\begin{center}
\large{\bf ENTDECKUNG EINER ZWEITEN ART VON LICHT}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{center}
Dr. Rainer K\"uhne \\
26. Mai 2003
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}

Forscher von der Universit\"at Wien/\"Osterreich und von der
Universit\"at von Wisconsin in Madison haben eine zweite Art
von sichtbarem Licht entdeckt. Diese zweite Art von Licht
besteht aus einer neuen Sorte von Elementarteilchen, den
sogenannten ``magnetischen Photonen''. Die zweite Art von Licht
kann Metallfolien durchdringen und k\"onnte Anwendungen in der
Medizin finden. Diese Entdeckungen werden in dem Buch
``Has the last word been said on classical electrodynamics?''
ver\"offentlicht. Es wird in K\"urze im wissenschaftlichen
Verlag Rinton Press erscheinen.
Die neuen Entdeckungen best\"atigen die
Theorie von Dr. Rainer K\"uhne.

Gem\"a{\ss} Dr. K\"uhne's Theorie durchdringt die zweite Art
von Licht Knochen und Metallfolien und ist au{\ss}erdem f\"ur das
menschliche Auge wahrnehmbar. Die zweite Art von Licht k\"onnte
in Bereichen der Medizin Anwendungen finden, in denen
R\"ontgen-Untersuchungen nicht zweckm\"a{\ss}ig sind. Im
Gegensatz zu R\"ontgen-Untersuchungen werden Anwendungen der zweiten
Art von Licht keine hohen Strahlungsrisiken beinhalten. Der
Grund ist die niedrige Frequenz der zweiten Art von Licht, die im
sichtbaren Bereich liegt. Untersuchungen von Knochen und des Gehirns
k\"onnten auf diese Weise ebenfalls erm\"oglicht werden.

Dr. K\"uhne's Theorie ist eine Verallgemeinerung der
Quantenelektrodynamik (QED). Die QED wurde 1948 von den
Nobelpreistr\"agern Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger und
Sin-Itiro Tomonaga aufgestellt. K\"uhne's Theorie verallgemeinert
die QED auf zwei Weisen. Erstens: um elektrische und magnetische
Ph\"anomene gleichberechtigt zu beschreiben, enth\"alt
K\"uhne's Theorie die 1931 von Nobelpreistr\"ager Paul Dirac
vorhergesagten magnetischen Monopole. Zweitens: magnetische
Monopole k\"onnen, wie Dr. K\"uhne gezeigt hat, am besten
beschrieben werden, wenn (sichtbares) Licht aus zwei Arten
besteht. Die erste Art ist das gew\"ohnliche Licht. Es besteht
aus ``elektrischen Photonen''. Diese Elementarteilchen wurden
1905 von Nobelpreistr\"ager Albert Einstein vorhergesagt und
1923 von Nobelpreistr\"ager Arthur Compton experimentell
nachgewiesen. Die zweite Art von Licht, sagt Dr. K\"uhne,
besteht aus den 1966 von Nobelpreistr\"ager Abdus Salam
vorhergesagten ``magnetischen Photonen''.

Dr. Alipasha Vaziri von der Universit\"at Wien/\"Osterreich
ist ein Mitarbeiter des ber\"uhmten Professors Anton Zeilinger.
Er f\"uhrte ein Experiment durch, um K\"uhne's zweite
Art von Licht nachzuweisen. Hierzu beleuchtete Dr. Vaziri
eine Aluminiumfolie mit einem roten Laserstrahl und
plazierte eine Lawinendiode hinter der Folie, um diejenigen
magnetischen Photonen nachzuweisen, die die Aluminiumfolie
durchdrungen haben. Auf diese Weise gelang ihm die
Erstentdeckung der magnetischen Photonen. Er wies 200
magnetische Photonen innerhalb einer Me{\ss}zeit von 170
Sekunden nach.

Der Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes
unternahm ein unabh\"angiges Experiment zum Nachweis
von K\"uhne's zweiter Art von Licht. Professor Lakes
beleuchtete eine Aluminiumfolie mit einem gr\"unen
Laserstrahl und plazierte einen Photomultiplier hinter der
Folie, um diejenigen magnetischen Photonen nachzuweisen,
die die Aluminiumfolie durchdrungen haben. Er best\"atigte
Dr. Vaziri's Ergebnis und entdeckte 1200 magnetische
Photonen innerhalb einer Me{\ss}zeit von 4 Minuten.

