Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Monday, November 28, 2005

The illustration above attempts to show the electron schematically. The Heaviside energy current, or Poynting vector, has magnetic field, electric field, and propagation all perpendicular. The magnetic field forms loops normally, but if - as in the case of the electron - the Heaviside energy current is trapped in a loop due to the strength of gravity on small distance scales, it gives rise to a magnetic dipole but radially symmetric electric field, as shown in the April 2003 Electronics World article. The polarised vacuum around the electron core has an outward directed electric field (positive toward negative) which opposes the inward electric field of the core to the extent that 99.27% of the electric charge is shielded. The core's polar magnetic field is completely unaffected, of course, as it is parallel to - not crossing - the polarised electric field.

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

Since the Heisenberg uncertainty formula d = hc/(2.Pi.E), i.e., E = hc/(2.Pi.d), works for d and E as realities in calculating the observed ranges of forces carried by gauge bosons of energy E, we can introduce work energy as E = Fd, which gives us the electron core (unshielded) force law: F = hc/(2.Pi.d^2). This is 137.0... times Coulomb. Actually this is a short cut, but it works.

The 'ordered chaos' described statistically by Schroedinger's wave equation arises in the atom from the interactions of 3 bodies, the Poincare effect. Bohr's semi-classical atom is perfectly consistent with Schroedinger's wave equation for a nucleus, electron and one other particle, such as in the meaasuring instrument (it's not classical since it disagrees with Maxwell's equations as Bohr ignores radiation due to centripetally acceleratign charge, which is the gauge boson mechanism in the case of a spinning particle, but unfortunately spin was only introduced in 1925).This is because the normal circular or elliptical orbits of each electron is chaotically altered continuously by each of the other electrons as they move relative to each other. If you deal with a hydrogen atom with just 1 electron orbiting a nucleus, you have 2 bodies in effect, and the thing will obey Bohr's model, but you can never check it because you need another (third) particle in the instrument to probe where the electron is.This Poincare chaos effect, and the derivation on my page of Schrodinger's wave equations, is not speculative but well established fact.


At 1:17 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


a Google search yields two "clusters" of references, one set referring to the ideas of one Tom Bearden, who appears to believe that he can extract energy from the vacuum, and a second set pointing to Ivor Catt's writing. Bearden believes that the "Heaviside energy" in a TEM wave is additional to the "Poynting energy", while Catt thinks that the two are identical.

It would appear that you subscribe to the Catt view.

The Google search turned up this reference to Catt's websites - http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm. This is a discussion of what Catt labels the "Heaviside Signal". This term does appear elsewhere; it is used to describe a step voltage change applied to a circuit. It is undoubtedly so named because it is a physical incarnation of the "Heaviside Step Function".

Catt talks about Heaviside "vacillating" between the "Rolling Wave" and the "Heaviside Signal". Catt appears to use the former term to mean the standard concept of the oscillatory electromagnetic wave, and the latter to refer to his peculiar ideas about "TEM steps".

A careful reading of what Catt has written gives a very different impression; namely that Heaviside was clearly dealing with two different things - a) energy flow in a conductor and b) transverse electromagnetic waves.

Seen from this point of view, Heaviside's "slabs of energy" are actually progressing towards the "touching electrons" of the simplified description of current flow.

What is also means is that the identification of "energy current" with the Poynting vector is due to Catt, not to Heaviside. Heaviside's "slabs of energy" flowed inside conductors. This immediately destroys the "theory" on which Catt's "DC TEM step" concept is built.

At this point your model has a problem, because the "Poynting Vector" is only a summarisation of the electric and magnetic fields - you need to construct a consistent description of these fields, given that you cannot use Catt's faulty theories to construct your electron as a "pulse of pure electromagnetic energy going round in a tiny circle."

At 3:40 PM, Blogger nige said...


Yes they're all the same, see the new post to this blog, where I'm mentioning Heaviside's error. Heaviside discovered the Poynting vector independently of Poynting. He later used his energy current, which is the Poynting/Heaviside vector to "disprove" the possibility of boxed metallic waveguides for radiowaves by considering the box as a short-circuited parallel-plane transmission line! A shorted transmission line can't carry radiation, which Heaviside visualised as occurring in the space between the conductors in a parallel-plate transmission line (capacitor). Obviously, the Heaviside neglected the fact that his mechanism for electricity is not merely "guided" by the surfaces of the conductors, but actually TIED to them, whereas radiowaves between metal plates just bounce around. The TEM wave of electricity is totally different to the radiowave, the radiowave starts at one conductor, travels through the vacuum at c, then arrives (after the delay t = d/c) at the receiver conductor. This is radio. It is "DISPLACEMENT CURRENT".

