Discussion on today’s science.

Dear Professor Alex Yakovlev,

My behavioural model for the state of “Modern Physics” in general and of classical electromagnetism in particular may or may not be accurate. It could of course be merely sublimated paranoia or egotism in myself, Ivor Catt. (Egotism is suggested by the fact that I complain that for decades all my attempts to publish in peer reviewed journals throughout the world have been rejected, and we can read about Catt’s egotism on the www. Egotism will not be referred to further here, but “paranoia” remains as a possibility.)  Part of this behavioural model is that “Modern Physics” in general, and classical electrodynamics in particular, should implode at some point in the future, for instance in the year 2050. On the other hand, since today’s science is so heavily funded and so many careers and reputations are at stake, we may have seen the last paradigm changes with phlogiston and caloric, and there will never again be paradigm change in professional, peer reviewed science.

If and when “Modern Physics” implodes, there will be an inquest into how and why it did. Evidence from 2015 will be very valuable, and the British Library assure me that my websites will be preserved. Your comments will be invaluable.

You were drawn into the drama (or into Ivor Catt’s paranoia) because “The Glitch” was on the fringes of “Modern Physics”. That is, it could not be published in any peer reviewed journal in the world, or even in any non-peer reviewed journal in the world. Ivor Catt managed to get it published in a peer reviewed journal by giving his article a misleading title; "Gating of Asynchronous Logic Signal pulses" . As your mentor the late Professor David Kinniment said, the Catt article was the only article published on “The Glitch” for many years. See his article "He who hesitates is lost" . It seemed obvious to you that Ivor Catt was kosher, part of the acceptable Science Establishment, and you arranged for Ivor Catt and his co-author Dr. David Walton to lecture to an audience of 60 for four hours in your university. These lectures are now on the www . During these lectures, our allegedly fatal flaw in classical electromagnetism, called "The Catt Question" , was frequently referred to. During my visit to Newcastle, you spoke very highly of one of your students, Chris Spargo, who has received high praise, including prizes, from the Establishment institution, The Institution of Engineering Technology, IET, who have rejected all my submitted articles for more than 40 years. Chris has recently written that there is no fundamental flaw in classical electromagnetism.

After it had been blocked for 30 years, Chris Spargo found the first peer reviewed article on "The Catt Question" , published in 2012. It is wrongly called "Catt's Anomaly" , and ridicules Catt, confusing a question about classical electromagnetism with Catt’s own theories. Here are my comments on the article .

You organised and chaired the four hours of lectures by Dr. David Walton and me, and Chris Spargo says he attended them.

During the predicted inquest in 2050, your answers to the following questions will be of great interest.

1 Do you see a fatal flaw in classical electrodynamics? Either yes, no, or you are not sure.

Much less important questions are;

2 Is "The Catt Question" clearly stated and easy to understand? There has been no change in the way it is stated for 30 years. However, it has been alleged that the Question is unclear.

3 Do Sir Michael Pepper and Dr. Neil McEwan contradict each other?

I very much look forward to your reply.

Ivor Catt. 26 May 2015

You can also read on the www that Catt is an egotistical nobody, and that all references to Catt on the www are by himself. Also see "Nutter" and Sinclair .

Also see the late Hiram Caton and Catt in 1978 ;

The computer journals and conferences in Britain and the USA consistently evaded 'The Glitch', the way in which computers spontaneously go mad for no apparent reason. [ "He who hesitates is lost" ] The lengthy private correspondence with the editor of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN which culminated in his being forced to give 'The Glitch' a passing mention, in April 1973, is very revealing. It took ten years of dedicated hard slog by a group of scientists in the University of Washington, St. Louis, to get it into the professional journal, the IEEE Transactions on Computers, in June 1975.

My recent investigations indicate that our knowledge and understanding of electromagnetic theory reached its zenith in about 1910, and we have since lost most of what we knew about the subject. I cannot find anyone in the world today who professes to be an expert on electromagnetic theory, or who is researching into the subject.[Note that at the start of my lecture in Newcastle Professor Alex Yakovlev said he had never done a course in electromagnetic theory. The same is true of me.]

David Walton dsw@plus44.net to me

12:34 PM (1 hour ago)




 26 May 2015



Please feel free to forward this mail to others who may be concerned.

