*Solution to a problem with Maxwell's electromagnetic unification*

Every time you turn on the switch, electricity proceeds towards the light bulb at light speed. The circuit is open until completed by the arrival of electricity at the bulb, because the resistance of the circuit is determined by the bulb. Hence Ohm's laws and Kirchoff's laws don't apply to any transient real system like turning on the light, they are only steady-state approximations. IN ALL REAL SITUATIONS, 'DISPLACEMENT CURRENT' (WHICH IS DUE TO RADIATION, NOT THE MECHANISM MAXWELL THOUGHT) IS VITAL. It allows these transients to flow before the pulse of electric current has completed the circuit. For example, the diagram below (which is not entirely accurate) purports to show how a capacitor charges up. (Maxwell didn't know how fast electricity goes, so he ignored the spread of electricity along the capacitor plates, which reflects back off the far end and adds to further incoming energy.)

This illustration (due to Ivor Catt,

*Wireless World*December 1978) is

**false**because Catt draws the steps as being

**vertical**increments. This is because he falsely assumes zero rise-time at the front of the long pulse energy current flowing into the capacitor (which is an physics error that goes right back to Heaviside).

When electric current (or a long flat-topped logic pulse), enters a capacitor plate, Maxwell thought it continued straight on to the other plate,

*without any change of direction,*via

*aethereal displacement current*. Hence in Maxwell's displacement current of the vacuum, i = e.dE/dt = dD/dt, the direction of both i and dD/dt is perpendicular to the plane of the plates, so it is from one plate to the other.

But since Maxwell got the direction wrong (the current spreads along the plates), and since x-rays/radioactivity showed wires to be like an aether (nuclear atoms with enormous spacesbetween electrons, not by any means a 'solid metal), the 'displacement current' is *actually a displacement of real charge in the conductor itself.* Hence in the equation i = dD/dt, the direction of i and dD/dt is parallel to the conductor, and i is *real current not aethereal current.*

The 90 degree direction change of current is vital, see http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm:

'This "capacitor is a transmission line" conclusion directly contradicts Maxwell, Article 610:

"One of the chief peculiarities of this treatise is the doctrine which asserts, that the true electric current, I, that on whichthe electromagnetic phenomena depend, is not the same thing as i, thecurrent of conduction, but...

I = i + dD/dt (Equation of True Currents)."

'This quotation pins down the gross falsehood in today's physical science, based on (Maxwell's) electromagnetic theory; the correct equation due to Catt, Davidson, and Walton is: 'I = i = dD/dt

'In this equation, there is an "=" sign whereas in Maxwell's equation there is a "+" sign. This says it all. In other words, Maxwell treats wire electricity (i) as being different to the current flow in the vacuum dielectric of a charging or discharging capacitor (dD/dt), whereas Catt. Davidson, and Walton have proven that there is no distinction for pulses ofelectromagnetic energy in wires. Hence, Maxwell is mathematically wrong.' {However, Ivor Catt refuses to scientifically comment on this clarification of his writings, or on the diagram above.}

In Catt's logic step diagram, dD/dt is either zero or infinity, regardless of whether you are confused over the direction of the voltage variation (along the conductor or orthagonal to it). When you correct this error, you find the mechanism for what is happening inside the TEM wave, electricity. Ivor falsely says that *his diagram is represents a question/anomaly with the mainstream theory.* What completes the circuit is displacement current i = e.dE/dt = dD/dt, where e is permittivity. Catt draws the diagram with a Heaviside step, so dD/dt = 0 both ahead of and behind the step (zero or steady v volts), and dD/dt = v/0 = infinity at the vertical rise of the step. When you correct the 'little error' of getting only i = 0 and i = infinity, the Catt anomaly is explained, and you discover how electricity really works.

The problem that people may have is the direction of electric field E. The potential involts is varying from 0 to v over a distance x along the plate. Once a current has been induced on the other plate, there is a charge there and so there is then a field gradient between the plates (with E pointing from one plate towards the other, the E vector being perpendicular to the plane of the capactor plates or transmission line wires). The E field I'm talking about is that parallel to the plates, because the current must turn 90 degrees and must spread along the plate after entering it (not proceed as Maxwell thought straight in the direction of one plate to the other).

I've pointed out that a misunderstanding of Maxwell's 'displacement current' has led to the false (non-quantum) light wave emission picture which conflicts with Bohr's atomic transition. Briefly, Maxwell's equations predict that an atomic electron should continuously emit energy, not discrete energy levels or quanta. Maxwell used two of his major equations to describe light: Faraday's law of induction and Maxwell's 'displacement current' fiddle. An atom is really a capacitor, and quantum transitions correspond to the change in capacitance (with fixed charge of e-) when the electron jumps.

The second equation is known since 1979 to be physically wrong for a capacitor although Catt's arm-waving dismissal of the whole of modern physics as a result is even further in error: Catt should have focussed on the *mathematical and interpretative consequences of his result, the stepwise (discrete) 'charging curve.'*

Consider the 2 conductor transmission lines as 2 parallel radio aerials. If you feed one with a signal (of any type) and leave the other passive, the first transmits energy to the passive one which receives energy only as a result of di/dt in the first one. This is indistinguishable from Maxwell's 'displacement current' equation. Maxwell says vacuum 'displacement current' *i = e.dE/dt = e.dv/(x.dt)* where *e *is permittivity and *x* is the width over which the step rises (definition: *x = ct,* where *t* is the rise-time). We see that if *x* = 0, then* i* = infinity. This disproves the idea of a truly abrupt step. Moreover, the current rises over the rise-time from 0 to its peak, and since radio emission occurs in proportion to *di/dt,* it becomes more intense as the step rise-time is made smaller.

Now here is the proof. Taking the 2 parellel aerials or transmission line conductors. Feed one with any signal, and feed the other with the inversion of that signal. While the signal strength rises, electrons accelerate and radio emission occurs in a perpendicular direction.

I've done this experiment and proved it experimentally. *During the rise-time, each conductor transmits a radio signal that is the exact opposite of that emitted from the other conductor.* At a long distance (several times the distance of the gap between the two conductors) there is 'no' observable radio transmission at all, because each radio emission cancels out that of the other: 'perfect interference'. (The same concept is often used as white noise to suppress sounds, but that is less effective.)

A time-varying current results in radio emission. Neither Catt nor anyone else has measured the fields in the space between two conductors as a TEM wave passes: they have only measured induced currents in other conductors. Radio emission is occurring at the front of a logic step! Catt got the 'Catt anomaly' wrong by relying on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged and carries an opposite current, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) is exactly out of phase with the other and so completely cancels that from the other as seen at a large distance. So there is no energy radiated to large distances! The *only *radio emission of energy occurs from each conductor to the other.

Maxwell wrote 'displacement current' in terms of electric field strength. However, as the voltage rises at front of the logic step, current rises. Maxwell should have written the extra current (displacement current in vacuum) equation in terms of the ordinary (conductor based) current, which means 'displacement current' is radio. Maxwell: displacement current* i = e.dE/dt = e(v/ct^2),* where *e* is permittivity and *v* is uniform voltage rise over time *t.* What I'm saying is that the mutual radio emission causes the front of the logic step (the rising part) to propagate. Each conductor induces current in the other! It is fact that the inverse-square law doesn't apply: there is no net radio transmission beyond the system because of **perfect interference**, as the current rise in each conductor is the * exact opposite of that in the other one so the radio transmissions from each conductor exactly cancels the other outside the transmission line*!

The point is that the

*entire*radio energy emitted by each conductor during the step is transmitted to, and received by, the other conductor. This is the process by which the TEM wave is allowed to propagate. Catt, ironically, gives the conventional textbook slab of drivel on this point! See http://www.ivorcatt.com/6_2.htm (that web version misses out the formulae, but they are widely known) where Catt calculates the inductance of a single wire and finds: "The self inductance of a long straight conductor is infinite. This is a recurrence of Kirchhoff's First Law, that electric current cannot be sent from A to B. It can only be sent from A to B and back to A." I think it is unhelpful for Catt, having defined

**E**and

**B**in fixed ratio for a TEM wave (

**E=cB),**then goes along with the unfruitful textbook treatment of inductance which considers inductance as a

**B**field effect! The magnetic field loops around each conductor instead of going from one conductor to the other line 'displacement current' or in fact radio energy. This is probably where the conventional theory went wrong! It is clear that the entire energy needed to propagate the TEM wave is transmitted as radio from one conductor to the other during the step. No loss occurs because the step in each is inverted with respect to the other in a TEM wave.

This is absolutely vital for correcting the classical errors in Maxwell's equations and their application, to allow a less crass (discrete/continuous jumble) understanding of what a light photon is, so that gauge bosons understood sufficiently to allow full quantum field theory unification of fundamental forces.

The Poynting-Heaviside vector is false if interpreted as saying that there is no propagation in the E and B vector directions. Forces act in the E and B field directions, and that means that energy is conveyed perpendicularly to the propagation vector c. The reality is that that the Poynting-Heaviside vector (Poynting and Heaviside discovered it independently) is holding back science. Quantum field theory of electrodynamics, which is verified for accurate predictions of (1) Lamb shift, (2) magnetic moment increase of electron due to vacuum and (3) magnetic moment increase of muon due to vacuum, says Coulomb's law is caused by the exchange of gauge bosons, which are photons. Coulomb's law is the force version of Gauss' electric field law, and so we know that photons are moving all the time along electric field lines. This is the cause of the force as specified by the quantum field theory (Feynman diagrams). So there is strong evidence the Poynting vector ignores the dynamics. (Quantum field theory is moving towards an spacetime fabric picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model.

See arXiv: hep-th/0510040 [26] p85: the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea/aether as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'.

There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash [27] as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea/aether.)

'... it is thus perhaps best to view spin foam models ... as a novel way of defining a (regularised) path integral in quantum gravity. Even without a clear-cut link to the canonical spin network quantisation programme, it is conceivable that spin foam models can be constructed which possess a proper semi-classical limit in which the relation to classical gravitational physics becomes clear. For this reason, it has even been suggested that spin foam models may provide a possible ‘way out’ if the difficulties with the conventional Hamiltonian approach should really prove insurmountable.' - Page 14 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601129

The reason for the technical problems of loop quantum gravity, LQG, like an infinite number of potential solutions is simply a lack of connection to reality. This is the same problem which stops string theory from succeeding after 20 years of intense funding, which LQG has not had!I don't think the aim of science is just to link GR and QFT by some kind of mathematical fiddle of the Feynman path integral, but the broader picture of understanding why gravity is so much weaker, and being able to predict it. The conventional aim of producing a theory that "predicts gravity" by merely being consistent with unobserved hypothetical spin 2 graviton conjectures is no good. Maxwell fiddled his theory to fit the facts, but at least his equations allow me to calculate electromagnetic phenomena.