The Heaviside/TEM wave of electricity is goes in a direction 90 degrees different to the DISPLACEMENT CURRENT that is called radio waves.

I've explained this to Catt, but he prefers rearranging the deck chairs aboard the Titanic as it sinks. He won't take notice of me.

Lynch told me about Heaviside's error. Catt however falsely thinks the TEM wave is the same as radio. He has no idea of what radio waves are. I have a clear picture as my father's a radio amateur and I've played with simple radios from an early age, experimentally measuring the field strength received in a metre long HF receiver from a transmitter with a similar metre long aerial. You find that when the transmitter aerial points at the receiver aerial, there is no reception. The two aerials must be parallel, side by side, for maximum reception. You can visualise what is physically going on by playing like this, watching the needle vary as you turn the aerials. It's a lot clearer than looking up formulae or antennae theory. It's possible to get a good feel for the behaviour of 1 metre transverse electromagnetic waves caused by the oscillations of current in the transmitter aerial.

You mention a real crank if yoy find someone who believes in UFOs, ESP, or whatever, these people damage my chances of getting heard because they are so loud they give all outsiders a bad name. If Baredin thinks he knows a toss about the vacuum, he can start by predicting the strengths of gravity and electromagnetism from a mechanism. If he can't do that but wants to sell free energy, he's a spammer or better a quack.

I think theory should be closely aligned to experiment.

I DON'T use Catt's horsemanure or Heaviside's. I have enough ability and knowledge practically and theoretically of radio and electromagnetic theory to see what is right and ignore the rest.

Best wishes,

At 2:42 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You say: "The Heaviside/TEM wave of electricity is goes in a direction 90 degrees different to the DISPLACEMENT CURRENT"

Exactly which part of it is 90 degrees out of phase?

The whole point of a "transverse electromagnetic wave", (as per the definition you would find a proper physics textbook,) is that its electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and to the direction of motion of the wave. If the "Heaviside current" does not conform to this definition, it is not a "TEM wave". It can be an electromagnetic something, but it is not a "TEM" something any more than a tankful of seahorses constitutes a water polo match.

Heaviside seems to have been trying to construct an analogue of the Poynting vector for current flow in a conductor. Since the Poynting vector is about power, and hence transfer of energy, the extended concept could possibly explain charge in terms of energy. As we now know, charge is actually as fundamental as mass, and Heaviside's ideas were superceded not, as Catt would have it, by "wireless", but by the discovery of the electron.

Physicists have shown, by "theory ... closely aligned to experiment" that the phenomenon of current flow in a conductor is due to the motion of the electrons. Heaviside's "energy current" was speculation that ultimately was shown not to work. Heaviside was perfectly entitled to speculate; if physicists never asked themselves "what if?" they would never find new facts to build new theories on.

At 3:10 AM, Blogger nige said...


The Heaviside/Catt/TEM wave goes parallel to the two conductors, while displacement current is defined as going anti-parallel or orthogonal (at right angles, 90 degrees) to this.

In March this year, Electronics World carried a longish letter from me pointing out that the error in the Heaviside/Catt model of electricity is the neglect of the energy flowing in the direction of displacement current.

We know energy flows between the conductors from Feynman's correct heuristic interpretation of Dirac's quantum electrodynamics. Gauge bosons, photons, are exchanged to cause forces, and we know that energy flows "through" a charging/discharging capacitor, appearing on the opposite side of the circuit. Catt/Heaviside proclaim, nothing (including energy) flows from one plate to the other, which is false, like their ignorance of electrons in the conductors.

A radio transmitter aerial and receiver aerial form a capacitor arrangement:


Catt is right at http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm to point out that Maxwell ignored the flow of light speed energy along the plate connected to a charge. He is wrong to ignore my statement to him, based on Feynman's heuristic quantum mechanics and my fairly deep mechanistic knowledge of radio from experimenting with it myself instead of reading equations and theories from armchair experts in books (I read the books after experimenting, and found a lot of ignorance).

