Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Saturday, September 10, 2005

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=251# comments contains a comment from me. Dr t'Hooft won a share of the 1999 Nobel Prize and has expressed some interest in the modern physics explanation that I producedfrom Ivor's work. In 1919, Kaluza found that by putting in a metric of 5 dimensions instead of 4 into general relativity, you can get Maxwell's field(the TEM wave equations in tensor form) plus the usual metric of general relativity which describes the gravitational field including energy problemswhich are ignored in Newton's formulation. t'Hooft's new idea is based onthe holographic conjecture from string theory. The hologram is arepresentation in one fewer dimensions. Thus 4-D spacetime is a hologram ofa 5-D spacetime. It turns out, through work of Berkenstein, Motl, Susskind,others and t'Hooft, that black holes (matter) in the 5-D spacetime appear asradiation on the 4-D hologram which is encountered as space time.Therefore, says t'Hooft, the fifth dimension is the spacetime fabric(ether/dielectric of vacuum, continuum, etc.). This conveniently has properties of both virtual mass and lightspeed radiation for causing forces. Thus, the fifth dimension can be usedas the source of the gravitational field in a causal way (Proof: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ ). Now, Ockham's razor denies the use of additional useless dimensions,which gets rid of the mainstream 10/11 dimensional spacetime.

Ivor's major work is the 1979 Wireless World paper available atwww.ivorcatt.org . Ivor thought that because he could model the transmission line and the capacitor charging up with light-speed 'static electricity', he had disproved the idea of electrons. He also has the 'Catt anomaly' which purports to disprove electric current, leaving only thelight-speed TEM wave. As additional evidence, he and others includingWalton, Davidson and Gibson (an American programmer who invented Microsoft's scalable fonts), have also treated the inductor and transformer using theTEM wave calculations originally applied only to the capacitor andtransmission line. Ivor also argues that if an electron exists, it can'thave any size because if you touch one side of it, how can the other siderespond instantly? If it doesn't respond instantly, the electron couldbreak, and thus would not be a fundamental particle. Obviously this argument applies to a particular idea of the electron, and is not disproveall models of electron.As a final resort, Ivor's trump card is that he believes electrons arereally standing TEM waves, which is far more sensible (it is right).

(However, when you get him to admit the model of electron as a tiny negative capacitor plate, with negative electric field energy trapped into say a loopwhich gives rise to radial electric field and dipole magnetic field inaddition to spin (all the real electron properties), he chickens out ofpublishing that, and says electrons are not real. He then publishes more attacks on the electron. If you see the 1995 IEE review of Ivor's book Electromagnetism 1, the sadistic reviewer - B. Lago of a German university -takes delight in ridiculing Ivor for both using 'electric current' and forclaiming to disprove it. What you have with electricity is a case ofparticle-wave duality dating back to the 1890s (four decades before de Broglie's particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics).

In the 1890s,Heaviside championed the wave model of electricity (which carries most ofthe energy), while JJ Thomson championed Maxwell's electricity particle, the electron (Maxwell had suggested the electron idea in his Treatise on EM, the final edition of which was edited by JJ Thomson). What actually happens is that spinning electrons radiate energy continuously. This is aside from the quantum jumps that they radiate as photons of specific frequencies when they are decelerated. Any 'static'electron has light speed motion, and a continuous - not periodic -centripetal acceleration due to the spin (circular motion). The energy goes along the electric field lines. It is also receiving similar energy from surrounding electrons, all over the universe. The nearest electrons obviously have the greatest effect. This explains how electromagnetic forces arise; energy (and thus momentum p=E/c) exchanges cause attraction when opposite charges shield one another and are pushed together by energy arriving from outside. Repulsion is where similar charges exchange energy,recoiling apart. The actual mechanism is dealt with in my April 2003 Electronics World article.

The electricity TEM wave is light-speed energy exchange between electrons.The electron can pass on energy without having to physically accelerate downthe wire and knock into another electron. It is a 'pass the parcel' game. Once the field exists, with a gradient in potential difference, theelectrons are forced to drift, creating electric current and heating theconductor as the electrons are resisted. If I connect a metre wire from thepositive to the negative terminal of a 1.5 volt cell, the electric field gradient of 1.5 volts/metre is not immediately set up. After the instant ofconnecting the wire to the terminals, the electric field must flow in anincomplete circuit at light speed until it completes the circuit, whichtakes 3.3 nanoseconds if the wire is surrounded by a dielectric like airehich does not slow the speed of light too much. The whole of Ivor Catt's work focusses on the grossly oversimplified Heaviside 'slab of energy' which ignores the interactions, the mechanism, etc. This is not Ivor's fault but Heaviside's.