With both string theory and LQG you have a mathematically far more complex and incomplete version of something like Maxwell's aether electromagnetism, but the equations are useless for practical things. You can't calculate Standard Model parameters with them, or anything. So you are left with the physical picture - 10/11 dimensional strings and 10^500 vacuua. This is why I think LQG spin foam vacuum is more realistic - it is tied to reality.

It's a pity people are so constrained to only seeing abstract mathematical approaches and technical details of speculative conjectures. Top physicists should be resolving the reasons why Maxwell's equations wrongly predict continuous and not discrete electromagnetic waves for atomic phenomena. Once this is sorted, then you will a correct model for one observable unified force (electromagnetism) which will be a foundation for getting a grasp of quantum gravity. At present, anomalies between real observed physics phenomena and the mathematical models are swept under the carpet. And some people have the cheek to speculate on SUSY and other unobservables.

"We could go on and on and on. String theory reproduces special relativity; LQG does not. String theory is consistent with the existence of other forces and fields (which moreover seem necessary not only according to the experiments but also because of internal consistency of quantum gravity) and it in fact predicts them; LQG does not." - STRING THEORIST Dr Lubos Motl, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-lqg-expert.html

Special relativity not exactly a defence of string theory as general relativity is quite different, and anyway special relativity conflicts with quantum field theory: Quantum field theory is moving towards an ether picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model. See arXiv, hep-th/0510040 p85, the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'.

There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea. General relativity is entirely different to special/restricted relativity:EINSTEIN REPUDIATED SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS FOLLOWS:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’,

*Annalen der Physik,*v49, 1916.

You can get the equations of "special relativity" from electrodynamics as Lorentz and others did before Einstein. Yes Einstein was the biggest genius of all time, but he ADMITTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOESN'T APPLY TO A REAL WORLD WHERE THERE ARE ACCELERATIONS (SEE QUOTATION ABOVE). Which is why general relativity is different. At best, the EQUATIONS of special relativity are the same as those of the correct theory; at worse they are completely wrong and lead to paradoxes by not including acceleration effects. You cannot rely on the framework of special framework since all real motion involves acceleration and thus force.

It is really to be expected that the same people who admire Einstein's early errors as if they were better than his major work in general relativity, are the people who also work on string theory. It is not coincidence. You are just brainwashed bigots. You can't see that physics tied to facts, such as FitzGerald and Lorentz's approach to the equations of "special relativity" a decade before Einstein are MORE BEAUTIFUL PHYSICALLY, because they are connected to reality.

Instead, Lubos and other cranks ignore the reality of general relativity and the spin foam vacuum which seems to connect the experimental facts of gravity with those of quantum field theory, and you instead try to connect

**10/11 dimensional speculation**with

**spin-2 gauge boson (graviton) speculation**, using

**unobservable string speculation**.

String 'theorists' (or should we be honest and say cranksters?) think speculation is beautiful because the level of maths, or what

*they*call maths, is so technically involved it will not be understood or checked by outsiders. The whole approach of 'string theory' big mouthed crackpots is insulting, speculative, trivial, unconnected to any reality, and frankly insane.

String theorist Dr Lubos Motl, who knows about propaganda, has now usefully given the following enlightening viewpoint:

“An important part of all totalitarian systems is an efficient propaganda machine. … to protect the ‘official opinion’ as the only opinion that one is effectively allowed to have.” - STRING THEORIST Dr Lubos Motl, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/power-of-propaganda.html

Another string theorists (mentioned in the previous post and its comments): Dr Urs Schreiber

Urs Says: January 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pm

I think that when Gen Rel was published in 1915 there WERE already detectors able to see the effects.

*Sure. But in 1815 there were not.*

Today, entire high energy physics is suffering from the lack of good detectors. Theory is far ahead of experiment, unfortunately.

Today, entire high energy physics is suffering from the lack of good detectors. Theory is far ahead of experiment, unfortunately.

anonymous Says: January 19th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

“Theory is far ahead of experiment, unfortunately.”

*Indeed! I thought it was the other way round, with theory being unable to catch up with experiments. Perhaps I’ve missed a paper on arXiv.org that predicted the masses of quarks, coupling constants, and other Standard Model parameters. How careless of me.*

**STRING "THEORISTS" LIKE DR SUSSKIND ARE "SMUG": see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=329**

**STRING "THEORISTS" USE PROPAGANDA TO ATTACK LQG: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=330**

MORE ABOUT LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY (LQG): http://lqg.blogspot.com/

UPDATE (comments from Wikipedia discussion):

Getting back to the Catt Anomaly issue: there is no electric current where the voltage does not vary with distance along a conductor. So there is no electric current in the logic step behind the front (where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts). This is because you have to have a variation in electric field strength to get electrons to accelerate.

In the Catt anomaly diagrams, Catt shows a current flowing in the conductors where the potential along the conductor is constant 10 volts. No electric current will actually flow under this condition, because you have to have the electric field varying with distance along a conductor to cause electron drift. The electrons accelerated briefly at the front will presumably soon slow down behind the front due to resistance, so "energy current" not "electric current" is possible where the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor) Catt of course fiddles it completely by drawing displacement current as flowing where the electric field is both constant with time and constant with respect to distance along the transmission line. The Catt Anomaly is an total, complete, and utter hoax from start to finish.

This justifies the idea that the Catt Anomaly has (1) disproved the competence of conventionally trained physicists who didn't spot the mistakes (names listed in the Catt Anomaly book), and (2) proves that Theory C does hold behind the rise (front) of the logic step, in addition to Theory C applying in a steady charged capacitor, of course.

Of course you could preserve electric current in the part of the logic step where the voltage is a constant 10 volts by a mutual exchange of magnetic field energy from motion of charge in the other conductor.

So at the front of the logic step, the varying electric field due to the finite rise portion from 0 to 10 volts accelerates electrons. Once the slow-moving electrons are within the constant 10 volts part of the electric field, the electric field is unable to continue to exert a force to overcome resistance. But the magnetic field from the charge in the opposite conductor then causes the current.

"Displacement current" if it exists equals permittivity times dv/(dt.dx).

As I've said, Maxwell confused this for "radio" (electromagnetic radiation, I'm not talking of sine waves) where the transverse emission of radiation (radiated power) is directly proportional to the acceleration of the charge, i.e., to the rate of change of the current in the conductor (not displacement current).

SUMMARY: (1) Maxwell: circuit is completed by something called "displacement current" which is not radiation as such but flows when voltage varies with time and distance.

(2) TRUTH: circuit is completed by radiation which flows as the ENERGY current in the conductor varies, accelerating charges at the front of the logic step. [4] Nigel 172.213.66.114 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

... There is no electric current in the portion of the logic step where the voltage is constant with distance. You need to have a voltage gradient with distance to keep the electrons drifting. Only ''energy current'', not electric current, is possible if the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor. There is current at the front where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts. See the Catt Anomaly diagram. The error in the Catt Anomaly diagram is that displacement current flows from one conductor to the other in all places, allowing electric current behind the front. Theory C holds true behind the front of a logic step, as well as in the steady, charged capacitor. Unless, that is, the magnetic field from the opposite conductor causes the current in the conductor of interest, which is of course what happens. Each conductor causes the current in the other one. At the front it is due to electromagnetic radiation emission due to charge accelerated by the electric voltage varying from 0 to 10 volts, and where the voltage is steady at 10 volts, the electric current is caused by the magnetic field from the other conductor. In each case the electromagnetic radiation emission and the magnetic field from each conductor causes the current in the other conductor, a mutual induction situation. At a large distance from the transmission line, no electromagnetic radiation or magnetic field exists, because the contribution from each conductor cancels that from the other conductor exactly in perfect interference. So there is no energy lost from the system by radiation, 100% is exchanged between the two conductors, causing the currents in each of them. Nigel [[User:172.213.66.114172.213.66.114]] 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

## 22 Comments:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-lqg-expert.html

Nigel said...

Dear Lubos,

"We could go on and on and on. String theory reproduces special relativity; LQG does not. String theory is consistent with the existence of other forces and fields (which moreover seem necessary not only according to the experiments but also because of internal consistency of quantum gravity) and it in fact predicts them; LQG does not." - Lubos Motl

Special relativity not exactly a defence of string theory as general relativity is quite different, and anyway special relativity conflicts with quantum field theory:

Quantum field theory is moving towards an ether picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model. See arXiv: hep-th/0510040 p85, the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'. There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea.

General relativity is entirely different to special/restricted relativity:

EINSTEIN REPUDIATED SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS FOLLOWS:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

You can get the equations of "special relativity" from electrodynamics as Lorentz and others did before Einstein. Yes Einstein was the biggest genius of all time, but he ADMITTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOESN'T APPLY TO A REAL WORLD WHERE THERE ARE ACCELERATIONS (SEE QUOTATION ABOVE). Which is why general relativity is different. At best, the EQUATIONS of special relativity are the same as those of the correct theory; at worse they are completely wrong and lead to paradoxes by not including acceleration effects. You cannot rely on the framework of special framework since all real motion involves acceleration and thus force.

It is really to be expected that the same people who admire Einstein's early errors as if they were better than his major work in general relativity, are the people who also work on string theory. It is not coincidence. You are just brainwashed bigots. You can't see that physics tied to facts, such as FitzGerald and Lorentz's approach to the equations of "special relativity" a decade before Einstein are MORE BEAUTIFUL PHYSICALLY, because they are connected to reality.

Instead, you ignore the reality of general relativity and the spin foam vacuum which seems to connect the experimental facts of gravity with those of quantum field theory, and you instead try to connect 10/11 dimensional speculation with spin-2 gauge boson (graviton) speculation, by way of unobservable string speculation.

You think speculation is beautiful because the level of maths, or what you call maths, is so technically involved it will not be understood or checked by outsiders. The whole approach of you big mouthed crackpots is insulting, speculative, trivial, unconnected to any reality, and frankly insane.

Grow up!

Nigel

More ignorance from Dr Motl:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-lqg-expert.html

Nigel said...

Dear Lubos,

"We could go on and on and on. String theory reproduces special relativity; LQG does not. String theory is consistent with the existence of other forces and fields (which moreover seem necessary not only according to the experiments but also because of internal consistency of quantum gravity) and it in fact predicts them; LQG does not." - Lubos Motl

Special relativity not exactly a defence of string theory as general relativity is quite different, and anyway special relativity conflicts with quantum field theory:

Quantum field theory is moving towards an ether picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model. See arXiv: hep-th/0510040 p85, the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'. There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea.

General relativity is entirely different to special/restricted relativity:

EINSTEIN REPUDIATED SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS FOLLOWS:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

You can get the equations of "special relativity" from electrodynamics as Lorentz and others did before Einstein. Yes Einstein was the biggest genius of all time, but he ADMITTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOESN'T APPLY TO A REAL WORLD WHERE THERE ARE ACCELERATIONS (SEE QUOTATION ABOVE). Which is why general relativity is different. At best, the EQUATIONS of special relativity are the same as those of the correct theory; at worse they are completely wrong and lead to paradoxes by not including acceleration effects. You cannot rely on the framework of special framework since all real motion involves acceleration and thus force.