Dr. K\"uhne's Theorie ist in der wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift
``Modern Physics Letters A'', Nr. 12, S.n 3153 - 3159 (1997)
publiziert. Die Zeitschrift wird von der World Scientific
Publishing Company in Singapur herausgegeben. Dr. K\"uhne's
Artikel ist Online erh\"altlich via \\ http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/12/1240/kuhne.html \\
und http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9708394.

Die Entdeckung der zweiten Art von Licht wird ver\"offentlicht in dem
Buch ``Has the last word been said on classical electrodynamics?''.
Dieses Buch wird von Dr. Andrew Chubykalo, Dr. Vladimir Onoochin,
Dr. Roman Smirnov-Rueda und Dr. Augusto Espinoza herausgegeben und im
wissenschaftlichen Verlag Rinton Press erscheinen. Informationen \"uber
dieses Buch sind Online erh\"altlich via \\ http://www.rintonpress.com/books/chuby.html

{\bf F\"ur weitere Informationen kontaktieren Sie bitte:}

Dr. Rainer W. K\"uhne \\
Vorm Holz 4, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany \\
e-mail: kuehne70@gmx.de \\
Telefon: (049) 0160 930 748 99 \\ http://t2.physik.uni-dortmund.de/person/kuehne.html

Dr. Alipasha Vaziri \\
Institut f\"ur Experimentalphysik, Universit\"at Wien, \\
Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Wien, Austria \\
e-mail: vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at \\ http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/alipasha/

Professor Roderic S. Lakes \\
University of Wisconsin at Madison, \\
541 Engineering Research Building, \\
1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 \\
e-mail: lakes@engr.wisc.edu \\ http://www.engr.wisc.edu/ep/faculty/lakes\_roderic.html

\end{document}

\begin{center}
\Large{\bf DISCOVERY OF A SECOND KIND OF LIGHT}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{center}
Dr. Rainer K\"uhne \\
May 26, 2003
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}

Researchers from the University of Vienna/Austria and the
University of Wisconsin at Madison have discovered a second kind of
visible light. This second kind of light consists of a new
type of elementary particles called ``magnetic photons.''
The second kind of light is able to penetrate metal foils
and may find applications in medicine. These discoveries
will be reported in the
forthcoming book ``Has the last word been said on classical
electrodynamics?'' which will be published by the scientific
publishing house Rinton Press.
The new discoveries confirm the theory of Dr. Rainer K\"uhne.

According to Dr. K\"uhne's theory, the second kind of light
penetrates bones and metal foils and is also visible for
human eyes. The second kind of light may find applications in
those areas of medicine where X-ray diagnostics are not useful. In contrast
to X-ray examinations, applications of the second kind of light
will not include a high risk of
radiation damage. The reason is the low frequency of the
second kind of light which is in the visible range. Examinations of bones
and the brain may also become possible.

Dr. K\"uhne's theory is a generalization of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). QED was introduced in 1948 by the
Nobel laureates Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and
Sin-Itiro Tomonaga. K\"uhne's theory generalizes QED in two
ways. First, to describe electric and magnetic phenomena
equivalently, K\"uhne's theory includes the magnetic monopoles
which were predicted in 1931 by Nobel laureate Paul Dirac.
Second, as K\"uhne has shown, magnetic monopoles can at best
be described, if (visible) light consists of two kinds. The
first kind is the conventional light. It consists of elementary
particles named
``electric photons.'' These particles were predicted in 1905 by
Nobel laureate Albert
Einstein and detected experimentally
by Nobel laureate Arthur Compton in 1923. The second kind of
light, says Dr. K\"uhne,
consists of the ``magnetic photons'' which were predicted in 1966 by Nobel
laureate Abdus Salam.

Dr. Alipasha Vaziri from the University of Vienna/Austria is a collaborator
of the famous Professor
Anton Zeilinger. He made an experiment to verify Dr. K\"uhne's
second kind of light. Dr. Vaziri illuminated an aluminium
foil by a red laser beam and placed an avalanche diode behind the foil to
detect the magnetic photons which penetrated the aluminium
foil. So he became the first who succeeded to discover the magnetic
photons. He detected 200 magnetic photons within 170 seconds.

Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes made an independent
experiment to verify Dr. K\"uhne's second kind of light.
Professor Lakes illuminated an aluminium foil by a green
laser beam and placed a photomultiplier tube behind the foil to detect the
magnetic photons which penetrated the aluminium foil. He
confirmed Dr. Vaziri's result and
detected 1200 magnetic photons within 4 minutes.

Dr. K\"uhne's theory is published in the scientific journal
``Modern Physics Letters A'', Vol. 12, pp. 3153 - 3159 (1997).
The journal is published by the World Scientific Publishing
Company in Singapore. Dr. K\"uhne's article is available
online via \\ http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/12/1240/kuhne.html \\
and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9708394.

The discovery of the second kind of light will be published
in the book ``Has the last word been said on classical
electrodynamics?''. This book is edited by Drs. Andrew Chubykalo,
Vladimir Onoochin, Roman Smirnov-Rueda, and Augusto Espinoza.
It will be published by the scientific publishing house
Rinton Press. Information on this book is available online via \\ http://www.rintonpress.com/books/chuby.html.

{\bf For further information please contact:}

Dr. Rainer W. K\"uhne \\
Vorm Holz 4, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany \\
e-mail: kuehne70@gmx.de \\
phone: (049) 0160 930 748 99 \\ http://t2.physik.uni-dortmund.de/person/kuehne.html

Dr. Alipasha Vaziri \\
Institut f\"ur Experimentalphysik, Universit\"at Wien, \\
Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Wien, Austria \\
e-mail: vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at \\ http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/alipasha/

Professor Roderic S. Lakes \\
University of Wisconsin at Madison, \\
541 Engineering Research Building, \\
1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 \\
e-mail: lakes@engr.wisc.edu \\ http://www.engr.wisc.edu/ep/faculty/lakes\_roderic.html

\end{document}

\begin{center}
{\bf Publikationsliste von Dr. Rainer K\"uhne}
\end{center}

\vspace{0.0cm}

\begin{center}
{\bf Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen in Zeitschriften \\
mit strengem Gutachter-System}
\end{center}

\noindent
\begin{tabular}{rl}
1. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Cold Fusion: Pros and Cons} \\
& Physics Letters A 155, 467--472 (1991). \\
2. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Possible Explanations for Failures to Detect Cold Fusion} \\
& Physics Letters A 159, 208--212 (1991). \\
3. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em The Possible Hot Nature of Cold Fusion} \\
& Fusion Technology 25, 198--202 (1994). \\
4. & R. W. K\"uhne und R. E. Sioda, {\em An Extended Micro Hot Fusion Model} \\
& {\em for Burst Activity in Deuterated Solids} \\
& Fusion Technology 27, 187--189 (1995). \\
5. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em On the Cosmic Rotation Axis} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 12, 2473--2474 (1997). \\
6. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em A Model of Magnetic Monopoles} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 12, 3153--3159 (1997). \\
7. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Gauge Theory of Gravity Requires Massive Torsion Field} \\
& International Journal of Modern Physics A 14, 2531--2535 (1999). \\
8. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Time-Varying Fine-Structure Constant Requires Cosmological} \\
& {\em Constant} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 14, 1917--1922 (1999). \\
9. & R. W. K\"uhne und U. L\"ow, {\em Thermodynamical Properties of a Spin-}$\frac{1}{2}$ \\
& {\em Heisenberg Chain Coupled to Phonons} \\
& Physical Review B 60, 12125--12133 (1999). \\
10. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Response to ``Strange Behavior of Tritiated Natural Water''} \\
& Fusion Technology 37, 265--266 (2000). \\
11. & C. Raas, U. L\"ow, G. S. Uhrig und R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Spin-Phonon Chains with} \\
& {\em Bond Coupling} \\
& Physical Review B 65, 144438 (2002). \\
12. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics} \\
& Electromagnetic Phenomena 3, 86--91 (2003). \\
\end{tabular}

