From: mikegi <>

To: Ivor Catt <>

Subject: The International Incident

Date: 08 May 2000 00:22

I was surfing your website the other day and read "The International

Incident". I remember back in 1986 you telling me the Josephs tried to claim

that Heaviside had already discovered most of Modern Physics (relativity,

quantum mechanics, etc...) based on unpublished notes for a fourth volume of

Electromagnetic Theory.

In my opinion, Heaviside would have been appalled by almost all of Modern

Physics. He would have been especially upset over quantum mechanics and

non-local nonsense that's the rage these days. In his 1920 letter to

Bjerknes he found both of Einstein's Relativity theories repugnant, saying

his "distorted space is chaos" and that "They [the Ether, and Forces, and

Momentum] are the realities, without Einstein's distorted nothingness".

Clearly, Heaviside believed in the now old-fashioned idea that physics

should describe actual physical processes, not just mathematical

abstractions with no physical underpinnings.

What did Heaviside discover that could be considered part of modern physics?

Well, it's fairly well known that Heaviside came up with the first

post-Newtonian theory of gravity in 1893. The theory is in his EMT Vol I, pp

455-466, "A Gravitational Analogy". I would prefer to call it the

"Heaviside's General Theory of Vector Fields" because it applies to all

physical vector fields, not just gravity and electromagnetism. It's referred

to today as the "weak field approximation" of Einstein's General Theory of


Another Heaviside discovery has a somewhat quantum mechanical feel to it.

Several times in EMT he analyzes oscillating spherical shells of charge. He

solves the equations for cases where there is no external radiation except

initially and comments that it "is suggestive as to the stores of energy

bound up with matter".

To me, Heaviside's ultimate theory is in EMT Vol III, pp 144-158, the

"Moving Compressible Ether". He even comments that "it is like magic". In

the Bjerknes letter he says that it brings gravity into electromagnetism. It

does this by having light slow down around charged particles. As best I can

figure right now, it looks like the speed varies as 1/r^4. I intend to do

some calculations to see if this results in em waves that are "trapped"

around a charged particle.




Odds and Ends.

I need to secure the following discussions. Ivor Catt 5aug00

This item 5aug00

Maxwell mixed Faraday's induction law with his light theory in 1865. He
used Faraday's law in vector calculus, curl E = -dB/dt, plus his own
(Maxwell) expression for the capacitor, curl B = ue(dE/dt), and a bit
of maths (reducing the curls to 1 dimension of travel, x), wrote dE/dx
= -dB/dt from Faraday and dB/dx = ue(dE/dt), and then found that these 2
equations can be solved to yield the speed c = 1/[root(ue)] = 300,000 km/s,
that Maxwell wanted (the speed of light was already known from ingenious
physics experiments) in order to force-fit a maths "theory" on to Faraday's
1846 rolling wave paper "Thoughts on Ray Vibrations" (theory of EM light
waves), where Faraday imagined an E field in space changing to create a B
field, which creates an E field, etc, the self-propagating EM wave theory of

Ironically, Maxwell ended up admitting in his Treatise, final edition, that
he has "no idea" of the speed of electricity "as measured in feet per
second", while he is quite certain that electricity measurements give the
speed of light!!! Ivor has written perceptively that Maxwell force-fitted
maths to Faraday's theory.

This is completely mistaken, as Heaviside discovered around 1875, Maxwell's
"light" is actually electricity: the TEM wave is the mechanism of energy
flow in conductors!!!! Maxwell was a totally ignorant, blundering
theoretical fool compared to Heaviside and Catt, who experimentally worked
with TEM waves.

The only correct way to deal with EM theory is to use Catt's approach of
adopting the TEM wave in electricity as the Primitive, with the relationship
between E field, B field, and c (speed of TEM wave) being always E/B = c.
This relationship must be a property of all charges, electrons and quarks,
giving definite information about their nature, as a standing contrapuntal
wave of c speed, which may relate to particle spin, the B fields being
cancelled out in contrapuntal (reciprocating) situations, like "static"
charges in a capacitor, since they are vectors curling around the direction
of motion of the energy.


