The End of Science


Uncompromising, indefatigable pursuit of truth, then, is the hallmark that distinguishes science from the charlatan. It constitutes the indispensible ethic of modern science. (Max Born)  .... .... See Hiram Caton,

The key step in electromagnetic theory was “The Catt Question”, , and elementary question on electromagnetic theory which I discovered in 1982. Except for two fringe cases, only four accredited experts have commented, and these only commented after being selected by their bosses and instructed to write to me. They are Pepper, , , McEwan, , Mink “Powers caused his top expert, Mink, to write the following letter to me. I have retained Mink's errors and exotic punctuation.”; Secker Mr Catt Thank you for your letter of 18 August, to which the Secretary, Dr Williams, has asked me to respond.

During the last 20 years, more or less no other accredited expert has commented on “The Catt Question”

There has been no “answer” to “The Second Catt Question” , which however only arose a year ago.

The above shows that no accredited expert in the world will answer elementary questions about their discipline, electromagnetic theory.

The new development was with the first experiment whose results undermine their theory. This is “The Wakefield Experiment”, published in April 2013.

A week ago, twenty accredited experts were approached and asked for comment.

If, as I predict, no accredited expert in the world will make any written comment on the experiment, we come to the end of the road. It will mean that no one earning salary and reputation from electromagnetic theory will either answer elementary questions about their theory, or comment on the results of an experiment which seems to undermine their theory. We will find out in a few weeks.


Ivor Catt   29 March 2013


Dear Chris Penfold,

It is not necessarily the case that the professionalisation of science leads inexorably to the end of major scientific advance. It is up to the dedicated practitioners of science to try to find a way through the blockage.

My next step is probably to organise a petition “signed” by helpful people asking those with reputation based wholly or partly on electromagnetic theory to make comment on “The Wakefield Experiment” and also perhaps on “The Catt Question” and “The Second Catt Question” .

I feel you, Chris, will have a better understanding of the psychology of media men who could then take the matter forward. (As when we proposed the TV show “EM” so many years ago, and we had that 3 hour meeting in BBC HQ, it is likely that the breakthrough involves media men separated to some degree from science. You brought in the relevant media men. It is not clear to what extent they are trapped within the interests of professional science.)

What you will soon have to tell them is that for thirty years nobody with credentials in electromagnetic theory will make comment on “The Catt Question” unless instructed to do so by his boss. Further, in a few weeks we will have established that no such person will comment on “The Wakefield Experiment”. At that point you will be able to say that nobody with credentials in electromagnetic theory will comment, either on elementary questions asking for clarification of their theory, and also will not comment on the results of an experiment which seem to undermine their theory. (At present their silence only extends to one week.)

Would a media man latch on to the idea that this means the end of science? You could judge better than me. You also probably know which media men to approach, and it would obviously be best if you approached them, not me.

On another tack, it will be very interesting to see whether “helpful” people agree to sign the above petition, or refuse to do so. As you know, I suspect that the evolved conspiracy to put an end to science probably includes various kinds of “enemy within”. Given the enormous potential for society of further scientific advance, many elements in our society must be cooperating to block it. As you know, I find that even some of those close to me tend to believe that the normal rules of ethical and professional behaviour do not apply to Sir Michael Pepper because he is “knighted for services to Physics.” Perhapd some of them tend to think that as a result, he has no further responsibility for science. I feel that in the last resort, the lack of competence in making ethical judgements throughout society is the core reason for the end of science.

Ivor Catt   31 March 2013