible, as are seen in photographs in the literature.
For instance, a step travelling between AA' and BB' with no voltage visible
between P and Q must be a combination of equal amplitudes of EM and OM,
which cancel at P (for instance if P has been shorted to ground). As
another example, if P is open circuit so that no electric current enters P,
then the sum of currents in the EM and OM must be zero.
The cited photographs in
the literature are at 1
have to distinguish between time-hallowed scientific theory, or laws, and
physical fact. In 1995 I continued to have confidence in Faraday’s Law, one
of the primary laws which underpin established electromagnetic theory.
Using Faraday, I proved the two modes were the only permissible modes. The
photographs showed that in the real world they could be superposed. I
failed to notice that under Faraday’s Law superposition was illegal, as it
created a third, illegal mode ( Figures
7 and 8 ).
superposed combinations of EM and OM [modes] are permissible, as are seen
in photographs in the literature.”
combinations are permissible (because they occur) in fact, as the
photographs show us, but impermissible under Faraday’s theory. Seeing the facts, I wrongly jumped to the
conclusion that the theory permitted superposition. There it remained for
the next 43 years.
the best example to start with is the photographs, Figures 35 and 36
, when a
very narrow spike is introduced into the top left hand (active) line A
passive line P shorted to ground, or the passive lines P and Q (Figure
37) ( here on the right ) shorted
together. This short ensures zero voltage at the start of the passive line
P. The signal can only proceed in a balanced mode, so it initial short
wensures that it must contain even and odd modes of equal voltage
amplitude. However, in conductors on the surface of a printed circuit
board, these two (approximately TEM) signals travel at different
velocities, and so separate out, as we see in the later second and first
traces in Figures 35 and 36
. After separating out, the slower, even mode has electric current
travelling in the forward direction in the right hand passive line, but
before it, the odd mode signal had electric current travelling backwards,
out of the paper. In the third trace, therefore, before the signals
separated out, there were two equal and opposite electric currents in the
passive line, each correlating with (Biot-Savart might say causing) its own
magnetic field, as drawn in the
diagrams . Further, in the case of
between voltage planes inside a printed circuit board , the two modes
travel at the same velocity and do not separate out. Thus, in Figures 7 and 8 , the signal
continues for ever in an unbalanced third mode, with electric currents in
both directions in the passive line. This idea, of two equal and opposite
electric currents travelling through each other in a conductor is
revolutionary, and undermines the conventional view of the nature of
electric current. Also, the surface of the passive line has equal and
opposite charges, each terminating its own electric field (even and odd
mode). This undermines the conventional view of electric charge.
conventional electromagnetic theory is dualistic, with electric current and
charge in/on conductors and electric field in non-conductors. The two
aspects of the theory correlate, with formulae giving the correlation. Here
we see a breakdown, not of the whole of traditional theory, but of the
charge/current element. The electric currents and charge required to
correlate with the fields which we see in the photographs are incompatible
with the requirement, for instance, that only one electric current exist at
one point. Heaviside’s forgotten “We reverse this .... “ that field caused
charge and current rather than the opposite, is beside the point. Either
way, the electric currents which we know must match up to the fields which
are clearly demonstrated by our photographs are impossible.
dilemma is resolved by moving from both conventional theory (Theory N),
that electric current and charge cause fields, and also from Heaviside
(Theory H), that field causes current and charge, to Theory C, discovered
by Catt in 1976, that electric charge and current do not exist. See 1 , 2 , 3 . In the same way as
the slope of a hill does not exist, having no materiality, although the
hill itself exists, being made up of physical material, so electric charge
and electric current become merely the results of mathematical manipulation
of the edge of a field (or more accurately of an ExH Energy Current). Also
see from "The Death
of Electric Current" , page 2 , “Although a
cloud cannot exist without edges, the edges
of a cloud do not exist. They have no width, volume or materiality.
However, the edges of a cloud can
be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and mathematically.
The same is true of the so-called ‘electric current.’”
current and charge were already shown to be not fit for purpose by "The Catt Question"
in 1982, thirty years ago.
My point of view, that of a single velocity universe,
that everything can only travel at the speed of light, that only
electromagnetic field exists, not isolated electric or magnetic field, that
when a battery lights a lamp electric current and charge are not involved
(Theory C), is very far removed from the Conventional Wisdom, or
Establishment Physics. Ivor Catt 25
To Jim Calder, Managing Editor, Proc.
Dear Mr. Calder,
I have not received a reply to my 20th
March email and letter to the Editor of "IEEE Transactions on
27 June 2010
Second copy sent by email and by airmail
to Lombardi on 27 June 2010. Web address altered from http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, March
20, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: For publication in
IEEE Transactions on Computers
To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Boston, MA 02115 phone: +1 617.373.4159
For publication in IEEE Transactions on
and Odd Modes
My paper; Ivor
Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in
Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput.,
vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained
an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was
based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the
two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.
error is fully discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .
Catt is at
Albans AL3 4JR,