It is really to be expected that the same people who admire Einstein's early errors as if they were better than his major work in general relativity, are the people who also work on string theory. It is not coincidence. You are just brainwashed bigots. You can't see that physics tied to facts, such as FitzGerald and Lorentz's approach to the equations of "special relativity" a decade before Einstein are MORE BEAUTIFUL PHYSICALLY, because they are connected to reality.

Instead, you ignore the reality of general relativity and the spin foam vacuum which seems to connect the experimental facts of gravity with those of quantum field theory, and you instead try to connect 10/11 dimensional speculation with spin-2 gauge boson (graviton) speculation, by way of unobservable string speculation.

You think speculation is beautiful because the level of maths, or what you call maths, is so technically involved it will not be understood or checked by outsiders. The whole approach of you big mouthed crackpots is insulting, speculative, trivial, unconnected to any reality, and frankly insane.

Grow up!

Nigel

4:50 AM

Lumo said...

Dear Nigel,

I have been amazed twice by statements of some other readers that you seem to know something about physics.

Saying that quantum field theory contradicts special relativity is an example of a breathtaking ignorance, and be sure that many of us knew that it is stupid already at the high school.

Quantum field theory IS the framework to reconcile multi-body quantum mechanics with special relativity. It is its very purpose, and it does it.

I hope that you don't want to read me the rest of your crap.

Best

Lubos

9:51 AM

Nigel said...

Dear Lubos,

Dirac unified the maths not of special relativity but of the nature of observations confirmed by experiment, with quantum mechanics.

I keep telling you, special relativity postulates don't deal with acceleration. Maxwell's equations as accepted do predict the quantum (photon), only a continuous wave.

Quantum field theory involks the Dirac sea. ‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – Paul A. M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v168, 1951, p906.

The breath taking ignorance is that shown by the string theorists, who are prepared to believe with no foundation about 10/11 dimensions, multiple universes, etc., but do not accept the conclusions of quantum field theory, treating it as a mathematical trick.

Any maths derived from experimental observations (FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, Faraday, etc) you ignore in favour of maths based on speculation (Maxwell's displacement current, Einstein's postulates).

Einstein in developing general relativity recognised his mistake. Read and learn:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

You're ignorant!

Nigel

10:13 AM

Motl, the yellow belly, deleted my response (last comment above)to cover up his ignorance!

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

Let's see if Peter Woit will stand up for objectivity:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=330

anonymous Says:

January 21st, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Lumos has a long list of publications about speculation on unobservables. So I guess he's well qualified to make vacuous assertions. What I'd like to see debated is the fact that the spin foam vacuum is modelling physical processes KNOWN to exist, as even the string theorists authors of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601129 admit, p14:

'... it is thus perhaps best to view spin foam models ... as a novel way of defining a (regularised) path integral in quantum gravity. Even without a clear-cut link to the canonical spin network quantisation programme, it is conceivable that spin foam models can be constructed which possess a proper semi-classical limit in which the relation to classical gravitational physics becomes clear. For this reason, it has even been suggested that spin foam models may provide a possible ‘way out’ if the difficulties with the conventional Hamiltonian approach should really prove insurmountable.'

Strangely, the 'critics' are ignoring the consensus on where LQG is a useful approach, and just trying to ridicule it. In a recent post on his blog, for example, Motl states that special relativity should come from LQG. Surely Motl knows that GR deals better with the situation than SR, which is a restricted theory that is not even able to deal with the spacetime fabric (SR implicitly assumes NO spacetime fabric curvature, to avoid acceleration!).

When asked, Motl responds by saying Dirac's equation in QFT is a unification of SR and QM. What Motl doesn't grasp is that the 'SR' EQUATIONS are the same in GR as in SR, but the background is totally different:

What a pity Motl can't understand the distinction and its implications.

From discussion about this on the Wikipedia discussion page of the Ivor Catt article:

Hi Light Current: A time-varying current results in radio emission. Neither Catt nor anyone else has measured the fields in the space between two conductors as a TEM wave passes: they have only measured induced currents in other conductors. The diagrams in that article you quote, ignores radio emission occurring at the front of a logic step! Catt got the "Catt anomaly" wrong by relying on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) cancels that from the other as seen at a large distance. So there is no energy radiated to large distances! The only radio emission of energy occurs from each conductor to the other.

Maxwell wrote "displacement current" in terms of electric field strength. However, as the voltage rises at front of the logic step, current rises. Maxwell should have written the extra current (displacement current in vacuum) equation in terms of the ordinary (conductor based) current, which means "displacement current" is radio. Maxwell: displacement current D = e.dE/dt = e(v/ct^2), v is uniform voltage rise over time t. What I'm saying is that the mutual radio emission causes the front of the logic step (the rising part) to propagate. Each conductor induces current in the other! It is fact that the inverse-square law doesn't apply: there is no net radio transmission beyond the system because of perfect interference, as the current rise in each conductor is the exact opposite of that in the other one so the radio transmissions from each conductor exactly cancels the other outside the transmission line! Illustration: [23] Many thanks, Nigel. 172.203.245.250 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

revised version of comment above:

Hi Light Current:

A time-varying current results in radio emission. Neither Catt nor anyone else has measured the fields in the space between two conductors as a TEM wave passes: ''they have only measured induced currents in other conductors''. The diagrams in that article you quote, ignores radio emission occurring at the front of a logic step! Catt got the "Catt anomaly" wrong by relying on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged and carries an opposite current, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) is exactly out of phase with the other and so completely cancels that from the other as seen at a large distance. So there is no energy radiated to large distances! The ''only'' radio emission of energy occurs from each conductor to the other.

Maxwell wrote "displacement current" in terms of electric field strength. However, as the voltage rises at front of the logic step, current rises. Maxwell should have written the extra current (displacement current in vacuum) equation in terms of the ordinary (conductor based) current, which means "displacement current" is radio. Maxwell: displacement current D = e.dE/dt = e(v/ct^2), v is uniform voltage rise over time t. What I'm saying is that the mutual radio emission causes the front of the logic step (the rising part) to propagate. Each conductor induces current in the other! It is fact that the inverse-square law doesn't apply: there is '''no''' net radio transmission beyond the system because of '''perfect interference''', as the current rise in each conductor is the '''exact opposite of that in the other one''' so the radio transmissions from each conductor '''exactly''' cancels the other outside the transmission line! Illustration: [http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html] Many thanks, Nigel.

Recent replies to Light Current and Kevin Brunt on Wikipedia discussion page for Ivor Catt article:

Hi Light Current, it is hard to reply to your response where you put comments into the original reply instead of afterwards. You say: "Yes I tend to agree with the last part of the above paragraph. But are you not changing your story here?. I thought you said before that you can have radiation from one isolated conductor. I said you couldnt! However, your interpretation is I feel slightly wrong. Radiation does not travel from one conductor to the other, iit travels between the conductors as per well knoewn TL theory."

An isolated radio aerial can radiate energy. An isolated conductor connected to a charge (battery terminal) radiates energy as it charges up. It behaves like a radio aerial, and as the current varies in it, during charging, radio emission occurs. The current falls off rapidly along the wire because of this emission of energy. Hence you cannot transfer significant energy with a single wire. For a pair of conductors connected to the two terminals of a battery (Catt's anomaly situation) the current in each conductor is the opposite of the other, so the radio emission cancels out beyond the system, and no energy is wasted by radio - it all goes into the opposite conductor, so the two conductors help each out out.

This is during the rise time portion of the TEM wave, see the illustration: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html

What you are talking about, Light Current, is the part of the TEM wave behind the rise at the front, and what you say about that part is fine! I'm concerned with Catt's anomaly, which is the front part of the TEM wave, where the current increase occurs. Thanks, Nigel 172.203.223.44 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Kevin, it involved measurements of radiated field strength with an oscillscope: the radio emission is proportional to di/dt fed into the aerial. You are the one who appears to not have a grasp of this fact. Sine waves are indeed an ideal case because it maximises the overall emission (a square wave input doesn't provide any radio emission at all during the flat parts, just a series of spaced pulses during the rises and falls of the wave. Thanks, Nigel 172.203.223.44 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Revised on Wikipedia:

Hi Light current; (1) an aerial is a single conductor and does radiate radio as the current applied varies, we know a single conductor can't propagate a constant current because its inductance is infinite (which is a mechanism for Kirchoff's law), (2) if the capacitor is a transmission line, as stated before, the radio emission due to each conductor (capacitor plate) is the exact opposite of the other, and cancels out as seen from a distance. What I'm saying is that to resolve the Catt anomaly the TEM wave step needs to be analysed in two parts, first where the current is increasing (which is omitted from today's treatment), and second where the current is constant(which the current treatment does describe, using steady magnetic and electric fields). If the current rise (step front) was vertical, "displacement current" there (however you think of it) would be infinite, and since "displacement current" is an invention by Maxwell to retain continuity of current flow across the vacuum, you would then have the paradox of a finite current flowing along one wire turning into an infinite "displacement current" across the vacuum and then returning to a finite displacement current in the other wire. The true rise is not vertical, because the current does not rise from 0 to i instantly at any point on a conductor as the step passes by. It can be very great. The standard treatment of radio shows that radio emission is proportional to the variation rate of the net current di/dt in a conductor. "Displacement current" is the radio exchange process where the front of the TEM wave in each conductor swaps energy by radio (or electromagnetic pulse, if you prefer to reserve "radio" for sine wave shaped electromagnetic waves, as Kevin does). The wires must swap energy across the vacuum to propagate; each one is inducing the current in the other one. This is why the TEM wave goes at the speed of light in the vacuum between the conductors. Best wishes, Nigel 172.202.0.92 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, coax or a waveguide (for microwave frequencies) is used in many practical cases, but let's keep to the simple physics of a DC TEM wave step propagated by two straight aerial-like conductors, as the Catt anomaly uses. We get electromagnetic radiation (radio emission) from a net time-varying current in a conductor. If you have two such conductors, with each having an inverted form of the signal in the other, they exchange energy which induces the current in the other. But there is no long distance propagation of this energy due to exact interference, so the coupling is perfect. This is how the front of the logic step propagates: each conductor causes the current in the opposite conductor by simple electromagnetic radiation due to the time-varying current as it rises. Catt simply missed out this mechanism, and is now too prejudiced against the mainstream to back these facts. Best wishes, Nigel 172.203.152.63 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

From: "Nigel Cook"

To: "Ivor Catt" ivorcatt@hotmail.com; antimatter33@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:32 PM

Subject: Re: Danny Lundsford, answer the Catt Question

Ivor: it is Danny Lunsford, not Lundsford.

See illustration here for the errors in Catt's "anomaly" diagram:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells

.html

In fact the mechanism for a two-conductor transmission line is very

important for understanding the Maxwell equations. A single wire can't

propagate a constant current because it has infinite magnetic

self-inductance; it radiates off the energy which enters it, with the

current falling rapidly.