\newpage

\begin{center}
{\bf Weitere Publikationen}
\end{center}

\noindent
\begin{tabular}{rl}
1. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Pl\"adoyer f\"ur Atlantis} \\
& Ancient Skies 13 (1), 3--8 (1989). \\
2. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Betrachtungen zur von David Hestenes eingef\"uhrten} \\
& {\em ``Raumzeit-Algebra''} \\
& Diplomarbeit in Physik, Institut f\"ur Astrophysik und \\
& extraterrestrische Forschung der Universit\"at Bonn, 1995. \\
3. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Symmetrized Maxwell Equations} \\
& Cold Fusion 18, 22--25 (1996). \\
4. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Thermodynamics of Heisenberg Chains Coupled to Phonons} \\
& Dissertation in Physik, Fachbereich Physik der Universit\"at Dortmund, 2001. \\
5. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light} \\
& in: A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, R. Smirnov-Rueda und A. Espinoza (Hrsg.) \\
& Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics? \\
& (Rinton Press, New York, zur Ver\"offentlichung angenommen). \\
6. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Cartan's Torsion: Necessity and Observational Evidence} \\
& Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology (zur Ver\"offentlichung angenommen). \\
\end{tabular}

\vspace{1cm}

\noindent
Eine PDF-Version meiner Dissertation ist erh\"altlich \"uber: \\ http://eldorado.uni-dortmund.de:8080/FB2/ls8/forschung/2001/Kuehne

\vspace{3cm}

\noindent
Wuppertal, 24.10.2003 \hspace{8cm} Rainer K\"uhne

\end{document}

\begin{center}
{\bf Publication List of Dr. Rainer K\"uhne}
\end{center}

\vspace{2cm}

\noindent
\begin{tabular}{rl}
1. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Cold Fusion: Pros and Cons} \\
& Physics Letters A 155, 467--472 (1991). \\
2. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Possible Explanations for Failures to Detect
Cold Fusion} \\
& Physics Letters A 159, 208--212 (1991). \\
3. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em The Possible Hot Nature of Cold Fusion} \\
& Fusion Technology 25, 198--202 (1994). \\
4. & R. W. K\"uhne and R. E. Sioda, {\em An Extended Micro Hot
Fusion Model} \\
& {\em for Burst Activity in Deuterated Solids} \\
& Fusion Technology 27, 187--189 (1995). \\
5. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em On the Cosmic Rotation Axis} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 12, 2473--2474 (1997). \\
6. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em A Model of Magnetic Monopoles} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 12, 3153--3159 (1997). \\
7. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Gauge Theory of Gravity Requires Massive
Torsion Field} \\
& International Journal of Modern Physics A 14, 2531--2535 (1999). \\
8. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Time-Varying Fine-Structure Constant Requires
Cosmological} \\
& {\em Constant} \\
& Modern Physics Letters A 14, 1917--1922 (1999). \\
9. & R. W. K\"uhne and U. L\"ow, {\em Thermodynamical Properties
of a Spin-}$\frac{1}{2}$ \\
& {\em Heisenberg Chain Coupled to Phonons} \\
& Physical Review B 60, 12125--12133 (1999). \\
10. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Response to ``Strange Behavior of Tritiated
Natural Water''} \\
& Fusion Technology 37, 265--266 (2000). \\
\end{tabular}

\noindent
\begin{tabular}{rl}
11. & C. Raas, U. L\"ow, G. S. Uhrig, and R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Spin-Phonon
Chains with} \\
& {\em Bond Coupling} \\
& Physical Review B 65, 144438 (2002). \\
12. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics} \\
& Electromagnetic Phenomena 3, 86--91 (2003). \\
13. & Rainer W. K\"uhne, {\em Possible Observation of a Second Kind of
Light} \\
& Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics? \\
& (Eds.: A. Chubykalo, A. Espinoza, R. Smirnov-Rueda und V.Onoochin) \\
& Rinton Press, Paramus, 2004, S. 335 -- 349. \\
14. & R. W. K\"uhne, {\em Cartan's Torsion: Necessity and Observational
Evidence} \\
& In: Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology (Hrsg.: V. Dvoeglazov) Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2004, S. 33 -- 37. \\
\end{tabular}

\vspace{1cm}

\noindent
A PDF-version of my dissertation is available online via: \\ http://eldorado.uni-dortmund.de:8080/FB2/ls8/forschung/2001/Kuehne

\vspace{3cm}

\noindent
Wuppertal, October 07, 2003 \hspace{5cm} Rainer K\"uhne

\end{document}

\newcommand{\pub}[1]{{\begin{center}\footnotesize\smalllineskip
Received #1\\
\end{center}
}}

\newcommand{\publisher}[2]{{\begin{center}\footnotesize\smalllineskip
Received #1\\
Revised #2
\end{center}
}}