Radio transmitter aerial: |

Radio receiver aerial: |

Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for strong reception: ||

Transmitter aerial and receiver aerial arranged for zero reception: --

Transmitter and receiver aerial in a more usual situation (receiver picking up a much weaker than transmitted field):
| |


Catt's conception of science is hero worship, not objectivity. Thus, when he found something radical in EM theory in say 1967 he started searching for a hero figure who had been suppressed in history for saying the same thing, and he found Heaviside had mentioned "energy current" twice in his book (Heaviside had probably mentioned electric current thousands of times, but Catt knew what he was looking for, and searching under enough stones, he sure found it).

Then he could appear non-paranoid. Instead of saying nobody wanted his radical innovation, he could say he was defending Heaviside's legacy, which had been suppressed. In fact, of course, this hiding behind incorrect trivia from 1893 just makes him seem like a conspiracy theorist.

Energy current is a valuable concept, but in the poynting/heaviside vector, with magnetic, electric and propagation vectors all mutually orthogonal, there are hidden mechanisms. The electric field vector indicates the direction of flow of energy representing what Maxwell called 'displacement current' This energy is composed of the gauge bosons of Feynman's heuristic interpretation of the Dirac equation of quantum electrodynamics, since the electric field vector indicates a force field. The model on the page http://feynman137.tripod.com/ extends the usual pictorial Feynman diagrams to get a complete heuristic mechanism for quantum electrodynamics plus gravitation strength and the field equation of general relativity. This is then tested by making many predictions which later turn out correct, ie., the prediction in Oct 96 Electronics World that the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down, later confirmed by Perlmutter's CCD observations of supernovae at up to 10,000,000,000 light years away. Other predictions are gravity and electromagnetic field strengths, particle masses, etc.

This is the calculation from my letter of 1 March 2000 to Catt, cc Lynch:

Electrons begin with a net speed of zero, and are accelerated by the electric field of moving electrons behind. The mean vector velocity of each electron in the current direction thus rises from 0 up to 0.001 m/s.

Because of the inverse-square law, the electric field around each moving electron only accelerates the next few electrons, and the further electrons are, the less they are accelerated. The average initial separation of conduction electrons is 10^-10 m, say. Newton's equation of motion is

F = m.(d^2 r)/dt^2.

We set this equal to Coulomb's law

F = (e^2)/(4.Pi.permittivity.x^2)

where distance x for the first electron (moving at 1 mm/s) is

x = (10^-10) - {(10^-3)t} + r

which models the approach of the first electron to the next one down the line.

The first thing you notice when you start making calculations, is that the "free" conduction electrons are repelling each other normally with an accelerative field of 2.5 x 10^22 m/s^2.

If they weren't strongly bound to the atoms by the positive charge on the nucleus, these "free" electrons would explode off the surface of the conductors by the repulsion of their neighbours.

What you come to realise is, when you actually start making numerical integrations on your PC and GET OUT OF YOUR COSY ARMCHAIR, is that electricity involves large fields because the electrons are so close together and Coulomb's law is an inverse-square law.

These forces are always acting. The electrons don't drift along a bit before hitting a neighbour like a billiard ball. They are ALREADY EXCHANGING GAUGE BOSONS AT LIGHT SPEED WITH AN IMMENSE FORCE. This is the mechanism of electricity.

By pushing the first electron, you send all the forces out of equilibrium, and it corrects itself at light speed.

Catt of course prefers the "scientific" Ockham "simplicity" of ignoring the details of reality.

Best wishes,

At 1:47 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


Further pondering has given me an insight as to why Catt wants to abolish charge.

In Real Physics motion of charge is current which is what causes "current density" which is the "J" term in Ampere's Law. Since, for a transverse electromagnetic wave, J is by definition 0, the only way that Catt can even pretend that his "energy current" is a "TEM wave" is to hide charge.

Unfortunately, all it means is that the Catt energy current cannot explain such basic things as resistance and electrochemistry.

It would be interesting to see if your "theories" can be made to produce a consistent explanation to match the text of my 1953 copy of Morley and Hughes's "Principles of Electricity Based on the Rationalised MKS System of Units", if only to see how many extra fallacious arguments you have to throw in.

At 4:04 PM, Blogger nige said...

Fact, Kevin, experimental fact!

At 5:18 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You said: " Fact, Kevin, experimental fact!"

Yes, very much so.