At the front of the logic step in a single wire, the potential at any point

on the wire must rise from 0 to v volts as the logic step passes. At the

same time, the current must rise from 0 to i amps. When current is

changing, in other words when di/dt is not 0, electromagnetic pulse energy

is radiated perpendicular to the direction of the current ("radio" is the

common word to describe this radiation due to di/dt in a conductor, although

it is misleading as the emission is independent of the nature of the

waveform, and radio is generally associated with sine waves, whereas any

di/dt results in electromagnetic pulse).

If you have a pair of wires each propagating energy with the opposite

electric field, in other words if you connect a pair of wires to the

terminals of a battery, so each wire charges up at light speed to an

opposite potential, the current variation is exactly equal and opposite in

each wire at any given time.

This proves that the electromagnetic pulse energy from the rising current at

the front of the TEM in each conductor radiates to the other conductor. In

fact, it is the fact that each is helping the other in this way that allows

a two-conductor system to propagate a steady current TEM wave, unlike a

single conductor which can't do that.

When you realise that the electromagnetic pulse originating from each

conductor exactly cancels the other, what is happening is just like two

radio transmitter aerials emitting signals exactly out of phase: the signals

interfere exactly at long distances. So there is exactly zero loss of

energy to the surroundings by radio (electromagnetic pulse) due to the

current rise in the two-conductor situation. All of the energy emitted by

each conductor is received in the other conductor.

Nigel

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Ivor Catt" ivorcatt@hotmail.com

To: forrestb@ix.netcom.com; antimatter33@yahoo.com

> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:34 PM

> Subject: RE: Danny Lundsford, answer the Catt Question

>

>

> > Computer trouble again. I can only receive and send Hotmail emails for a

> > time. This even though I replaced my two computers with two new identical

> > ones in February 2005!

> > Ivor Catt

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/02/buy-danish-products.html :

Copy of a "fast comment":

Dear Lubos,

You claim that Dirac's theory unifies SR and QM, when in fact Dirac's equation (which is his theory) is an expansion of the time-dependent Schroedinger equation to include the mass-energy result which comes from electromagnetism (there are dozen's of derivations of E=mcs, not merely SR). The time-dependent Schroedinger equation is similar to Maxwell's "displacement current", which actually doesn't describe real electric current but the energy flow in the vacuum when a capacitor or such like charges by induction.

Maxwell's theory of "displacement current" was a spin foam vacuum:

Maxwell’s 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Articles 822-3: ‘The ... action of magnetism on polarised light [discovered by Faraday not Maxwell] leads ... to the conclusion that in a medium ... is something belonging to the mathematical class as an angular velocity ... This ... cannot be that of any portion of the medium of sensible dimensions rotating as a whole. We must therefore conceive the rotation to be that of very small portions of the medium, each rotating on its own axis [spin] ... The displacements of the medium, during the propagation of light, will produce a disturbance of the vortices ... We shall therefore assume that the variation of vortices caused by the displacement of the medium is subject to the same conditions which Helmholtz, in his great memoir on Vortex-motion [of 1858; sadly Lord Kelvin in 1867 without a fig leaf of empirical evidence falsely applied this vortex theory to atoms in his paper ‘On Vortex Atoms’, Phil. Mag., v4, creating a mathematical cult of vortex atoms just like the mathematical cult of string theory now; it created a vast amount of prejudice against ‘mere’ experimental evidence of radioactivity and chemistry that Rutherford and Bohr fought], has shewn to regulate the variation of the vortices [spin] of a perfect fluid.’

Lorentz invariance is as the name suggests Lorentz not SR invariance.

Lorentz invariance is aetherial. Even if you grasp this and start calling the contraction a metaphysical effect unrelated to physical dynamics of the quantum vacuum, you don't get anywhere.

Feynman's innovation was introducing spacetime pictures, because you need to see what you are doing clearly when using mathematics. The increase in the magnetic moment of an electron that Feynman, Schwinger and Tito came up with is 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137), where the first term is from Dirac's theory and the second is the increase due to the first Feynman coupling correction to the vacuum.

The 1/(2.Pi.137) is from a renormalised or cut-off QFT integral, but the heuristic meaning is clear. The core of the electron has a charge 137 times the observed charge, and this is shielded by the polarised vacuum as Koltick's 1997 PRL published experiments confirm (the 1/137 factor changes to 1/128.5 as collision energy goes to 100 GeV or so; at unification energy it would be 1/1 corresponding to completely breaking thro

Nigel Cook | Homepage | 02.06.06 - 3:24 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-ough the veil of polarised vacuum).

Renormalisation is limiting the interaction physically to 1 vacuum particle rather than an infinite number, and that particle is outside the veil so the association is 137 times weaker at low energies, and the geometry causes a further reduction by 2Pi (because the exposed length of a spinning loop particle seen as a circle is 2Pi times the side-on or diameter size). So that is physically what is behind adding 1/(2Pi.137) 0r 0.00116 to the core's magnetic moment (which is unshielded by the polarised veil, because that only attenuates electric field).

In addition, the same mechanism explains the differing masses for different fundamental particles. If the Standard Model mass causing particle (Higgs field particle) is inside the polarised veil, it experiences the core strength, 137 times Coulomb, and is strongly associated with the particle core, increasing the mass.

But if the Higgs field particle is outside the polarised veil, it is subject to the shielded strength, 137 times less than the core charge, so the coupling is weaker and the effective miring mass by the Higgs field is 137 times weaker.

This idea predicts that a particle core with n fundamental particles (n=1 for leptons, n = 2 for mesons, and obviously n=3 for baryons) coupling to N virtual vacuum particles (N is an integer) will have an associative inertial mass of Higgs bosons of:

(0.511 Mev).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev,

where 0.511 Mev is the electron mass. Thus we get everything from this one mass plus integers 1,2,3 etc, with a mechanism.

Many of these ideas are equally applicable to string theory or LQG, since they're dealing with practical problems.

Tell me if you would have dismissed Feynman's diagrams in 1948 as crackpot, like Oppenheimer did at first.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Nigel Cook | Homepage | 02.06.06 - 3:25 am | #

--

Posted by Nigel to Feynman Standard Model and gravity mechanism at 2/06/2006 12:23:21 AM

From a Wikipedia discussion:

Light Current: by above argument you are referring to the December discussion, since Kevin's comments above are dated four hours after yours. I see what you are saying, but I don't think it is sufficient to say "energy enters a capacitor sideways" and "no current flows from one plate to another". What you should say is that when you charge up both plates in a capacitor with opposite charge simultaneously, currents flow along the plates. Because the direction of the current in each plate is the opposite to that in the other, it is confusing and vaguely inadequate to say "energy enters a capacitor sideways". The statement "no current flows from one plate to another", is correct but in a sense that was a feature of Maxwell's system, where "displacement current" was ethereal current, not real charge flow.

Getting back to the Catt Anomaly issue: there is no electric current where the voltage does not vary with distance along a conductor. So there is no electric current in the logic step behind the front (where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts). This is because you have to have a variation in electric field strength to get electrons to accelerate.

In the Catt anomaly diagrams, Catt shows a current flowing in the conductors where the potential along the conductor is constant 10 volts. No electric current will actually flow under this condition, because you have to have the electric field varying with distance along a conductor to cause electron drift. The electrons accelerated briefly at the front will presumably soon slow down behind the front due to resistance, so "energy current" not "electric current" is possible where the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor) Catt of course fiddles it completely by drawing displacement current as flowing where the electric field is both constant with time and constant with respect to distance along the transmission line. The Catt Anomaly is an total, complete, and utter hoax from start to finish.

This justifies the idea that the Catt Anomaly has (1) disproved the competence of conventionally trained physicists who didn't spot the mistakes (names listed in the Catt Anomaly book), and (2) proves that Theory C does hold behind the rise (front) of the logic step, in addition to Theory C applying in a steady charged capacitor, of course.

"Displacement current" if it exists equals permittivity times dv/(dt.dx).

As I've said, Maxwell confused this for "radio" (electromagnetic radiation, I'm not talking of sine waves) where the transverse emission of radiation (radiated power) is directly proportional to the acceleration of the charge, i.e., to the rate of change of the current in the conductor (not displacement current).

SUMMARY:

(1) Maxwell: circuit is completed by something called "displacement current" which is not radiation as such but flows when voltage varies with time and distance.

(2) TRUTH: circuit is completed by radiation which flows as the ENERGY current in the conductor varies, accelerating charges at the front of the logic step. Nigel 172.213.66.114 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

More excerpts from Wikipedia discussion:

Once you accept that the electromagnetic field is the primitive which drives the electron drift current, then you have to face the issue as to whether it is purely longitudinal or has a transverse component. It does have a transverse component where the current is rising (in the forward-moving section of the transmission line where the voltage varies between 0 and its peak of v volts). Since we know that the electrons are accelerating in this portion, we know they emit transverse radiation, so the conductors transmit energy to one another, enabling the logic step to propagate guided by both of the conductors. This is self-evident. As to why the electrons accelerate in the first place when you connect the transmission line to the battery, it may well be a longitudinal push. But as soon as the transverse exchange of energy between the two conductors is set up at the rising portion of the logic "step", each conductor causes the current flow in the other. Nigel 172.214.15.225 12:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Catt experimentally and theoretically shows that any charge of "static" electricity is identical to an equilibrium system with equal energy currents flowing in opposite directions. In this case, there is no net electron drift current, hence no resistance or magnetic field, but there is still energy current, travelling at light speed in both directions, each current being described by the Poynting vector. The reason why there is no electron drift current (and heat dissipation by resistance) is that there is no gradient in the electric field with distance. The reason why there is no magnetic field is that the magnetic field curls cancel each other out. All you have is the electric field. This is a very brilliant model which should be key to the Catt theory. If you theoretically cut up such a charged capacitor until you get a pair of charges, you immediately have charges as trapped Heaviside energy current, going around in a little loop (hence spin), producing a radial spherically symmetric electric field as seen at long distances and a magnetic dipole from the way the magnetic field lines add up. (This is consistent with the standard model, in which the mass of every fundamental particle comes from an interaction of a charge with the surrounding Higgs field of the vacuum.) It does annoy me that Catt won't correct errors in his books, but he does not universally dismiss electric current. Catt uses "static" charge in capacitors to show how you don't have to have an electric current to have energy current. Nigel 172.189.107.149 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The single conductor is the monopole radio aerial situation. The self-inductance for a single conductor is infinite, and it radiates electromagnetic radiation energy transversely. If you place another radio aerial parallel and feed it with a current which is the inverse of the current fed into the first aerial, the radio-type electromagnetic radiation emitted transversely from each aerial will exactly cancel out to zero field strength as seen at a large distance (several times the distance of the separation between the two aerials). So this is the way to analyse the two conductor transmission line. Each conductor swaps energy with the other, creating the transverse electromagnetic wave which creates the current in the other conductor. Nigel 172.189.107.149 12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

revised version of above comment:

Light Current: by above argument you are referring to the December discussion, since Kevin's comments above are dated four hours after yours. I see what you are saying, but I don't think it is sufficient to say "energy enters a capacitor sideways" and "no current flows from one plate to another". What you should say is that when you charge up both plates in a capacitor with opposite charge simultaneously, currents flow along the plates. Because the direction of the current in each plate is the opposite to that in the other, it is confusing and vaguely inadequate to say "energy enters a capacitor sideways". The statement "no current flows from one plate to another", is correct but in a sense that was a feature of Maxwell's system, where "displacement current" was ethereal current, not real charge flow.

