Is Electricity in Difficulty?

 Is Electricity in Trouble? Ivor Catt  14 June 2011 When two switches are closed linking a battery to two parallel conductors, electric current flows into (and out of) the two conductors. At the same time, an electromagnetic field appears between the two conductors. Thus, there is a change from two conductors with nothing, to (1) two conductors with electric current in them and electric charge on their surface, and also (2) electromagnetic field between them. This change travels along between the conductors at the speed of light. As it advances, more and more negative electric charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor, to terminate the electric field arising between the conductors.   The first problem appeared in 1982 with "The Catt Question" . The question was; “Where does the negative charge appearing on the bottom conductor come from?” Some experts said it came from the battery, somehow getting to its destination without travelling at the speed of light. Other experts said that such charge coming from the battery would have to travel at the speed of light, which was impossible. They said that the charge needed to terminate the electric field came up from inside the bottom conductor. Neither is correct.   The next problem for electricity came 30 years later. Again, it related to a signal travelling between parallel conductors at the speed of light. It was first published in "Electronics World" in January and February 2011. The same problem simplified was published as "Does Faraday allow Superposition?" by the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" later in 2011. NPA caused me to give a Two Hour Lecture based on that paper.   Whereas in "The Catt Question" the electric charge could not get into place unless it travelled at the speed of light, in the new problem we found two electric currents travelling in opposite directions along a single conductor.   These problems were ducked, perhaps from the cover of claiming that the only way to threaten the ruling paradigm was by experiment. This final redoubt should have been mastered by the arrival in April 2013 of the results of "The Wakefield Experiment" , which undermines classical electromagnetism experimentally.   All three problems are resolved if we postulate "Theory C" , which says that when a battery is connected to a lamp via two conductors and the lamp lights, electric current is not involved. The conductors, which Heaviside called “obstructors”, merely guide the electromagnetic energy (TEM Wave) in the space between them. Since the dielectric constant of copper is infinite, its impedance to a TEM Wave is zero, so energy cannot enter it. Similarly, rails are extremely rigid, so a train cannot enter them, but is guided forward by them in the space between them.   It is not clear what was the dialogue during the removal of caloric or phlogiston from mainstream science in the 19th century. It is likely that the trauma of removing electricity will last through the twenty-first century. There is today much more at stake when paradigm change is threatened.   It might seem that a review process made porous by the chance effects of inattention, ignorance, bias, and favoritism, would be a poor tool for imposing orthodoxy. This does not appear to be the case. Editors as well as students of peer review agree that whatever else they do, referees bring to bear a strongly stereotyped set of requirements. Among them are: proper grooming (the right mix of co-authors, the right mix of citations, the best way to present data); the right sort of conclusion (one that confirms average expectations); a show of originality strictly confined within current beliefs (Mahoney 1986; Lyttleton 1979; Armstrong 1982). Many editors have independently observed that its effect is to level the average. Their thought was voiced by medical journal editor David F. Horrobin when he said that 'the referee system as it is currently constituted is a disaster. What is most disastrous is its built-in bias against highly innovative work' (Horrobin 1982). Editor estimates are confirmed by the testimony of many creative scientists. Among them are Thomas Gold (pers. comm. 1987), who in a recent reflection on his career had this to say: "I have had to face a large amount of opposition in virtually every case in which I have produced anything of novelty. In 1948 when we proposed the steady state theory of cosmology, Bondi, Hoyls and I found all the official astronomers extremely hostile. My theory of hearing was totally ignored and now 40 years later, when it has been found to be correct, the original paper on the subject is mostly forgotten. In the meantime someone who espoused the opposing and incorrect theory received a Nobel Prize for it."