%\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
%\topmargin=-0mm
%\oddsidemargin=0pt
%\textwidth=152.4mm
%\textheight=228.6mm

\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large {\bf Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light}} \\

\vspace{0.5cm}
Rainer W. K\"uhne \\
{\em Lechstr. 63, 38120 Braunschweig, Germany \\
kuehne70@gmx.de}
\end{center}

\vspace{0.8cm}

\noindent

{\bf Several years ago, I suggested a quantum field theory which has many
attractive features. (1) It can explain the quantization of electric charge.
(2) It describes symmetrized Maxwell equations. (3) It is manifestly
covariant. (4) It describes local four-potentials. (5) It avoids the
unphysical Dirac string. My model predicts a second kind of light, which
I named ``magnetic photon rays.''
Here I will present possible observations of this
radiation by August Kundt in 1885, Alipasha Vaziri in February 2002, and
Roderic Lakes in June 2002. }

\section{The Theoretical Background}
\subsection{The Model}

The existence of the second kind of light was predicted theoretically.
It can be understood by the following argumentation.

In 1948/1949 Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, and Dyson introduced quantum
electrodynamics \cite{QED}. It is the quantum field theory of electric and
magnetic phenomena. This theory has one shortcoming.
It cannot explain why electric charge is quantized, i.e. why it
appears only in discrete units.

In 1931 Dirac \cite{Dirac} introduced the concept of magnetic monopoles.
He has shown that any theory which includes magnetic monopoles
requires the quantization of electric charge.

A theory of electric and magnetic phenomena which includes Dirac
monopoles can be formulated in a manifestly covariant and
symmetrical way if two four-potentials are used. Cabibbo and Ferrari
in 1962 \cite{Cabibbo} were the first to formulate such a theory. It was
examined in greater detail by later authors [4 -- 6].
Within the
framework of a quantum field theory one four-potential corresponds
to Einstein's electric photon from 1905 \cite{photon}
and the other four-potential
corresponds to Salam's magnetic photon from 1966 \cite{Salam}.

In 1997 I have shown that the Lorentz force between an electric
charge and a magnetic charge can be generated as follows \cite{1}.
An electric charge
couples via the well-known vector coupling with an electric photon and
via a new type of tensor coupling, named velocity coupling, with a
magnetic photon. This velocity coupling requires the existence of a
velocity operator.

For scattering processes this velocity is the relative velocity
between the electric charge and the magnetic charge just before
the scattering. For emission and absorption processes there is no
possibility of a relative velocity. The velocity is the absolute
velocity of the electric charge just before the reaction.

The absolute velocity of a terrestrial laboratory was measured by
the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
This radiation was detected in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson \cite{Penzias}, its
dipole anisotropy was detected in 1977 by Smoot, Gorenstein, and Muller
\cite{Smoot}.
The mean value of the laboratory's absolute velocity is 371 km/s.
It has an annual sinusoidal period because of the Earth's motion
around the Sun with 30 km/s. It has also a diurnal sinusoidal period
because of the Earth's rotation with 0.5 km/s.

According to my model from 1997 \cite{1} each process that produces
electric photons does create also magnetic photons. The cross-section
of magnetic photons in a terrestrial laboratory is roughly one
million times smaller than that of electric photons of the same energy.
The exact value varies with time and has both the annual and the
daily period.

As a consequence, magnetic photons are one million times harder to
create, to shield, and to absorb than electric photons of the same
energy.

The electric-magnetic duality is:

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
electric charge & --- & magnetic charge \\
electric current & --- & magnetic current \\
electric conductivity & --- & magnetic conductivity \\
electric field strength & --- & magnetic field strength \\
electric four-potential & --- & magnetic four-potential \\
electric photon & --- & magnetic photon \\
electric field constant & --- & magnetic field constant \\
dielectricity number & --- & magnetic permeability
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

The refractive index of an insulator is the square root of the product of
the dielectricity number and the magnetic permeability. Therefore it
is invariant under a dual transformation. This means that electric and
magnetic photon rays are reflected and refracted by insulators in the same
way. Optical lenses cannot distinguish between electric and
magnetic photon rays.

By contrast, electric and magnetic photon rays are reflected and refracted
in a different way by metals. This is because electric conductivity and
magnetic conductivity determine the reflection of light and they
are not identical. The electric conductivity of a metal is several
orders larger than the magnetic conductivity.