Getting back to the Catt Anomaly issue: there is no electric current where the voltage does not vary with distance along a conductor. So there is no electric current in the logic step behind the front (where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts). This is because you have to have a variation in electric field strength to get electrons to accelerate.

In the Catt anomaly diagrams, Catt shows a current flowing in the conductors where the potential along the conductor is constant 10 volts. No electric current will actually flow under this condition, because you have to have the electric field varying with distance along a conductor to cause electron drift. The electrons accelerated briefly at the front will presumably soon slow down behind the front due to resistance, so "energy current" not "electric current" is possible where the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor) Catt of course fiddles it completely by drawing displacement current as flowing where the electric field is both constant with time and constant with respect to distance along the transmission line. The Catt Anomaly is an total, complete, and utter hoax from start to finish.

This justifies the idea that the Catt Anomaly has (1) disproved the competence of conventionally trained physicists who didn't spot the mistakes (names listed in the Catt Anomaly book), and (2) proves that Theory C does hold behind the rise (front) of the logic step, in addition to Theory C applying in a steady charged capacitor, of course.

Of course you could preserve electric current in the part of the logic step where the voltage is a constant 10 volts by a mutual exchange of magnetic field energy from motion of charge in the other conductor.

So at the front of the logic step, the varying electric field due to the finite rise portion from 0 to 10 volts accelerates electrons. Once the slow-moving electrons are within the constant 10 volts part of the electric field, the electric field is unable to continue to exert a force to overcome resistance. But the magnetic field from the charge in the ''opposite'' conductor then causes the current.

"Displacement current" if it exists equals permittivity times dv/(dt.dx).

As I've said, Maxwell confused this for "radio" (electromagnetic radiation, I'm not talking of sine waves) where the transverse emission of radiation (radiated power) is directly proportional to the acceleration of the charge, i.e., to the rate of change of the current in the conductor (not displacement current).

SUMMARY:

(1) Maxwell: circuit is completed by something called "displacement current" which is not radiation as such but flows when voltage varies with time and distance.

(2) TRUTH: circuit is completed by radiation which flows as the ENERGY current in the conductor varies, accelerating charges at the front of the logic step. [http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html] Nigel [[User:172.213.66.114|172.213.66.114]] 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Revised Wikipedia comment:

:Kevin, There is no electric current in the portion of the logic step where the voltage is constant with distance. You need to have a voltage gradient with distance to keep the electrons drifting. Only ''energy current'', not electric current, is possible if the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor. There is current at the front where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts. See the Catt Anomaly diagram. The lie in the Catt Anomaly diagram is that displacement current flows from one conductor to the other in all places, allowing electric current behind the front. Theory C holds true behind the front of a logic step, as well as in the steady, charged capacitor. Unless, that is, the magnetic field from the opposite conductor causes the current in the conductor of interest, which is of course what happens. Each conductor causes the current in the other one. At the front it is due to electromagnetic radiation emission due to charge accelerated by the electric voltage varying from 0 to 10 volts, and where the voltage is steady at 10 volts, the electric current is caused by the magnetic field from the other conductor. In each case the electromagnetic radiation emission and the magnetic field from each conductor causes the current in the other conductor, a mutual induction situation. At a large distance from the transmission line, no electromagnetic radiation or magnetic field exists, because the contribution from each conductor cancels that from the other conductor exactly in perfect interference. So there is no energy lost from the system by radiation, 100% is exchanged between the two conductors, causing the currents in each of them. Nigel [[User:172.213.66.114|172.213.66.114]] 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The initial impetuous for the electrons to accelerate is from the electric field causing the voltage to vary longitudinally (along the conductor). Two transverse mechanisms come into play to sustain the logic step current as guided by two conductors: electromagnetic radiation exchange due to net charge acceleration, and magnetic field energy exchange once the charges have a constant speed (where the voltage is steady 10 volts or whatever). The acceleration of electrons at the front of the logic step is due to the variation in the potential of the electric field from 0 to 10 volts. Once the front has passed the electron by at light speed, the magnetic field created by the motion of the electrons (i.e., the electric current) causes the motion of charge in the other conductor, and vice-versa. Nigel 172.213.66.114 18:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From: Nigel Cook

To: David Tombe ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; Monitek@aol.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; graham@megaquebec.net ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; geoffrey.landis@sff.net

Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:02 PM

Subject: Mechanism of electromagnetism

"If there is a capacitor in the circuit, we will get a

displacement current between the capacitor plates and this will be in

conjunction with a magnetic field"

This is incorrect. The situation is described here: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html

There is no displacement current. In the plates of the capacitor, the incoming energy causes a field rise along the plate of 0 to say 9 volts initially. (Once the capacitor is half charged up, the rise is only from 4.5 to 9 volts, so the variation in the step voltage is half.)

If the rise time of this 0 to 9 volts is 1 ns, then the distance along the capacitor plate over which the voltage varies from 0 to 9 volts is ct = 30 cm. Catt ignores this but you can see that the physical size of the step front is appreciable in comparison to the size of a capacitor plate (even if it is a fat swiss roll). So you can write the field E = 9/0.3 = 30 v/m along the plate. This causes an electron drift current. In addition, from the time variation aspect in the capacitor plate, the increase in electric field from 0 to 30 v/m over the time of 1 ns causes the current to increase from 0 to its peak value before dropping as the field drops from 30 v/m to 0 v/m when the back part of the logic step (with steady 9 volts, hence E = 0 v/m) arrives.

What is important is to note that the varying electric current makes the capacitor plates behave like radio transmission aerials. The amount of power radiated transversely from a time-varying current (i.e., an accelerated electron) in watts from a non-relativistic (slow drifting) charge is simply P = (e^2)(a^2)/[6(Pi).(Permittivity)c^3] where e is electric charge, a is acceleration, and c is velocity of light. The radiation occurs perpendicular to the direction of the acceleration.

This is what provably creates the current and induces the charge in the other plate: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html

"Displacement current" is radio. This is hard, proved fact. It disproves the entire approach of Maxwell, which was to falsely claim there is dE/dt causes a current, when the actual mechanism is that the current variation di/dt (caused by dE/dt) accelerates charge causing electromagnetic radiation across the vacuum.

Maxwell: capacitor charges because dE/dt causes displacement current.

Fact: capacitor charges because dE/dt causes di/dt which causes electrons in the plate to accelerate and emit electromagnetic radiation transversely (to the other plate).

This does not disprove the existence of vacuum charges which may be polarised by the field. What it does prove is the mechanism for what causes the polarised charges in the vacuum: light speed radiation.

Maxwell's model of electromagnetic radiation, which consists of his equation for "displacement current" added to Faraday's law of induction, is long known to be at odds with quantum theory, so I'm not going to say any more about it.

The great danger in science is where you get hundreds of people speculating without facts, and then someone claims to have experimentally confirmed one of the speculations. Hertz claimed to have proved the details of Maxwell's model by discovering radio. Oc course Faraday had predicted radio without Maxwell's theory back in 1846, when Maxwell was just a small boy. See Faraday's paper "Thoughts on Ray Vibrations", 1846.

Best wishes,

Nigel

From: Nigel Cook

To: David Tombe ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: Monitek@aol.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; graham@megaquebec.net ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; geoffrey.landis@sff.net

Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:31 AM

Subject: Re: Alternative Versions of Coulomb's law

There is current flowing in a wire provided there is a voltage variation along the wire to cause the flow.

Take the +9 volt logic step entering and flooding a transmission line at light speed.

At the front end, the step rises from 0 volts to 9 volts. Thereafter, the voltage is 9 volts.

Hence, there is no electric current - at least there is no electric field mechanism for the electrons to drift along. Electrons aren't gaining any electric potential energy, so they can't accelerate up to any drift speed. Electric current may be caused, however, by the effect of the magnetic field in the opposite conductor of the transmission line. http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html discusses the mechanism.

Charge is not the primitive. Trapped light-speed Poynting-Heaviside energy constitutes charge. I proved this in the April 2003 EW. Don't believe that the superposition principle of quantum mechanics magically prevents real electron spin when you are not measuring the electron: the collapse of the wavefunction is a mathematical artifact from the distinction of the two versions of Schroedinger's equation: time-dependent and time-independent:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/03/copies-of-my-comments-to-dr-dantass.html:

Dr Thomas Love of California State University last week sent me a preprint, “Towards an Einsteinian Quantum Theory”, where he shows that the superposition principle is a fallacy, due to two versions of the Schroedinger equation: a system described by the time-dependent Schroedinger equation isn’t in an eigenstate between interactions.

“The quantum collapse occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics.”

Nigel

I think the maths is botched because it doesn't correspond to any physics.

Real light doesn't behave like Maxwell's light. You have to remember that

there's radiation exchange between all the charges all the time. If I have

two atoms separated by 1 metre, the charges are going to be exchanging

energy not just between nearby charges (within each atom) but with the

charges in the other atom. There is no mechanism to prevent this. The

vector bosons causing forces take all conceivable routes as Feynman showed

in the path integrals approach to quantum field theory, which is now

generally recognised as the easiest to deal with. From

http://feynman137.tripod.com/:

It seems that the electromagnetic force-carrying radiation is also the cause

of gravity, via particles which cause the mass of charged elementary

particles.

The vacuum particles ("higgs particle") that give rise to all mass in the

Standard Model haven't been observed officially yet, and the official

prediction of the energy of the particle is very vague, similar to the Top

Quark mass, 172 GeV. However, my argument is that the mass of the uncharged

Z-boson, 91 GeV, determines the masses of all the other particles. It

works. The charged cores of quarks, electrons, etc., couple up (strongly or

weakly) with a discrete number of massive trapped Z-bosons which exist in

the vacuum. This mechanism also explains QED, such as the magnetic moment

of the electron 1 + alpha/(2Pi) magnetons.

Literally, the electromagnetic force-causing radiation (vector bosons)

interact with charged particle cores to produce EM forces, and with the

associated "higgs bosons" (gravitationally self-trapped Z-bosons) to produce

the correct inertial masses and gravity for each particle.

The lepton and hadron masses are quantized, and I've built a model,

discussed there and on my blog, which takes this model and uses it to

predict other things. I think this is what science is all about. The

mainstream (string theory, CC cosmology) is too far out, and unable to make

any useful predictions.

