The paper "The end of electric charge and electric current as we know them."

and Jim Calder, Editor of Proc. IEEE.

Communication with Calder






First note that Lombardi, Editor of IEEE Transactions on Computers, (when my proffered paper referred to an error in my previous paper in his journal, see below), admitted some months later that he had not replied to me. Now Calder, Editor of Proc. IEEE., fails to write although he said he would. Thus, the “experiment” is repeatable, which is one of the criteria for a scientific theory being proved to be correct. However, note that in my book I write;


No scientist is willing to take a scientific approach to the problem of suppression in science - the allegation of widespread censorship, to be tested by the usual criteria of repeatability, corroboration, Popper's falsification and the rest. Try to get a scientist to remain a scientist when addressing these matters! He will start talking about Catt's paranoia or egotism, which are not scientific concepts.


It remains to be seen whether scientists will address in a scientific way the problem I have demonstrated.

May Chiao


The problem demonstrated by Calder is that such functionaries superficially know that their role is to publish significant scientific advance, and particularly to publish major scientific advance. Calder’s reply on July 16, 2010, was at that superficial level. However, they subconsciously know that of all things, they must suppress major scientific advance. An example would be that if an editor of a learned journal published a paper which said; “A capacitor is a transmission line” that would be the end of his editorial career, particularly if the article mentioned Displacement Current. After July 16, Calder’s subconscious knowledge of his true role came to the fore, and he had to evade all further involvement with Catt or whatever Catt wrote.


The paper "The end of electric charge and electric current as we know them." Is a major scientific breakthrough. It removes electric charge, the “Jewel in the Crown” of Electromagnetic Theory. This brings the analysis by Polanyi and Kuhn into stark focus. It is a rare opportunity to research the validity of the theories of Polanyi and Kuhn, since the information in the proffered paper is of such pivotal significance in the advance of science. Thus, the damage to those that Calder and the like unwittingly serve, the entrenched Knowledge Brokers, is very severe.


I quote from M Polanyi, “Personal Knowledge”, pub. RKP 1958/62, p151;


 The two conflicting systems of thought are separated by a logical gap .... Formal operations relying on one framework cannot demonstrate a proposition to persons who rely on another framework. .... Proponents of a new system [are] excluded for the time being .... from the community of science. .... The refusal to enter on the opponent’s way of arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable. Such comprehensive rejection cannot fail to discredit the opponent. He will be made to appear as thoroughly deluded, which in the heat of the battle will easily come to imply that he was a fool, a crank or a fraud.


----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt


Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM

Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers


Even 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 , 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.

The error is fully discussed at .


Lombardi’s one and only response came three months later;

Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:53 PM
Over the past months I have received few emails from you, quite frankly I am to say the least puzzled by your requests as with time, they are getting from unusual to just odd.
I thought that my silence would be better understood by you; unfortunately it seems that we are going nowhere. So, in plain terms let me state that this is my only and last reply to you: your concerns/items do not fall within my duties as EIC of Tc and/or they are not in compliance with IEEE CS regulations. So please stop sending me emails. "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>, Editor "Transactions on Digital Computers."


Here an author (myself) wrote a short note pointing out an error in his published paper, and the editor of the journal did not reply!


T S Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, pub. Univ. Of Chicago Press, 1962/1970, p109;


To the extent, as significant as it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms.


Germane to the present discussion is the review of my 1995 book ; “.... It is significant that, having introduced his new theory and abolished charge and current ...., he then proceeds to use these concepts quite unashamedly in the rest of the book. .... ” because the review ridicules the idea of removing electric charge and electric current. After all, they represent the Jewel in the Crown of Established Electromagnetic Theory.  Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with strong interaction, weak interaction and gravitation. It is the force that causes the interaction between electrically charged particles; the areas in which this happens are called electromagnetic fields, also known as B fields in physics classes.

Members of the IEEE are part of the community of Knowledge Brokers.

It took further years for me to realize that the role of the professional institution was similar to that of the educational establishment. In the 1970's, when the IEE was obstructing our efforts to publish and to initiate discussion of fundamentals, we naively assumed that if only we could get past the 'decadent' officials to the 'vibrant' membership, all would be well. I am now convinced that this was a delusion, for the following reasons.

Those students who studied, learned, and passed exams in the IEE's static knowledge base developed subject loyalty and also a vested interest in its maintenance and defence against new knowledge. Some had even passed the IEE's own exams. They now paid their subscriptions to the IEE, not to encourage it to advance knowledge, but so that it would defend the knowledge base which was now their identity and their security.

Calder is between a rock and a hard place. If he accepts the paper for publication, he betrays his members. However, if he rejects the paper, he is on notice that his role in the History of Science will be carefully registered – that he rejected for publication by the world’s leading relevant journal a paper of major significance for the advance of science. For a precendent, he can do a Google search for “pepper frs” and “sir michael pepper”. Is his loyalty primarily to the advance of science, or to his career and salary?

The reader is almost sure to think at this point that the above analysis is unethical in the way it bears on Calder. This leads me to something I wrote many years ago;

Anything done in defence of an entrenched Knowledge Establishment is by definition ethical. [For instance asserting that Catt is ignorant, paranoid, or deluded, etc.] Anything done which threatens an entrenched Knowledge Establishment is by definition unethical. Ethics is one of the defence mechanisms of The Establishment.

It is of the utmost importance to find out when someone in Calder’s position has a clear explanation of his role, where his loyalty lies. We need clarity in this very important matter – The End of The Enlightenment. The better we understand, the more chance we have of saving The Enlightenment.

The problem for Calder is to distinguish between the sage (bringing major scientific advance) who very rarely appears if the advance is truly major, and the crook, the crank, the paranoid etc. He may of course avoid the problem by merely blocking the very rare major scientific advance. He will suffer no sanctions, because all the entrenched knowledge brokers around him would suffer from its publication, and will applaud its suppression.

He who brings new knowledge is a vandal, much as the Nazis who burned the books were vandals.

The reason is that the intrusion of new knowledge results in the rejection of the old books. New knowledge has to be defined.

Knowledge is new if its acceptance would lead to a change in an A level syllabus. It is also new if it would lead to the change of a first degree syllabus. It is not new if it would merely lead to the addition of an extra section in a first degree syllabus, leaving the text books untarnished. This last is merely new (written without italics)

Ivor Catt    7 August 2010