\subsection{The Formulae for Classical Electromagnetodynamics}
Let $J^{\mu}=(P, {\bf J})$ denote the electric four-current and
$j^{\mu}=(\rho , {\bf j})$ the magnetic four-current. The
well-known four-potential of the electric photon is
$A^{\mu}=(\Phi , {\bf A})$. The four-potential of the magnetic photon is
$a^{\mu}=(\varphi , {\bf a})$. Expressed in three-vectors the symmetrized
Maxwell equations read,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla\cdot {\bf E} & = & P \\
\nabla\cdot {\bf B} & = & \rho \\
\nabla\times {\bf E} & = & - {\bf j} - \partial_{t} {\bf B} \\
\nabla\times {\bf B} & = & + {\bf J} + \partial_{t} {\bf E}
\end{eqnarray}
and the relations between field strengths and potentials are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf E} & = & - \nabla\Phi - \partial_{t} {\bf A} -\nabla\times {\bf a} \\
{\bf B} & = & - \nabla\varphi - \partial_{t} {\bf a} +\nabla\times {\bf A}.
\end{eqnarray}
By using the tensors
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{\mu\nu} & \equiv & \partial^{\mu}A^{\nu}- \partial^{\nu}A^{\mu} \\
f^{\mu\nu} & \equiv & \partial^{\mu}a^{\nu}- \partial^{\nu}a^{\mu}
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the two Maxwell equations
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\mu} & = & \partial_{\nu}F^{\nu\mu} = \partial^{2}A^{\mu}
- \partial^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu} \\
j^{\mu} & = & \partial_{\nu}f^{\nu\mu} = \partial^{2}a^{\mu}
- \partial^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}a_{\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
Evidently, the two Maxwell equations are invariant under the
$U(1)\times U'(1)$ gauge transformations
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{\mu} & \rightarrow & A^{\mu}-\partial^{\mu}\Lambda \\
a^{\mu} & \rightarrow & a^{\mu}-\partial^{\mu}\lambda .
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, the four-currents satisfy the continuity equations
\begin{equation}
0=\partial_{\mu}J^{\mu}= \partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}.
\end{equation}
The electric and magnetic field are related to the tensors above by
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{i} & = & F^{i0}- \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{ijk}f_{jk} \\
B^{i} & = & f^{i0}+ \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{ijk}F_{jk}.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the Lorentz force is
\begin{equation}
K^{\mu} = Q(F^{\mu\nu}+ \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}
f_{\varrho\sigma})u_{\nu}
+ q(f^{\mu\nu}- \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}
F_{\varrho\sigma})u_{\nu},
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ denotes the totally
antisymmetric tensor.

\section{Arguments for an Absolute Rest Frame}

\noindent
Soon after I presented my model of magnetic monopoles \cite{1}, I
learned that the main obstacle for most physicists to accept my
model was that it requires an absolute rest frame. For this reason,
I will present the arguments for an absolute frame in this
section. The first subsection deals with the classical arguments,
the second subsection deals with the arguments based on General Relativity
and relativistic cosmology.

\subsection{Space and Time Before General Relativity}

According to Aristotle, the Earth was resting in the centre of the universe.
He considered the terrestrial frame as a preferred frame and all motion
relative to the Earth as absolute motion. Space and time were absolute
\cite{Aristotle}.

In the days of Galileo the heliocentric model of Copernicus
\cite{Copernicus} was valid. The Sun was thought to be resting within the
centre of the universe and defining a preferred frame. Galileo argued that
only relative motion was observed but not absolute motion. However, to
fix motion he considered it as necessary to have not only relative motion,
but also absolute motion \cite{Galileo}.

Newton introduced the mathematical description of Galileo's kinematics.
His equations described only relative motion. Absolute motion did not
appear in his equations \cite{Newton}.

This inspired Leibniz to suggest that absolute motion is not required
by the classical mechanics introduced by Galileo and Newton \cite{Leibniz}.

Huyghens introduced the wave theory of light. According to his theory,
light waves propagate via oscillations of a new medium which consists
of very tiny particles, which he named aether particles. He considered
the rest frame of the luminiferous aether as a preferred frame
\cite{Huyghens}.