As for the continuum: the way to understand it is through correcting

Maxwell's classical theory of the vacuum. Quantum field theory accounts for

electrostatic (Coulomb) forces vaguely with a radiation-exchange mechanism.

In the LeSage mechanism, the radiation causing Coulomb's law causes all

forces by pushing. I worked out the mechanism by which electric forces

operate in the April 2003 EW article; attraction occurs by mutual shielding

as with gravity, but is stronger due to the sum of the charges in the

universe. If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with different

charges, each separated by a vacuum dielectric, you need the total (net)

voltage needs to take into account the orientation of the plates.

The vector sum is the same as a statistical random walk (drunkard's walk):

the total is equal to the average voltage between a pair of plates,

multiplied by the square root of the total number (this allows for the

angular geometry dispersion, not distance, because the universe is

spherically symmetrical around us - thank God for keeping the calculation

very simple! - and there is as much dispersion outward in the random walk as

there is inward, so the effects of inverse square law dispersions and

concentrations with distance both exactly cancel out).

Gravity is the force that comes from a straight-line sum, which is the only

other option than the random walk. In a straight line, the sum of charges

is zero along any vector across the universe, if that line contains an

average equal number of positive and negative charges. However, it is

equally likely that the straight radial line drawn at random across the

universe contains an odd number of charges, in which case the average charge

is 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and

1 positive charge). Therefore the straight line sum has two options only,

each with 50% probability: even number of charges and hence zero net result,

and odd number of charges which gives 2 unit charges as the net sum. The

mean for the two options is simply (0 + 2) /2 = 1 unit. Hence

electromagnetism is the square root of the number of charges in the

universe, times the weak option force (gravity).

Thus, electromagnetism and gravity are different ways that charges add up.

Electric attraction is as stated, simply a mutual blocking of EM "vector

boson" radiation by charges, like LeSage gravity. Electric repulsion is an

exchange of radiation. The charges recoil apart because the underlying

physics in an expanding universe (with "red-shifted" or at least reduced

energy radiation pressing in from the outside, due to receding matter in the

surrounding universe) means their exchange of radiation results in recoil

away from one another (imagine two people firing guns at each other, for a

simple analogy; they would recoil apart).

Magnetic force is apparently, as Maxwell suggested, due to the spins of the

vacuum particles, which line up.

When a capacitor charges, there is an electric current into the plate so there is an accumulation

of electrons.

Once the capacitor plate is charged up, energy current continues flowing at

light speed in the plate in all directions. However, there is no electric

current because there is no voltage gradient along the plate at that time:

the potential is the same at each point on the plate.

This is the tricky situation for conventional theory: energy current without

any electric current. Catt calls this Theory C (Theory Catt), but Catt then

falsely extends it to normal electric current in transmission lines. If you

think about it, the Catt anomaly is wrong, see illustration of Catt's errors

with my corrections here

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells

.html

I've some material on Maxwell's error on my page

http://feynman137.tripod.com/: Proving the basic equations of

electromagnetism

'From a long view of the history of mankind - seen from, say, ten thousand

years from now - there can be little doubt that the most significant event

of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of

electrodynamics. The American Civil War will pale into provincial

insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the

same decade.' - R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, Feynman Lectures

on Physics, vol. 2, Addison-Wesley, London, 1964, c. 1, p. 11.

James Maxwell translated Faraday's empirical law of induction into the

mathematical form, curl.E = - dB/dt. Here, E is electric field, B is the

magnetic field, t is time, and 'curl.E' is a simple mathematical operator:

it is the difference between the gradients (variations with distance) of E

in two perpendicular directions. It is evident that curl.E can be constant

only if the electric field line has a constant curvature, a circular shaped

field line, from whence the vector operator's name 'curl.' This is why

electric generators work on the principle of varying magnetic fields in

coils of wire.

Maxwell then sought to correct Ampere's incorrect law of electricity, which

states the strength of the magnetic field curling around a wire is simply

proportional to the current, I: curl.B = m I, where m is the magnetic

constant (permeability). He realised that a vacuum-dielectric capacitor,

while either charging or discharging, constitutes a physical break in the

electric circuit.

He tried to explain this by studying capacitors with a liquid dielectric.

Particles of the liquid, charged ions, drift towards oppositely charged

capacitor plates, creating a 'displacement current' in the liquid. Maxwell

naturally assumed that the fabric of space permits a similar phenomenon,

with virtual charges forming a displacement current in a vacuum. He

therefore decided to add a term for displacement current of his own

invention to the current I in Ampere's law to correct it: curl.B = m (I + e

.dE/dt). So Maxwell's equation for displacement current is the rate of

change of electric field (dE/dt) times the electric constant e

(permittivity).

Before I start applauding Maxwell for either physical or mathematical

insight, it is worth considering historian A.F. Chalmers' article, 'Maxwell

and the Displacement Current' (Physics Education, vol. 10, 1975, pp. 45-9).

Chalmers states that Orwell's novel 1984 helps to illustrate how the tale

was fabricated: 'history was constantly rewritten in such a way that it

invariably appeared consistent with the reigning ideology.'

Maxwell tried to fix his original calculation deliberately in order to

obtain the anticipated value for the speed of light, proven by Part 3 of his

paper, On Physical Lines of Force (January 1862), as Chalmers explains:

'Maxwell's derivation contains an error, due to a faulty application of

elasticity theory. If this error is corrected, we find that Maxwell's model

in fact yields a velocity of propagation in the electromagnetic medium which

is a factor of 21/2 smaller than the velocity of light.'

It took three years for Maxwell to finally force-fit his 'displacement

current' theory to take the form which allows it to give the already-known

speed of light without the 41% error. Chalmers noted: 'the change was not

explicitly acknowledged by Maxwell.'

The crucial two curl equations can be done using Catt's discovery that the

fundamental entity of the universe is the eternally c-speed transverse

electromagnetic (TEM) wave, which has the simple property: E = cB. Each term

here is a vector since they are at right angles for each other, but bold

print is not necessary if you remember this. (It is permissible to take

curls of a perpendicular vector equation, since the curl operator itself is

defined as the difference in gradients of the field between perpendicular

directions.) I emailed my derivation to Catt's co-author Dr David Walton,

who agreed with the mathematics. Start by taking the curls of both sides of

E = cB and its equivalent, B = (1/c).E, giving:

curl.E = c.curl.B

curl.B = (1/c).curl.E

Now, because any field gradient or difference between gradients (curl) is

related to the rate of change of the field by the speed of motion of the

field (eg, dB/dt = -c dB/dr, where t is time and r is distance), we can

replace a curl by the product of the reciprocal of -c and the rate of field

change:

curl.E = c [-(1/c)dB/dt] = -dB/dt (Faraday's law of induction)

curl.B = (1/c) [-(1/c) dE/dt] = -(1/c2) dE/dt (Maxwell's 'displacement

current' ???)

We can therefore see how the universe is controlled by the c speed TEM wave,

eternally in motion, and eternally having both magnetic field B and electric

field E related by E = cB. From this fundamental building block of the

universe, springs electricity and the law of electromagnetic induction.

We also see that the speed c is actually the speed of electricity. What

Maxwell thought of as being the exception to the rule (displacement current

in a vacuum) is actually the rule: the normal mechanism of energy transfer

in electricity, since a capacitor is a transmission line.

From: Nigel Cook

To: David Tombe

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:15 PM

Subject: Coulomb's law replaced by proved and predictive quantum field theory mechanism of force

Dear David,

There is no such thing in the world as a charge with a mass.

1. Mass

No charges have masses - the masses come from the vacuum (Higgs field or whatever explanation you prefer). This is a fact according to the well tested Standard Model. The mass you measure for the electron varies with its velocity, implying radiation resistance. Special relativity is just an approximation, general relativity is entirely different and more accurate, and and allows absolute motion (i.e., in general relativity the velocity of light depends on the absolute coordinate system, because it is bent by the spacetime fabric, but special relativity ignores this). Quantum field theory shows that the vacuum particles look different to the observer depending on the state of motion of the observer. This actually provides the mechanism for the contraction and mass increase seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment (contraction) and in particle asselerators (mass increase). In order to explain the actual variation in mass, you need a vacuum spacetime fabric theory. Mass arises due to the work needed to contract a charge in the direction of motion as you accelerate it. It's physically squashed by the radiation resistance of the vacuum, and that's where the energy resides that is needed to accelerate it. It's mass increases because it gains extra momentum from this added electromagnetic energy, which makes the charge couple more strongly to the vacuum (higgs or whatever) field particles, which provide inertia and gravity, hence mass.

2. Charge

Just as charges don't directly have mass (the mass arises from vacuum interactions) is no such thing as an electric charge (as in Coulomb's law) by itself. Electric charge always exists with light speed spin and with a dipole magnetic field. All electrons have spin and a magnetic moment. In addition, Coulomb's law is just an approximation. The electron core has an electric field strength about 137 times that implies by Coulomb's law. The nature of an electron is a transverse electromagnetic (Heaviside-Poynting) energy current trapped in a loop.

Coulomb's law without charge. Coulomb's law measures forces. The definition of charge in Maxwell's equations is the following form of Gauss' law: divergence.E = charge density/permittivity.

Hence for spherical symmetry, 3dE/dx = charge density/permittivity = Q/[(4/3).Pi.(x^3).(permittivity)].

=> dE/dx = Q/[(4.Pi.x^3).(permittivity)].

Using the approximation dE/dx -> E/x, we get E = Q/[(4.Pi.x^2).(permittivity).

Using F = qE, we get: F = qQ/(4.Pi.permittivity.r^2), which is Coulomb's law.

My equation for Coulomb's law is F = ¾ mM N1/2 H2/( p r2 r e3) which is mechanism based, is proved from well established facts without any speculative assumptions (facts with experimental evidence only are used), and makes predictions correct within experimental data, and doesn't contain charge. The proof of this is at http://feynman137.tripod.com/. You can get rid of the masses of the particles involved m and M by inserting the energy equivalent E/c2 for each mass. Hence you are only describing the amount of Heaviside-Poynting trapped energy current, not electric charge.

I don't know what you mean by "believe" in Coulomb's law. Science is not a belief system. The "law" is wrong because electric charge increases in high energy collisions. It is up by something like 7% at 90 GeV collisions between electrons. The reason for this is that the polarised charges of the vacuum shield over 99% of the core charge of the electron. Again, I've gone into this at http://feynman137.tripod.com/. So there is no Coulomb law, it's just a faulty approximation.

Best wishes,

Nigel

From: Nigel Cook

To: Forrest Bishop ; ivor@ivorcatt.com

Cc: Monitek@aol.com ; pegasus@lobocom.es ; David Tombe ; Brian Josephson ; "Geoffrey A Landis"

Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:02 AM

Subject: wasting of our time

"Any ramp can be decomposed into a series of steps, as shown on Page 1 of the integral calculus. Each dz-thick TEM wafer ..." - Forrest Bishop

... the size of the steps [is] not real [, they are not] (finite) steps. Calculus does physics a lot of favours, but it doesn't prove a continuum (slope for instance) is the same thing as a flight of steps.