The problem with the "Catt energy current" is that nobody has ever come up with an experiment that demonstrates the existence of the energy that Catt's "EM Theory" predicts is reflected off the open end of the transmission line. Simply measuring the voltage waveforms in bit of coax cable cannot do this, because Catt's theoretical results are identical to the predictions of the "standard" theory.

This is, in fact, why Catt's work is not "progress". Standard theory deals with things that Catt's work entirely ignores, notably the manifestations of charge and current, such as resistance, electrolysis, etc. Catt's theory is "simpler" precisely because it doesn't explain as much. Catt fails to see that Occam's Razor cuts both ways, and "energy current=TEM wave" gets chopped because it requires a second theory (definitely an unnecessary entity) in order to explain Ohm's Law.

In fact, I don't think I've even seen a working-through of the obvious next steps on from the "transmission line as a capacitor" discussion, namely varying the source resistance through which the voltage source is applied, and using terminating impedances other than the infinity of the open end. These are well-defined situations for the equations that Catt, et al, used, so Catt's EM Theory ought to be able to handle them. I suspect however, that there would be some awkward problems with a termination impedance less than that of the line, because it would require a negative energy current....

At 4:02 AM, Blogger nige said...


1967: Catt rediscovers Heaviside slab of energy for crosstalk theory after some experiments

26/28 May 1976: Catt, Davidson and Walton come up with "a capacitor is a transmission line". Dr Walton (ex-professor of physics at Trinity College, Dublin) asks Catt "how does the electron come in?" Catt replies: "shut up".

1979: Catt, Davidson and Walton write WW articles and the Macmillan-published textbook "Digital Hardware Design", including the "capacitor is a transmission line" without considering electrons at all! Book sold out gradually, but was never reprinted. It is available free at www.ivorcatt.org

1981-7: Catt teams up with Microsoft programmer Michael S. Gibson, who like Bill Gates dropped out of college. Gibson supposedly invented scalable fonts or whatever. (Catt says Gibson programs in basic at touch-type speed, without planning the program first on paper or anything, which was impressive to Catt who took 6 months to program a simple animation of a TEM wave!)

Gibson numerically solved the Heaviside equations for things like the inductor and transformer, treating them the same was as in "a capacitor is a transmission line". This stuff (transmission line model of inductor and transformer) was published in IEE journals in 1983 and 1987, although they had blocked the 1979 paper on the basis that it used Ockham's razor against electrons, etc.

Notice that Catt now, by 1987, has a Heaviside transmission line theory used for:

(1) capacitor with vacuum dielectric
(2) inductor
(3) transformer

He has nothing to say about how semiconductors work and nothing to say about electrons or quantum mechanics, which he politically objects to because of wave-particle duality ("mystery at the heart of modern physics", just as mystery is at the heart of religion...).

As you say, Kevin, nothing Catt does has any impact on anybody. When he tries to write electromagnetism books, such as "Electromagnetism 1" in 1995, the IEE reviewer (B. Lago) says it's all nonsense because Catt ignores electrons. Whoops! Lago says that there is "hardly anything" of value. He thus might excuse Catt the Heaviside approximation for capacitors, inductors and transformers.

My approach in conjunction with Dr Lynch was to use the Catt system to build a model of electron as a Heaviside energy current trapped by gravity into a spinning loop. This gives a picture of field lines looking like Penrose's twistor, a dipole magnetic field and spherically symmetric electroc field. Lynch said it was acceptable if a theory contains no more nor less than observed experimental properties, so was empirically defendable. This is so. Furthermore, it predicts a black-hole shielding area for radiation, which gives the correct force for gravity in a push-gravity mechanism. So I can defend a unification of electromagnetism and gravity empirically from many different directions, all empirical.

There is no theorising in putting together experimental facts in such a way that they fit perfectly and explain everything existing orthodoxy, which is speculative (10 dimensional) cannot!

At 1:43 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


The place to start with Catt's work may well be at the bottom of page 10 of "Digital Hardware Design", where it is argued that the analysis of the transmission line as a chain of LC sections yields a "high frequency cutoff which is quite spurious". In fact, Catt et al are entirely spurious, because they have omitted the resistive elements of the "full" theory, which are what cause the frequency-dependent effects, and are the reason for Heaviside's proposal to deliberately load the line with additional series inductance to improve performance.