The aether concept reappeared in Maxwell's theory of classical
electrodynamics \cite{Maxwell}. Faraday \cite{Faraday} unified Coulomb's
theory of electricity \cite{Coulomb} with Amp\`ere's theory of magnetism
\cite{Ampere}. Maxwell unified Faraday's
theory with Huyghens' wave theory of light, where in Maxwell's theory
light is considered as an oscillating electromagnetic wave which
propagates through the luminiferous aether of Huyghens.

We all know that the classical kinematics was replaced by Einstein's
Special Relativity \cite{SR}. Less known is that Special Relativity is not
able to answer several problems that were explained by classical mechanics.

According to the relativity principle of Special Relativity, all inertial
frames are equivalent, there is no preferred frame. Absolute motion is not
required, only the relative motion between the inertial frames is needed.
The postulated absence of an absolute frame prohibits the existence of
an aether \cite{SR}.

According to Special Relativity, each inertial frame has its own relative
time. One can infer via the
Lorentz transformations \cite{Lorentz} on the time of the other inertial
frames. Absolute space and time do not exist. Furthermore, space is
homogeneous and isotropic, there does not exist any rotational axis of
the universe.

It is often believed that the Michelson-Morley experiment \cite{Michelson}
confirmed the relativity principle and refuted the existence of a
preferred frame. This believe is not correct. In fact, the result of
the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a preferred
frame only if Galilei invariance is assumed. The experiment can be
completely explained by using Lorentz invariance alone, the relativity
principle is not required.

By the way, the relativity principle is not a phenomenon that belongs
solely to Special Relativity. According to Leibniz it can be applied also
to classical mechanics.

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has three problems.

(i) The space of Special Relativity is empty. There are no entities apart
from the observers and the observed objects in the inertial frames.
By contrast, the space of classical mechanics can be filled with, say,
radiation or turbulent fluids.

(ii) Without the concept of an aether Special Relativity can only
describe but not explain why electric and magnetic fields oscillate in
propagating light waves.

(iii) Special Relativity does not satisfy the equivalence principle
\cite{EP} of General Relativity, according to which inertial mass and
gravitational mass are identical. Special Relativity considers only
inertial mass.

Special Relativity is a valid approximation of reality which is appropriate
for the description of most of the physical phenomena examined until
the beginning of the twenty-first century. However, the macroscopic
properties of space and time are better described by General Relativity.

\subsection{General Relativity: Absolute Space and Time}

\noindent
In 1915 Einstein presented the field equations of General Relativity
\cite{EFE} and in 1916 he presented the first comprehensive article on
his theory \cite{GR}. In a later work he showed an analogy between
Maxwell's theory and General Relativity. The solutions of the free
Maxwell equations are electromagnetic waves while the solutions of the
free Einstein field equations are gravitational waves which propagate
on an oscillating metric \cite{grwaves}. As a consequence, Einstein
called space the aether of General Relativity \cite{aether}. However,
even within the framework of General Relativity do electromagnetic waves
not propagate through a luminiferous aether.

Einstein applied the field equations of General Relativity on the entire
universe \cite{cosmo}. He presented a solution of a homogeneous,
isotropic, and static universe, where the space has a positive
curvature. This model became known as the Einstein universe. However,
de Sitter has shown that the Einstein universe is not stable against
density fluctuations \cite{desitter}.

This problem was solved by Friedmann and Lema\^itre who suggested a
homogeneous and isotropic expanding universe where the space is curved
\cite{Friedmann}.

Robertson and Walker presented a metric for a homogeneous and isotropic
universe \cite{Robertson}. According to G\"odel this metric requires an
absolute time \cite{Godel}. In any homogeneous and isotropic cosmology
the Hubble constant \cite{Hubble} and its inverse, the Hubble age of
the universe, are absolute and not relative quantities. In the
Friedmann-Lema\^itre universe there exists a relation between the actual
age of the universe and the Hubble age.

According to Bondi and Gold, a preferred motion is given at each point
of space by cosmological observations, namely the redshift-distance
relation generated by the Hubble effect. It appears isotropic only
for a unique rest frame \cite{Bondi}.

I argued that the Friedmann-Lema\^itre universe has a finite age and
therefore a finite light cone. The centre-of-mass frame of this Hubble
sphere can be regarded as a preferred frame \cite{1}.

After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation by
Penzias and Wilson \cite{Penzias}, it was predicted that it should have
a dipole anisotropy generated by the Doppler effect by the Earth's
motion. This dipole anisotropy was predicted in accordance with
Lorentz invariance \cite{PWBC} and later discovered experimentally
\cite{Smoot}. Peebles called these experiments ``aether drift
experiments'' \cite{Peebles}.