What you see [is] identical to string theory. Professor Motl of Harvard, a string theorist, claims that string theory predicts that the strength of the gravity constant is G. The absurdity is that all string theory does is to produce a mathematical framework for an alleged spin-2 (attractive) gravity propagator. It doesn't predict a numerical value for G. There is no comparison of anything in string theory with any measured value in the real world. Catt's work has the same problem.

By the way Forrest, the questions you raise about radiation from accelerated charge are answered here: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html. In the transmission line or circuit capacitor, each plate has an equal and opposite current variation so radiates an exact inversion of the signal from the other one. Hence there is exact (perfect) interference in the signals: they cancel exactly when superimposed in space. This ensures 0 % radiation loss. Hence radiation behaves EXACTLY as Maxwell's "displacement current" would do.

Nige

From: Nigel Cook

Date: 28 April 2006 13:26

To: David Tombe forrestb@ix.netcom.com imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au

Cc:ivorcatt@hotmail.com ernest@cooleys.net Monitek@aol.com ivor@ivorcatt.com andrewpost@gmail.com bdj10@cam.ac.uk geoffrey.landis@sff.net jvospost2@yahoo.com jackw97224@yahoo.com epola@tiscali.co.uk graham@megaquebec.net pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au

" The establishment derivation of displacement current is definitely

false. So we have to choose between two options,

(1) Throw away displacement current altogether. Or,

(2) Look for an alternative justification for it." - David

Tombe

This is wrong, because displacement current, i = Permittivity x Voltage

divided into (Time x Distance)

or, i = eV/(tx)

This equation is simplified to a constant gradient slope in the electric

field (voltage/distance), so we get away from differential equations.

It vital that in order for there to be displacement current, voltage

increment V occurs over:

(1) time increment t, and

(2) distance increment x.

Because electricity goes at speed c, the time increment t is given by: t =

x/c.

Hence displacement current i = eV/(tx) = eVc/x^2.

Alternatively, written in terms of rise time t, we get displacement current

i = eV/(tx) = eV/(ct^2).

This is a very useful formula. The displacement current for a uniform rise

in voltage V over time t is equal to i = eV/(ct^2).

The voltage variation with time and distance in the ramp at the front of

electric pulse delivered by a transmission line causes the electrons in that

ramp part to be accelerated. As a result they transmit energy perpendicular

to the direction of their acceleration, which also occurs in radio

transmission from an aerial (radio emission occurs in proportion not to the

current in the aerial, but to the rate of change of the current, hence to

the acceleration of the electrons).

Therefore, there is electromagnetic energy emission from the accelerating

electrons in one conductor to those in the other. This constitutes the

mechanism for the effects normally ascribed to "displacement current". All

the objections to this mechanism are derided here:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells

.html

So David Tombe must examine, to be scientific, what the quantitative role of

traditional displacement current is over this radiation mechanism. I think

he will find that Maxwell-type displacement current in the vacuum (motion of

aether particles) is trivial compared to radiation. I'm pointing out that

it is not the most important mechanism. This is not an all or nothing

situation.

Displacement current in the vacuum must exist, but the evidence I have is

that it is trivial compared to the radiation mechanism which delivers the

energy. You have to accept two mechanisms for displacement current:

radiation and Maxwell's charge polarisation.

Nigel

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

From: "David Tombe"

...

Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:34 AM

Subject: Maxwell's Errors

> Dear Nigel,

> Regarding your comments below, I wrote quite a number of

> letters over this past winter on the subject of what exactly Maxwell did

and

> didn't do. Your are correct on a number of the points which you have made,

> and I have always been very mindful of those points.

> (1) It was Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856 who first noticed

the

> speed of light in the EM to ES ratio.

> Maxwell was indeed aware of this result, and so he may

well

> have been working to an agenda.

> (2) It's also true that most, if not all of the experimental

> work was done by Faraday and not Maxwell.

> (3) It's also true that the modern forms of the equations

> known as Maxwell's equations came about later than Maxwell.

> (4) It's also true that within the set of equations known as

> 'Maxwell's Equations', Maxwell can essentially only be credited with

adding

> an extension to one of these equations.

> (5) It's also true that Maxwell may have invoked faulty

> reasoning in his 1864 paper in order to formally add displacement current

to

> Ampere's circuital law. I want to check that out, but I haven't got to see

> this paper for 24 years. I've been searching high and low for it.

> I was mindful of all these negatives about Maxwell, and I never tried to

> brush them under the carpet.

> But I was further mindful of the fact that even if Maxwell's reasoning

> over displacement current in his 1864 paper was somewhat faulty, that

> nevertheless, the whole concept of displacement current could only make

> sense in the context of a dielectric medium. It was Maxwell who put the

idea

> into my head.

> The establishment derivation of displacement current is definitely

> false. So we have to choose between two options,

> (1) Throw away displacement current altogether. Or,

> (2) Look for an alternative justification for it.

> I could easily have adopted the Ivor Catt attitude in 1982 and said that

> since orthodox theory on displacement current is wrong, then we should

drop

> displacement current as it is a fabrication invented by the establishment

to

> save the solenoidal nature of electric current in a capacitor circuit.

> Indeed, I personally saw no major contradiction in the concept of

electrons

> bunching into the capacitor plates. I don't support that concept now, but

I

> certainly saw no problem with it in my pre-dielectric days.

> But the truth is that I just couldn't bring myself to throw out

> displacement current, because of the very tidy manner in which it was used

> to derive the EM wave equation. Patterns like that are clues which simply

> cannot be ignored or dismissed as coincidence.

> Once I had set on the idea that EM waves were transverse

vibrations

> in an electron positron dielectric, I could no longer contemplate anything

> more perfect or simplistic, which tidied up every other dilemma which I

had

> encountered in EM theory.

> Now moving on to Maxwell's 1861 paper, I only read that for

> the first time this past winter.

> I often commented to my colleagues that we have to accept

> that the maths may be wrong. But I also would say to them that I wouldn't

> like to be in the position of advocating a theory and hoping that

Maxwell's

> maths were wrong.

> So I followed Maxwell's arguments through on the

> assumption that his maths were correct.

> You are absolutely right in saying that his

> physical model is a very cumbersome two dimensional model. But there is

> considerable depth of thought involved in it, and his hydrodynamical

> modeling in part I ostensibly leads to the correct force of magnetism.

Then

> of course there is the famous speed of light result when he applies

equation

> (132). If have since learned that equation (132), which incidentally is

> E=mcsquared, was an Isaac Newton equation.

> The crunch of the whole matter comes when you replace

> Maxwell's vortex cells with rotating electron positron dipoles. I had been

> working all winter on the idea that Simhony's epola needs to be stabilized

> by rotating electron positron pairs into dipoles, but I wasn't quite sure

> what the new bonding mechanism would be. And while on the topic of Dr.

> Simhony, I think it is most important that note is taken of Simhony's

> totally independent evidence for the existence of an electron positron

> dielectric. This in itself should be persuasive. I totally fail to see how

> Forrest Bishop thinks that the electrons and positrons would get in the

way

> of electromagnetic waves, when they are the very medium in which the waves

> are propagating. It's like suggesting that the air might somehow get in

the

> way of sound waves because of the mass of the air particles.

> Finally when I struggled to work out the physical

> interpretation of the Lorentz force, I realised it had to be a Coriolis

> force, and had to involve a rotating reference frame.

> Hence, the dipoles cause a vortex in the

> electrostatic aether and when you align them as per Maxwell's vortex

cells,

> you end up with a very easy to explain model of magnetic field lines being

> solenoidal femtoscopic helical springs. The magnetic force explanation

then

> becomes self evident.

> Yours sincerely

> David Tombe

>

> ----Original Message Follows----

> From: "Nigel Cook" ...

> Subject: Catt's methodology

> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:09:50 +0100

>

> One month from now it will be the thirtieth anniversary of Catt's

discovery

> that Maxwell's ignorance of the spread of (electric/energy?) current along

a

> capacitor plate makes the capacitor similar to a transmission line.

>

> Maxwell could of course have got the displacement current model by looking

> not at the capacitor but at a transmission line.

>

> When you switch on a light, energy must flow in an open circuit until it

> completes the circuit, which can't happen instantly.

>

> In the meantime, displacement current complete the circuit.

>

> What fascinates me is that Maxwell would probably have invented

displacement

> current for the transmission line if he knew that electricity doesn't go

> instantly.

>

> Brian Junction-Josephson emailed me back in January that I'm wrong on this

> point, but the fact remains that in 1873 Maxwell wrote:

> (Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., Article 574): "...

there

> is, as yet, no experimental evidence to shew whether the electric

current...

> velocity is great or small as measured in feet per second."

> Yet he was certain his calculation of the speed of light was right because

> he says in Article 769: "... we may define the ratio of the electric units

> to be a velocity... this velocity is about 300,000 kilometres per second."

> [Notice Maxwell's inconsistent use of different units, British feet/sec in

> one paragraph and French km/sec in another, back in 1873!]

>

> Josephson says he doesn't see any evidence here that Maxwell's fiddled

light

> speed "theory" involving a mechanical aether could have been better

applied

> to predict the speed of electricity. What Josephson doesn't probably

> realise is that the result Maxwell got was already well known to Maxwell

> from the experiments of others. The fact that the square root of the

ratio

> of the the electric to magnetic force constants gives light speed (300

Mm/s)

> had been long known since Weber or whoever found it in 1856.

>

> All the great con man Maxwell had to do was to fiddle about with the

maths.

> He didn't even come up with the theory for light being electromagnetic

field

> oscillations, which is the subject of Faraday's 1846 paper "Thoughts on

Ray

> Vibrations".

>

> David Tombe says that Maxwell wrote the electromagnetic equations, which

is

> false. Gauss came up with the div.E equation, although not in vector

> calculus. Maxwell didn't come up with the vector calculus either. It was

> Heaviside who did it in 1885. Maxwell had died in 1879.

>

> Heaviside also came up with div.B = 0, the statement that magnetic

monopoles

> aren't in existence, which isn't in Maxwell's Treatise in any form.

Maxwell

> didn't come up with any of "Maxwell's equations" which are down to Ampere,

> Faraday, Gauss and Heaviside. The only innovation Maxwell made was gear

cog

> aether resulting in a mathematically OK but physically obfuscating fix to

> the problem that an open circuit transmission line or a capacitor violates

> Kirchoff's and Ohm's laws while it charges up:

>

> Maxwell, Treatise, Article 610: "One of the chief peculiarities of this

> treatise is the doctrine which asserts, that the true electric current, I,

> that on which the electromagnetic phenomena depend, is not the same thing

as

> i, the current of conduction, but...

> I = i + dD/dt (Equation of True Currents)."

>

> Notice that diusplacement current is equal to dD/dt, where D = electric

> field (volts/metre) times the permittivity of space.

>

> Once you accept the fact that forces result from light velocity energy

> exchange between charges in quantum electrodynamics, you can see that the

> TEM wave electromagnetic field propagates in the same way.

