Professor Brian Josephson on the Second Question .


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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:54 PM

To: Brian Josephson

Subject: Second Question

Dear Brian,


It is very rare, and very difficult indeed, to get a clear enough exposition

on fundamentals from someone whose career and reputation are partly based on

classical electromagnetism.

However, first there remains the problem of making sure of what you mean.

It would be better if you confirmed this, but even if you don't, I feel your

comment below is clear enough.

The displacement current is in a vertical direction. This causes magnetic

field in a horizontal plane, some of it lateral, some of it in the forward


Concentrate on the forward direction.

We are dealing with a Transverse Electromagnetic Wave, which by definition

only has magnetic field in a transverse direction. Thus, we must either

remove displacement current from classical electromagnetism, or remove the

TEM Wave.

If would be extremely valuable for the future of science if you, Brian

Josephson, commented on this.

Ivor Catt

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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:10 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: Second Question

--On 22 March 2012 16:10:17 +0000 Ivor Catt <>


> Dear Professor McDonald,

> I have a very simple question for you (called "The Second Question"),

> which Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson refuses to answer. He merely

> tells me to investigate some mathematics.


> In the animation at , there is a

> changing (increasing) electric field dE/dt at the step and therefore

> a displacement current dD/dt. Does this displacement current generate

> a magnetic field? That is, does the ninth circular B field exist on

> the right as shown in ?

That is easy to answer at least. curl H is proportional to the sum of

the ordinary current and the displacement current, so the latter must

be associated with a magnetic field if Maxwell's equations are correct.

Brian J. This is the smoking gun. Nobel Prizewinner Professor Brian Josephson (as usual for him) talks confusingly of curls and divs, but he does say that the Displacement Current dD/dt at the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field. This is the first time we get an admission from anyone that the displacement current in the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field. However, indulging as he does in curls and divs, he is unable to see its significance. The significance is that by definition a TEM step ( = transverse electromagnetic) cannot have magnetic field in the forward direction. So the definition of a TEM Wave is incompatible with displacement current. Ivor Catt 21 May 2012


* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson ::::::::

* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356

* Project * WWW:

* * * * * * *



For the next reply from Josephson, go to the end of

In this reply, Josephson makes the extraordinary statement;

This is the problem if you work with simplified physics rather than follow the maths.


His statement is totally anti-science. In physics in particular, we deal with the simplest possible physical case. Having mastered that, we gradually build up complexity. Mathematics comes at a late stage, as a shorthand expression of the statements about the physical world.

The simplest case, , has perfect conductors and perfect dielectric. Imperfections can be added later. Mathematical manipulations can be added later. However, the fundamentals are in the physics, not in the mathematics. Examples of features missing from the maths are causality (only the = sign) and superposition can two physical situations be superposed?




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

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:09 PM

To: Brian Josephson ; David Tombe ;

Subject: dD/dt

Dear Professor Josephson,

You were first introduced to these field patterns at school, when you

remember you did an experiment with a magnet and iron filings on paper.

Admittedly, the key field pattern was only published in one text book in the

20th century, and I have transposed it to Figure 5 in my recent paper . To do my work in high speed logic, I

needed a good grasp of such fields. I assumed that professors and text book

writers were familiar with these field patterns, but there is no reason why

they should be, because they are not in the literature. My assumption that

they were well known led to my only publishing part of this pattern in my

1995 book , Figure 2 , and not at all in

my 1979 book.

Extraordinarily, the key fields, such as shown in my papers, cannot be found

with a Google search for "curvilinear squares", which gives 3,000 hits, but

I don't find the key field patterns.

The fact that these field patterns are missing from the literature is only a

small part of the general malaise, where so many of the key precepts in

today's (digital) electromagnetic theory are not in the literature and are

not known by lecturers or taught. Another void is the omission of the key

formulae, shown in my 1979 book at . These are crucial, but

not available to students or lecturers. Also missing is the Synchroniser

problem . The gap is filled with some

bizarre, inappropriate mathematics. No wonder the student numbers are

falling fast in Britain and the US.

Ivor Catt

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

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:04 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; David Tombe ;

Subject: Re: a reply of sorts

--On 24 March 2012 16:00:04 +0000 Ivor Catt <>


> If Josephson has a good grasp of the subject, he will be able

> immediately to answer my question. [ -

> are the two field patterns the same? ]

Sorry -- not good enough to be able to answer immediately, and I have

more important things to use my time on.


* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson ::::::::


"Pure Sophistry"



Brian Josephson

8:56 AM (10 minutes ago)

to me, Stephen, Alex, gian-luca, Anthony, Malcolm

On 27/05/2018 22:53, Ivor Catt wrote:

That was because the noise was not a group of sine waves.

Really?  Why should Fourier analysis not apply to noise?