This is, I'm afraid, characteristic of Catt's "work". If something doesn't suit his point of view, he will ignore it, rubbish it or try to bend it to fit, and generally try to shout down anyone trying to get the correct picture across.

The basic error with the 1978 "Capacitor" paper is not in the description of the voltage waveform on the transmission line, but rather in the faulty conclusions that cannot be properly drawn from it.

In fact, the really fundamental error that Catt makes is in the first chapter of his book "Electromagnetism", where he extends the "Capacitor = Transmission Line" argument, and in the process equates the voltage waveform with the "energy current".

This is the heart of the problem, because it is not even presented as a explicit assertion. This means that the necessary theoretical basis for the properties of this "energy current". To compond matters, Catt then asserts that the energy current is a "TEM wave". This is, in fact, definitively wrong, because a correct analysis of the original equations that Catt has built his argument on show that there is motion of charge in the conductor, so there is a non-zero "current density" - J in Maxwell's Equations - which means that the conditions that define a TEM wave (in the terminology used by physicists) simply are not met.

The Dec 78 paper would have been far more useful if an analysis had been made of the case where the source resistance matched the line impedance. It would have shown that the source voltage would be evenly divided between the source resistance and the line, so that the reflected voltage would match the supply voltage.

If you consider the voltage across the source resistance, it is clear that it will be zero before the voltage is applied, half the supply voltage during the time that the voltage step travels down the line and back, and zero thereafter. It should be equally clear that a constant current flows through the resistance during the time that the voltage is "in motion".

A little further thought will reveal that the whole point of making the source resistance equal to the line impedance is to make the "end" of the line equal to any point within the length of the line. It should be obvious that at any point on the line current flows through the line in one direction only, and only during the time between the outward and return edges passing through the point.

If you define "energy current" as "flow of energy" it is obviously "power". Clearly at any point along the line this will be voltage times current. This can only be non-zero during the time that current is flowing at that point, and since the voltage does not change sign and the current flows only one way, the energy also flows only one way. This entirely contradicts the whole of Catt's reverberating TEM waves.

Incidentally, we know the source current from the the supply voltage and the source resistance (=line impedance) and the elapsed time can be calculated from the characteristic velocity and the length of the line, so we compute charge as Q = It. We know the voltage that the line is charged to, and its capacitance (from the length and the unit capacitance) so we can also compute charge as Q = CV.

If you put the two equations together as It = CV and substitute in I = V/2z, t = 2l/v and C = lc (with l, z, v and c being the line length, impedance, characteristic velocity and unit capacitance) you will end up with v.c = 1/z If you drop in any two of the equations for v, c and z from the Catt et al paper, you will get the third.

I would have said that that would be an interesting result, but it would rather have spoilt the paper's claim to have presented a model that did not use the concept of charge, since it is clear that the equations that were used are derived out of the concept of charge in the first place.

It should be noted that none of this even needs to mention electrons, since it all works very nicely using the concepts evolved by the people for who the units of electricity are named (and, of course, their collaborators, rivals, etc).

The association of abstract charge with the underlying behaviour of the electrons is physics, rather than electrical engineering, and is part of the "unification theory" that is the modern concept of the atom, which ties together the physical and chemical properties of matter.

The upshot of all this is that the flow of "Heaviside energy current" in a conductor is merely the voltage.current product at some point in the conductor. Before the discovery of the electron, it was perfectly reasonable to speculate that charge was a manifestation of electrical energy, and this is probably what Heaviside was trying out. With the knowledge that charge is fundamental, the "energy current" concept was reduced to a "derived thing", which has not proved to be of sufficient use to warrant its retention.

Your model now has an unidentified "something" in it. You need to work back from the list of things that it "does" and deduce its properties. You need either to identify it as something that exists in "real physics", rather than obsolete Victorian speculation, or define it as a new concept altogether, and after you've sorted out what you actually mean by it, and only then, you can go out and try to tie it onto other things.

At 9:10 AM, Blogger nige said...


P=VI, so there is no power without electric current. Very good, so you can claim all power in the universe, including energy from falling objects (gravity), is derived from electric current! This is the danger when equations are used by crackpots. Maxwell's theory says displacement current delivers energy in a way analogous to electric current.

The total current in Maxwell's theory is i = (conduction current) + (displacement current).