----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <>
To: mikegi <>; nigel cook <>;
<>; Malcolm Davidson <>
Cc: jrdore <>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: v=-d(phi)/dt

> Well said. I shall read the paper (below) when I am under less pressure. I
> think you (with me) have put your finger on a key point. When did
> Law of induction get mixed up with the TEM wave?
> Nothing induces anything in the TEM wave.
> Ivor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mikegi <>
> To: Ivor Catt <>; nigel cook
> <>; <>; Malcolm Davidson
> <>
> Cc: jrdore <>
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:45 AM
> Subject: Re: v=-d(phi)/dt
> > > At some stage, the valid expression v= -d(phi)/dt; Faraday's
> > > discovery of electromagnetic induction in a stationary transformer,
> > > became mixed up with the TEM wave.
> >
> > Here's an interesting paper on this topic:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike



 This item 2aug00


The historical sequence:

1. Faraday in 1846 paper "Thoughts on Ray Vibrations" suggests that light
is electromagnetic.

2. Maxwell in 1865 shows that the wave speed derived by differentially
combining Faraday's law of induction as expressed in vector calculus (curl E
= -dB/dt, where E is electric field and B is magnetic field) and his own
"displacement current" law which runs alongside Ampere's law (Ampere found
that curl B = ui), displacement current in a vacuum capacitor during
charging, i = e(dE/dt), where e is the electric constant from Coulomb's
electrostatic force law, together give the result that the speed =
1/[root(ue)] = 300,000 km/s ~ light speed.

3. Maxwell then wrote in his Treatise, final edition, that he has "no idea"
of the speed of electricity "as measured in feet per second". However he
seems sure of the speed of light from electric measurement!!

4. Oliver Heaviside compiled the 4 basic "Maxwell equations" for the first
time, from the hundreds of equations in Maxwell's treatise (curl B, curl E,
div B and div E being the basic Maxwell equations, sometimes supplemented by
another for the conservation of charge).

5. Heaviside gets to understand the logic pulse, Morse code signalling in
the undersea cable between Newcastle and Denmark in 1875, discovering that
the signal is light. In other words, the energy goes at the 300,000 km/s
(or near enough that, allowing a slight reduction for the rubber dielectric
in the cable), rather than at the 1 mm/second electric drift speed that
physics A-level textbooks calculate.

6. Ivor Catt and friends in 1978-onwards try to revive Heaviside with some
revolutionary extensions to Heaviside's paradigm, such as the treatment of
the "static" charge in a capacitor plate or electron, as a contrapuntal TEM
wave, with equal trapped energy going all directions, hence the magnetic
fields, which curl around direction of TEM motion, cancel each other out to
produce just a net electric field. The Catt equation is basically E/B = c =
300,000 km/s. Catt publishes this work in books and in Wireless World,
unfortunately mixing some of his best science with his "controversy" such as
attacks on the Establishment, which do not help the science parts (such as
the end paragraphs of his "Waves in Space" March 1983 WW paper) to be
appreciated by the Establishment who labelled it all "controversy" and
ignored it as much as possible.


Catt's equation E/B = c, the TEM wave equation relating the electric field,
magnetic field, and speed of all matter in the universe (all charges
naturally obey the Catt equation, including electrons and "quarks"), is a
new paradigm. From it, we can derive all Maxwell's equations, very briefly:

The derivation of Faradays law of induction curl E = -dB/dt, and
Maxwell's term, curl B = (1/c^2)dE/dt, can both be obtained from
Catt's basic E=cB or B = E/c, by taking curls of each side and recognising
that since the speed that the EM effects go in a conductor was found by
Heaviside in 1875 to be 300,000 km/s (c), dx/dt = c, which implies that
dB/dt = c. dB/dr, and dE/dt = c. dE/dr.

The Maxwell equation div B = 0, interpreted as "there are no magnetic
monopoles", is a result of the bipolar nature of the spinning electron and
other particles, which are not monopoles but bipolar like magnets along the
axis of spin.