1.  I am completely convinced that there is a fundamental problem with Maxwellian electrodynamics as identified most clearly in the 'Catt Question' and similar.  The problem is that, when a TEM step is propagating along a two conductor transmission line, there is no mechanism whereby the charge can flow at sufficient speed (ie at the velocity of light) in order to provide the additional charge needed to account for the electric field.
2.  There is an additional problem with Maxwell, in that vacuum must contain a polarisable medium (ether?) in order to account for the phenomenon of capacitance and displacement current.
3.  I believe a new theory is required in which electromagnetic energy is taken as the fundamental quantity and so-called static electric and magnetic fields are constructed from it.
4.  In a simple circuit energy flows from the source of EMF to the load by travelling through the space between the conductors, (see Poynting Vector).  In my view it is not necessary, nor is it helpful to discuss the reality or otherwise of the current in the wires. 

I trust this is helpful to all concerned.

Kind regards .................... Dave


Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>

1:59 PM (6 hours ago)




to DavidAlex.Yakovlevalex.yakovlevChristopherJohnForrest


Dear Dave,

Thank you for your prompt reply. Presumably that is because it is still half term, and you are not teaching.

I append your answer below because I don't trust gmail to do it.



Alex Yakovlev  26 May 2015

2:53 PM (5 hours ago)




to me, David, Christopher, John, Forrest


Dear Ivor,


I feel very comfortable with what Dave wrote below and I would welcome this picture for myself in order to understand the EM phenomena I am facing in my research.

Why? Mainly ,because this picture sounds very physical to me and I prefer things which are physical – first, and mathematical - second.


However, I am neither confident nor perhaps qualified in EMT to be able to produce definite answer(s) to the ‘Catt Question(s)’, either: (i) by answering the questions within the classical EMT definitions (maybe because I am not sure that we have such a single theory today rather than have a collection of math models and software tools that designers use in different communities – such as motors, radio comms, on-chip interconnects etc.), or (ii) by stating that any attempt to answer to the ‘Catt Question(s)’  would lead to rejecting the capability of what constitutes the so-called ‘classical EMT’ in producing such an answer.


I think the difficulty with approaching the problem of answering the ‘Catt Question(s)’ lies in the fact that there is no such a unique authority in the world (Pope-like) who would claim (with their life at stake!) that they can give a clear definition of the ‘classical EMT’. At least, from my humble position of observing the various exemplars of knowledge that I have been facing at Newcastle’s NEMIG seminars (given by different researchers ranging from those speaking about ground-penetrating radars to magnetic monopoles),http://www.ncl.ac.uk/eee/research/interestgroups/nemig/ , during the last two years, I simply cannot state that there would be someone who would say something about the evidence of such a definite, omnipotent and coherent system of knowledge. Most people have come to Newcastle with lectures featuring a particular set of Maxwell’s equations and applying them, in a ‘locally consistent’ way, to describe the phenomena of their interest.


That’s all I can say.


Kind regards




From: Ivor Catt [mailto:ivorcatt@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 May 2015 13:59
To: David Walton; Alex Yakovlev; Alex Yakovlev; Christopher Spargo; John Raymond Dore; Forrest Bishop
Subject: Re: (no subject)



Ivor Catt ivorcatt@gmail.com

3:36 PM (4 hours ago)




to Alex, John, David, Forrest, Christopher


Dear Alex,

Your reply is remarkable, and more remarkable since you replied so swiftly. It is very helpful indeed.

It is noticeable that Chris Spargo said he had no answer to "The Catt Question" and should not be expected to have one. Again, in your answer today, you have suggested your humility. (I am writing this quickly in order to respond quickly, and my answer here will be imperfect.) Note that in my attached article dated 1978 I said I could find no one in the world who was studying electromagnetic theory or who said he was researching into it. This points to one problem of many leading to the present crisis, that so many people think that elsewhere somewhere there is expertise in electromagnetic theory, while in fact there isn't. I now point to my "letter", degraded from "article", even though in an unrefedreed journal. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf . If we have anyone, we have you and Chris Spargo. But both of you claim lack of expertise. Apart from you, everyone else shies away from electromagnetic theory, except for a few cranks, some who lack a grasp of the subject, some not obviously cranks or ignorant, because hidden behind a fog of mathematics.


I need to point out that what I want from you and Chris is a statement as to whether classical electromagnetism is fatally flawed. "The Catt Question" is peripheral to the main issue. However, since you say there are more than one versions of the classical theory, then you are definitely siding with me and Dave Walton. If we have two "classical" theories, it follows that we have no classical theory. Two theories means no theory.


I approve strongly of what you wrote. I like your mention of the maths and the physical, which is part of the problem. I noted recently that during the move from phlogiston to oxidation, a landmark in science, there was no mathematics. Maths does not relate to the most important issues in science, like Newton's first and third laws of motion. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j197.pdf


Thank you for your reply.

Ivor Catt