Pointed this fact out in Electronics World, that Maxwell's tragedy was not living to see the nearly-void atom proved by X-rays and radioactivity penetrations.

If Maxwell had lived to see that, he would have realised that the vast vajority of the energy transfer in electricity is by "displacement current" in wires, with real electric current the result. Catt screws up by using Ockham's razor to cut down to one or the other.

(Similarly Catt, despite his own showy criticisms of phlogiston to suit his politics of statesmanship, would still have phlogiston, because he would refuse - by Ockham's Razor - to allow reality to go from ONE to TWO separate mechanisms for heat: kinetic theory of matter and radiation.)

Maxwell would also have grasped that displacement current alone explains radio, which explains problems with his complex wave theory and the quantum theory of light and radiation.

P = VI doesn't identify whether the drift current is causing or is caused by the electromagnetic field. Of course electric drift occurs, the question is how it is linked to electricity. There is no consensus, and Catt/Lynch rightly exposed this to at least a few people. Catt is human, does make errors.

You assert "...a correct analysis of the original equations that Catt has built his argument on show that there is motion of charge in the conductor...". This is vague drivel because you don't identify what particular motion you are referring to, and I've already published conduction electrons are going at 1% or whatever of light speed for their orbits, never mind light speed spin (or whatever you do regarding spin). I agree with net electron drift as well, where the TEM wave sets up a varying potential difference, the electrons drift.

Yes, Catt has not dealt properly with the resistance and impedance question. I've said the whole subject is far deeper than Heaviside/Catt present it, and they can't overthrown quantum mechanics with what they had in 1979. The TEM wave model is a holy trinity of three perpendicular vectors, not a scientific theory.

Catt tells me to shut up if I start discussing mechanisms. He is certain that any final hidden mechanism for the TEM wave and spacetime fabric is so far off that it is a waste of time trying got it now. He thinks his time is better spent on "fathers for justice" or "a child's right to see its parents". So he is no use.

The "Catt conjecture" as we may call it is that everything in the universe is composed of Heaviside energy current, with vector electric field E = cB, where B is vector magnetic field, at right angles to light speed propagation at c, and to B.

This leads to Maxwell's two curl equations as shown on my home page. It also gives the model for the fundamental particle core as gravitationally trapped energy current.

It shows that all charge has a magnetic field, which is demonstrated by the real electron. The only reason we don't normally see the magnetism of matter is that the magnetic electrons in orbitals pair up by spin (magnetism), like two bar magnets dropped side by side. They pair up so potential energy is minimised, which means there s no magnetism visible outside the atom. The electron's polar magnetic force is actually strong, as it is not shielded by the 137 attenuation of the electric field from the core due to the polarised vacuum.

At 9:15 AM, Blogger nige said...

The wires and the battery are radiating quantum energy continuously as heat (in addition to displacement current, which is continuous, not discrete energy) at any temperature above 0 K. Because you don't measure it cooling, you don't disprove it.

It was Prevost in 1792 who discovered that if a cooling object is also receiving energy in equilibrium, you don't measure a temperature fall.

Charges radiate continuous displacement current energy and receive energy, there is equilibrium. Where equilibrium doesn't occur, you have forces resulting, potential energy changes, and so on.

Displacement current as Maxwell formulated it only occurs while
"charging/discharging". In any case, it is not the flow of real charge, only energy. The electromagnetic field of displacement current is really energy, and this is what propagates through space, causing the long range fundamental forces.

At 8:57 AM, Blogger nige said...

Click HERE to see Brian Josephson exposed as a crackpot

And then click HERE for a sympathetic article about Edward Witten's sad string theory crackpotism (with name changed to avoid legal action)

At 5:12 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You said: "... so there is no power without electric current. Very good, so you can claim all power in the universe, including energy from falling objects (gravity), is derived from electric current!"

No. You are the "Electronic Universe" proponent. I subscribe to Joule's work that demonstrates that mechanical work done and electrical work done are basically the same thing. "Work done" is a change in energy, and power is the rate that work is done, and is thus rate of change in energy. Electricians tend to be somewhat sloppy about the distinction between "energy", which is an absolute quantity, and "work" which is relative.

You say: "P = VI doesn't identify whether the drift current is causing or is caused by the electromagnetic field."