It doesn't matter how much political abuse is thrown at me by quacks, it will not alter the facts. It may however make those of us who are not interested in politics more forthright in speaking out against sneering. I'm personally not interested in prizes because they usually derive from a guy who earned the cash by selling dynamite to both sides of a war, or some such. However, Ivor Catt, Malcolm Davidson and D.S. Walton deserve a prize for the Wireless World Dec. 1978 paper on 'Displacement Current'. The sneer that this is 'crackpot' simply because it is suppressed, is usually made by 'quacks' - people who sell useless remedies based upon string theory - and in my opinion there is nothing wrong with being labelled a 'crackpot' by 'quacks'. If Hitler or Stalin insulted you as being a bad person, would you cry?


At 1:13 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...

The 1978 Catt, Davidson and Walton article does not do what 'it says on the box'. The authors obviously did not realise that in modelling a capacitor as a transmission line they were constructing a circular argument, because the "Telegrapher's Equations," from whence are derived the equations for the characteristic impedance and velocity of propagation are founded on the premise that a transmission line can be modelled as a series of infinitesimal capacitors connected in parallel by infinitesimal resistors and inductors in series.

The derivation of the logarithmic charging curve is of interest, but is not really fundamental. They ought to have considered a second situation where the transmission line is charged through a resistance equal to the characteristic impedance, because it would have allowed them to derive the relationship between impedance, velocity and unit capacitance directly.

The article does not disprove displacement current - it ignores it. In any case, the only thing that is implied by displacement current in the context of a capacitor charging is that the changing electic field between the plates as the voltage across them increases creates a magnetic field. (This is predicted by Maxwell's equations and has been shown experimentally to be the case.)

Ivor Catt appears to think that physicists claim that the displacement current is what 'crosses the gap'. What the physicists say is that it is merely a consequence of the electric field crossing the gap, and that that is just the same 'pass-the -parcel' mechanism that applies between the electrons in the conductor, just that the gap between electrons is bigger.

And the physicists do use a 'pass-the-parcel' description for the process of current flow in a conductor; what they don't do is to describe the process in terms of a transverse electromagnetic waves. Instead they start with the spherical electric field that surrounds the electron. As the electron moves, so clearly the electric field must change to conform, and this change propagates ahead of the electron at the speed of light. If, before the electron moved, the force on its next neighbour electron due to their interacting fields was balanced out by the other forces around it, after the first electron starts moving there will be now be a net force on the second electron which will also start moving.

The change in the electric field is obviously acting in the same direction as the motion. Since there is moving charge, which is current, with an associated magnetic field, there is clearly something 'electromagnetic' going on. However, equally clearly the electric and magnetic components and the motion are not mutually perpendicular, so the assertion that this is a "TEM wave" is in conflict with what physicists generally mean by the term.

This is the heart of the "Catt Anomaly". There are two answers to the "Question" (which talks about a "TEM step"); someone who is aware of Ivor Catt's divergence from standard physics terminology will discuss current flow in a conductor, someone who is unaware of the discrepancy is likely to attempt to answer what is a poorly-expressed question on the subject of waveguides. (The two responses received by Mr Catt from Dr McEwen of Bradford and Prof Pepper of Cambridge show this very clearly.)

Incidentally, a bit of thought will show that the forces moving the electrons are observed at the 'macroscopic' level as voltages. In a transmission line, there are voltages 'along the conductors' and 'between the conductors', the former are obviously related to the line as something that carries current, the latter relate to the line as a capacitor. When you consider this as "voltage is force", you get a situation which is normally dealt with in theoretical mechanics by the device known as 'resolution of forces', where the components of the forces in perpendicular directions are dealt with separately. This is the origin of Mr Catt's famous Western/Southern dicotomy, which he thinks is the cause of his Anomaly.

At 7:37 AM, Blogger nige said...


You say: "The 1978 Catt, Davidson and Walton article does not do what 'it says on the box'. The authors obviously did not realise that in modelling a capacitor as a transmission line they were constructing a circular argument..."

The circular argument was added by the editor, Catt claims, who added the words "and how to get rid of it" to the article's titled "Displacement current".

I'm interested for two reasons only, first that the true stuff going on in the capacitor is quantum type jumping and second that it throws open the whole issue of what Maxwell's equations are doing in physics beyond providing the U(1) component to prop in electroweak unification in the standard model.

Catt's reading of the situation is nonsense (he is dismissing electrons and energy flow along the electric field lines while the capacitor charges/discharges).

I've pointed out Catt's errors in my Electronics World articles, plus the important letter in the March 2005 issue this year.

Therefore, it is plain false to try to sink me by association. Similarly, one day Cherie Blare - the PM's wife - might give back to the cancer kids the money she took from the conference, and when that happens it will be wrong to keen on accusing her of taking money from dying kids. In any case, she won't listen. Since I'm not killing kids, why should I grovel when people like her - who are scum - don't?

Best wishes,

At 7:38 AM, Blogger nige said...


prop up, not prob in


Post a Comment

<< Home