>

> Electric current, the motion of charges which are composed of trapped

> (spinning) energy currents themselves, only occurs in response to the

> electromagnetic field.

>

> As the field doesn't in any real situation jump instantaneously between

> nothing and peak voltage, it has a gradient along the conductor which

> accelerates electrons, causing a current to increase, so there is

> transmission of radiation. This is the physical mechanism of the

phenomenon

> which passes for displacement current. (More here:

>

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells

> html.)

>

> The only thing anyone is going to learn from Catt's work is theoretical

> physics. However the dogged Catt refuses.

>

> Forrest Bishop begins his page http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/look.htm

with

> a the version of a quotation from Galileo which I found and put on the

> internet some years ago, when I was in a bitter argument with fascists at

> Physics Forums, who ended up shutting down the discussion.

>

> It is tempting for Forrest, myself and Catt to go down the road of talking

> about Galileo and suppression by an entrenched status quo. However, I

don't

> like the situations Galileo or Kepler were in. They didn't like their

> situations either. Galileo was a bad physicist. He ignored the

rotational

> kinetic energy of rolling balls and fiddled experimental results to fit

his

> lack of understanding. Kepler too was a crackpot, thinking that he had

> discovered the musical harmony of the heavens and that magnetism is the

same

> as gravity (at least, he thought the earth's magnetism kept it in orbit

> around the sun; he didn't think that a dropped stone was attracted down by

> magnetism; it took the genius of Hooke to come up with the inverse-square

> law of gravity, linking the acceleration of a ralling apple to the

> centripetal acceleration needed to keep the Moon in orbit, and it took and

> the public relations genius of Newton to submerge to plagarise it and

prove

> it rigorously in a Latin language book that no "little smatterers" could

> sneer at).

>

> Dr Bryan G. Wallace was also a real crackpot by the time he published "The

> Farce of Physics" in 1988, but he started out doing real physics. He

found

> experimental evidence against the principle of special relativity, which

had

> been obsolete anyway since Einstein's 1915 general relativity, but had the

> misfortune to be a junior in the same physics department as Steven

Weinberg

> and other big names, who called him a crackpot. What happened to Wallace

> was he started off right, got suppressed for the wrong reasons, then

thought

> he was a genius and could speculate on whatever he wanted to mimic

> mainstream string theorists.

>

> G. Burniston Brown's paper "What is Wrong with Relativity" is simply

> replacing error with vacuum, or dethroning Einstein. I don't see the

point

> in my saying Her Majesty the Queen is pompous or a waste of money or

> symbolic of all the officialdom manure in the world, unless I can give a

> better scheme. Because I don't think a President would be much cheaper or

> more moral, or more stable, I shut up about the Queen. Similarly, I don't

> think people should say what they think of Einstein, who was sufficiently

> contradictory that you can find quotes from him to support any facts that

> come along.

>

> If there has to be some figure head in physics, better to retain

> mathematical crackpots like Einstein and Brian Josephson, than to replace

> them with politicians who say politically correct drivel in all

situations.

>

> Forrest also quotes

> "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" (Published in New

Scientist,

> May 22, 2004) "The big bang today relies on a growing number of

hypothetical

> entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and

> dark energy are the most prominent examples."

> http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

>

> The inflation, dark matter and dark energy are all wrong. A proper model

of

> the big bang which is fact based doesn't have any of them:

> http://feynman137.tripod.com/.

>

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Forrest Bishop"

> ...

> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:04 PM

> Subject: Re: The aether

>

>

> >

> > I 'believe' in making observations and from them making deductions

> that are testable hypotheses. I avoid words like "belief" and "confirm";

> > e.g. the word "confirm" is often used in conjunction with relativistic

> experiments, and belief implies a religious conviction. Speaking now as a

> > lifelong inventor: never fall in love with your own ideas. 'Tain't

> healthy.

> >

> > Some comments-

> >

> > Epola-

> >

> > What experiments could *support* or *falsify* the "Epola" model?

restate-

> > What unique, testable predictions follow from this model? (Theory C has

> many such.)

> > A cubic lattice suggest anisotropic behavior.

> > Electrons and positrons have mass as well as charge. How do these "get

> out

> of the way" of a TEM wave advancing at the speed of light, as there

> > is no "Dirac Pilot Wave" in this case? The loading of a capacitor is a

> case in point.

> > The excision of electric current invalidates a large class of aether

> models.

> >

> > Aethers, general comments-

> > A wave implies "that which waves", ergo aether.

> > Positing one aether for gravity and another for light seems uneconomic.

> > Cahill's inflow theory, referenced at

> http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/look.htm

> > has many of the same features as GR. His work is far more comprehensive

> than De Meo's.

> > Humility is in order- we do not even know what makes the Sun shine.

> >

> > Forrest Bishop

> >

> >

> > Ian Montgomery wrote:

> > > Dear All,

> > >

> > > Now that there seems to be a bit of a hiatus with the recent

> > > correspondence and also as this list seems to have grown to fifteen

> > > individuals, I thought that I'd take the opportunity to ask if there

is

> > > anyone on this list that does not believe in the existence of an

aether

> > > (or aethers) that acts as a medium for the transmission of e/m and/or

> > > the (gravity and coulomb) forces?

> > >

> > > If I don't get a response, I will assume that all on this list either

> > > believe in the aether concept or feel too insecure to discuss it in

an

> > > open forum.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Ian Montgomery

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger

> 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=389#comment-10727

knotted string Says:

May 13th, 2006 at 5:44 am

‘… Without well-defined Hamiltonian, I don’t see how one can address the time evolution of wave functions in QFT.’ - Eugene Stefanovich

You can do this very nicely by grasping the mathematical and physical correspondence of the time-dependent Schrodinger to Maxwell’s displacement current i = dD/dt. The former is just a quantized complex version of the latter.

Treat the Hamiltonian as a regular quantity as Heaviside showed you can do for many operators. Then the solution to the time dependent Schroedinger equation is:

wavefunction at time t after initial time = initial wavefunction.exp(-iHt/[h bar])

This is an general analogy to the exponential capacitor charging you get from displacement current.

Maxwell’s displacement curent is i = dD/dt where D is product of electric field (v/m) and permittivity. Because the current flowing into the first capacitor plate falls off exponentially as it charges up, there is radio transmission transversely like radio from an antenna (radio power is proportional to the rate of charge of current in the antenna, which can be a capacitor plate).

Hence the reality of displacement current is radio transmission. As each plate of a circuit capacitor acquires equal and opposite charge simultaneously, the radio transmission from each plate is an inversion of that from the other, so the superimposed signal strength away from the capacitor is zero at all times. Hence radio losslessly performs the role of induction which Maxwell attributed to aetherial displacement current.

Schroedinger’s time-dependent equation says the product of the hamiltonian and wavefunction equals i[h bar].d[wavefunction]/dt, which is a general analogy to Maxwell’s i = dD/dt.

It’s weird that people seem prejudiced against the integration of classical and quantum electrodynamics. The Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equation are relativized forms of Schroedinger. Why doesn’t anybody take the analogy of displacement current seriously?

The mechanism of electricity is explained at:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/01/solution-to-problem-with-maxwells.html

Despite this, ignorance and deception still continue to be peddled by Catt, because despite my continued efforts he and Forrest refuse to listen:

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

To: "Forrest Bishop" forrestb@ix.netcom.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:51 AM

Subject: Re: The Catt Question (itself is not even grasped)

> No Forrest.

>

> Displacement current i = dD/dt. When the voltage is steady (after the rise

> of the logic step), dD/dt = 0, hence i = 0. So in a wire carrying current

> with a steady 10 volts, there cannot be displacement current. Hence the

> Catt anomaly diagram disproves displacement current since for no time is

> voltage shown to be time-varying (the discontinuity at the front which Catt

> shows would result in a field/current rise in NO time, which is dD/0 =

> undefined, which Catt and Forrest brush under the carpet just as Feynman's

> renormalized quantum electrodynamics ignores infinities).

>

> If you could get that through Ivor Catt's head, you could make your case

> against displacement current to people much better: THE STANDARD TEM WAVE

> DIAGRAM PROVES NO DISPLACEMENT CURRENT.

>

> Electric displacement D = permittivity x E, where E is electric field

> strength measured in volts per metre. Displacement current is time varying

> displacement.

>

> When a current flows into a capacitor, the current is sustained entirely by

> displacement current at the ramp, i = dD/dt. However the textbook TEM wave

> description used by Catt assumes a discontinuity, where dD/dt has two

> solutions only:

>

> displacement current dD/dt = 0 when voltage is not varying with time (the

> flat topped portion of the energy current), HENCE NO DISPLACEMENT CURRENT.

>

> displacement current dD/dt = dD/0 = mathematically undefined (infinity??) at

> the logic step.

>

>

> Catt's question should be rewritten to ask:

>

> WHERE IS THE DISPLACEMENT CURRENT, dD/dt, IN THIS DIAGRAM? NOT ON THE LEFT,

> BECAUSE dD/dt = 0. NOT ON THE RIGHT, BECAUSE dD/dt = undefined/infinity.

>

>

> Then Catt would have to get out of his armchair and do some work, revising

> the book and his theory. But what is the old saying? "Let sleeping dog's

> lie"?

>

>

>

>

> Nigel

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Forrest Bishop" forrestb@ix.netcom.com

> To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com;

> ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; epola@tiscali.co.uk;

> imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com;

> jvospost2@yahoo.com; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

> Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;

> graham@megaquebec.net; jackw97224@yahoo.com; geoffrey.landis@sff.net;

> andrewpost@gmail.com; ivor@ivorcatt.com; ernest@cooleys.net;

> george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com

> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:10 AM

> Subject: Re: The Catt Question (itself is not even grasped)

>

>

>> This is an important discovery. Not only do the proponents of the old

>> (e-m) theory not understand the new (e-m) theory (Khun), and not only do

>> they not understand their own, old theory, they become incapable of even

>> grapsing the simplest possible Question regarding their own theory. This

>> discovery belongs to a different field from physics.

>>

>> "The Catt Question" itself has been shown to be not understood by a

>> number of Theory N practicioners. It is the simplest possible Question for

>> a Theory N practicioner, as "do moons circle Jupiter?" would be the

>> simplest possible Question to put to a Ptolemaic astronomer.

>>

>> Aside from the silent and abusive responses;

>>

>> We have seen this from GL, who wished to add a current-limiting resistor,

>> and claimed the answer was to be found somewhere in the equations. ["Solve

>> the Epicycles, everyone know the answer is in there."]

>>

>> We saw this from NC, who mistook "D" for "dD/dt", then insisted it was a

>> trick Question. ["You used the wong symbol for Jupiter."]

>>

>> We saw this from DT, who thought it had something to do with the plates of

>> a capacitor, and with some murky process going on inside the conductor.

>> ["We don't know if moons circle other stars."]

Post a Comment

<< Home