There are electrons. There are ions. There are electric fields, There are magnetic fields. Their interactions comply with Maxwell's Equations. Electrons move in a conductor because there are out of equilibrium forces (whether they are called "electromotive force", "potential difference" or "voltage") and these forces in the conductor have the same effect whether they are created by motion of the conductor in a magnetic field, "motion" of the magnetic field relative to the conductor or by the "electron pump" created by separating the two halves of a chemical "redox" reaction as is done in a "dry cell" battery. (Or indeed by any of the other ways of creating a current.)

You say: "You assert "...a correct analysis of the original equations that Catt has built his argument on show that there is motion of charge in the conductor...". This is vague drivel because you don't identify what particular motion you are referring to, and I've already published conduction electrons are going at 1% or whatever of light speed for their orbits, never mind light speed spin (or whatever you do regarding spin). I agree with net electron drift as well, where the TEM wave sets up a varying potential difference, the electrons drift."

Yes, you keep saying it, and you keep on ignoring the fact that the "1%" is an average velocity, as is the "< 1mm/sec" electron drift velocity. You keep on trying to treat these average velocities as the actual velocities, which would only be the case if the electrons were in constant motion at that velocity. The concept of "mean free path" dispels this notion immediately. (just consider the average velocities of the tortoise and the hare in Aesop's fable.)

Catt has not grasped (and you appear not to have either) that Maxwell's Equations make a statement about the interrelationship of the things that make up "electromagnetism". They do not of themselves define a "transverse electromagnetic wave". Maxwell realised that "his" equations resembled some from other areas of physics which had "simple harmonic motion" aspects. He found that a particular set of equations for the electric and magnetic fields varying sinusoidally would satisfy the (Maxwell) equations if the fields were in motion and mutally perpendicular to themselves and to the direction of motion and that the motion were at a specific velocity.

The "TEM wave" as defined by physicists is a specific solution of Maxwell's Equations. There are others. In particular, the flow of current in a conductor is not a TEM wave phenomenon precisely because it has current flow, and therefore has a non-zero 'J' term.

When a battery is connected to a circuit (which is what Catt says his Question is about) an EMF is applied and current flows. There are electric fields and magnetic fields and "current density", but overall their interaction does not fit the equations for a "transverse electromagnetic wave" and Catt's assertion that there is one is hogwash.

Furthermore, the corrollary assertion that the energy flow in an open-ended transmission line is in phase with the voltage, and thus reverberates, is also hogwash. It is perfectly clear that the "Heaviside" current is a derived quantity, based on the instantaneous value of EMF and current at a point in the conductor. With the identification of current as electron motion, Heaviside current ceased to be a useful quantity.

It is merely a summarisation, not a real thing, and so cannot of itself be "trapped" by gravity.

At 8:49 AM, Blogger nige said...


"You keep on trying to treat these average velocities as the actual velocities"

No, that is what the other side do.

The velocity inherent in all matter is c, as in E = mc2. This is the spin speed, the "displacement current" energy speed, and the speed of electricity. I'm not the Dr Double Deutch or prof. Brian Josephson claiming that the vital thing is that electrons go at 1 mm/s, and that ESP makes horoscopes real, and that there is a hobgoblin living next door. I'm happy that the spin and gauge bosons go at c. I'm also happy with Maxwell's equations, being the first person to properly understand them!

Yours modestly,

At 5:09 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


Is your "spin speed" the one from your recent letter to EW, where you treat the rest mass of the electron as being spread in a ring travelling with a tangential velocity equal to "c", and by feeding in the angular momentum of the quantum mechanical spin, you came up with a value for the radius of the electron?

It's a pity that you forgot that you should have used the version of the equation for angular momentum that applies at relativistic velocities, by including the Lorentz factor, which is, for a body moving at the speed of light, infinite.

The correct value for the radius would have been zero, even assuming that your assumptions were correct and that there were enough energy in the universe to have something that possesses mass moving at the speed of light!

At 3:46 AM, Blogger nige said...

It's not my electron, its the real thing, it's the Heaviside energy trapped in a loop, giving all observed properties.

It gives rise to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and mass increase formula you talk about.

The reason the electron can never propagate at c, is that the spin speed would be reduced to 0, which requires an infinite amount of energy and is impossible. See the full article on my internet site, April 2003 EW.

At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only gravity can confine Heaviside electromagnetic energy into a spinning loop with the dipole magnetic field and spherically symmetric electric field for fermions, described by quantum field theory.


Post a Comment

<< Home