The Maxwell equations are summaries of experience and in the sense that the
electric motor and dynamo are based on Faraday's induction (Maxwell equation
curl E = -dB/dt) and related phenomena they are correct, and I will be very
to see "Maxwell's New Equations".

I hope that Ivor agrees that this is a reasonable summary of Theory Catt.
I would
be interested to know how I can subscribe to JNE??

Nigel Cook

This item 20july00

> At some stage, the valid expression v= -d(phi)/dt; Faraday's
> discovery of electromagnetic induction in a stationary transformer,
> became mixed up with the TEM wave. I want Mike Gibson to tell me
> that this was Heaviside's contribution. (It must be, because Maxwell
> did not have the TEM wave, which presumably originated with Heaviside
> - his "telegraph equation".)

"curl E = -dB/dt" is equivalent to "v = -d(phi)/dt" for an infinitesimal
circuit. Its basically a vector/geometrical identity relating the surface
integral of one vector to the line integral of another. There is no cause
and effect contained in this equation, eg. the rolling wave. Heaviside notes
this in Electrical Papers vol. 1 (EP_1) p444, "Notice that (15) contains no
physical constants. It is therefore, in a sense, a purely geometrical

The best illustration of how the curl equations can be used to "manufacture"
a wave theory, IMHO, is in Appendix B of EMT_1, "A Gravitational and
Electromagnetic Analogy".

> (q1) Was Heaviside unclear about the lossless TEM wave?

I don't think so. He wrote about distortion-free propagation numerous times.

> (q2) Did he always carry with him resistance of the wires
> and leakage of the dielectric, thus failing to see clearly
> the pair dE/dx= - dB/dt and dH/dx = - dD/dt ?

Take a look at EMT_1 p381 where he discusses the E & H equations in a
non-conducting dielectric and how to transform them into voltage and current
in a circuit.

> I would guess that the sequence was as follows.
> Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction, and said as much.
> Maxwell then created the formula v = - d(phi)/dt. (1)
> Maxwell never had the TEM wave. He more or less had instantaneous
> action at a distance. I remember that he wrote that in the England
> - continental argument of action via fields (England) v action at
> a distance (continent), Maxwell said his equations would be valid
> either way. ((q3)Where did he say that?)

I don't know about Maxwell but Heaviside talks about this in EP_1 p490. He
discusses cause and effect between the curl equations and its relation to
instantaneous action at a distance. He concluded with, "Whether there is any
flaw here or not, it is scarcely necessary for me to remark that I do not
believe in action at a distance. Not even gravitational."

> Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental science. (Mike,
> where did he say that?)

That would be EMT_2, page 1 in the section "Mathematics is an Experimental

> Heaviside struggled with the transmission line between Newcastle
> and Denmark, attempting to produce undistorted, only attenuated,
> transmission. He used (1) in brewing up the telegraph equation,
> in a way that I have shown in my two articles was bogus. That is,
> he took Faraday's static expt. showing electromagnetic induction,
> and wrongly applied it to a moving TEM wave.

The TEM equations *are* Faraday's equations, as given by Maxwell. I guess
the main question is whether the macroscopic concepts apply at the
infinitesimal level, eg. in the absence of conductors. Maxwell used currents
in a dielectric to accomplish this. Heaviside moved away from this idea and
treated Maxwell's equations as as abstraction of some unknown physical
process. You can see this in his numerous attempts to provide a physical
basis to his equations (the rotational analogs). He gave up trying to come
up with a physical model.

> Later. I have now looked briefly at Heaviside's books.
> (q4) Is the only place where H mentions the two Maxwell equations
> that I concentrate on, Electromagnetic Theory vol 3 (EMT3) p335?

See my answer to q2. I'm sure you'll find them in many places.

> (q5) Where, if anywhere, does Heaviside state his four Maxwell
> Equations? (Walton says he brewed them up.)

They're all in "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation", EP_1, pp