The preferred frames defined by the Robertson-Walker metric, the
Hubble effect, and the cosmic microwave background radiation are
probably identical. In this case the absolute motion of the Sun was
determined by the dipole anisotropy experiments of the
cosmic microwave background radiation to be $(371 \pm 1)$ km/s.

\section{Three Experiments to Verify the Magnetic Photon Rays}
\subsection{How to Verify the Magnetic Photon Rays}

\noindent
The easiest test to verify/falsify the magnetic photon is to illuminate a
metal foil of thickness $1,\ldots ,100\mu$m by a laser beam (or any other
bright light source) and to place a detector (avalanche diode or
photomultiplier tube) behind the foil. If a single foil is used, then the
expected reflection losses are less than 1\%. If a laser beam of the
visible light is used, then the absorption losses are less than 15\%. My
model \cite{1} predicts the detected intensity of the radiation to be
\begin{equation}
f = r(v/c)^4
\end{equation}
times the intensity that would be detected
if the metal foil were removed and the laser beam would directly illuminate
the detector. Here
\begin{equation}
v = v_{sun} + v_{earth}\cos (2\pi t/T_e ) \cos ( \varphi_{ec})
+ v_{rotation} \cos(2\pi t/T_{rot}) \cos ( \varphi_{eq})
\end{equation}
is the absolute velocity of the laboratory. The absolute velocity
of the Sun as measured by the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave
background radiation is
\begin{equation}
v_{sun} = (371 \pm 0.5) \mbox{km/s}.
\end{equation}
The mean velocity of the Earth around the Sun is
\begin{equation}
v_{earth} = 30 \mbox{km/s}.
\end{equation}
The rotation velocity of the Earth is
\begin{equation}
v_{rotation} = 0.5 \mbox{km/s} \cos ( \varphi ).
\end{equation}
The latitude of the dipole with respect to the ecliptic is
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{ec} = 15^{\circ}.
\end{equation}
The latitude of the dipole with respect to the equator (declination) is
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{eq} = 7^{\circ}.
\end{equation}
The latitude of the laboratory is
\begin{equation}
\varphi = 48^{\circ}
\end{equation}
for Strassbourg and Vienna and $\varphi = 43^{\circ}$ for Madison.
The sidereal year is
\begin{equation}
T_e = 365.24 \mbox{days}.
\end{equation}
A sidereal day is
\begin{equation}
T_{rot} = 23\mbox{h}~ 56\mbox{min}.
\end{equation}
The zero point of the time, $t = 0$, is reached on December 9 at 0:00 local
time. The speed of light is denoted by $c$. The factor for losses by
reflection and absorption of magnetic photon rays of the visible light
for a metal foil of thickness $1, \ldots ,100 \mu$m is
\begin{equation}
r = 0.8, \ldots , 1.0 .
\end{equation}
To conclude, my model \cite{1} predicts the value $f\sim 10^{-12}$.

More precisely, this value is correct only for interactions of
free electric charges with photons. In these situations the cross-section
of magnetic photons is reduced by the factor $(v/c)^{2}$ for emission
and absorption processes with respect to the cross-section of
magnetic photons of the same energy. Since in metals we do not have
free electric charges nor free photons, this value has to be modified.

\subsection{The Experiment by August Kundt}

\noindent
In Strassbourg in 1885, August Kundt \cite{Kundt} passed sunlight through
red glass, a polarizing
Nicol, and platinized glass which was covered by an iron layer. The entire
experimental setup was placed within a magnetic field. With the naked eye,
Kundt measured the Faraday rotation of the polarization plane generated by
the transmission of the sunlight through the iron layer. His result was a
constant maximum rotation of the polarization plane per length of
$418,000^{\circ}$/cm or $1^{\circ}$ per 23.9nm. He verified this result
until thicknesses of up to 210nm and rotations of up to $9^{\circ}$.

In one case, on a very clear day, he observed the penetrating sunlight for
rotations of up to $12^{\circ}$. Unfortunately, he has not given the
thickness of this particular iron layer he used. But if his result of a
constant maximum rotation per length can be applied, then the corresponding
layer thickness was $\sim 290$nm.

Let us recapitulate some classical electrodynamics to determine the
behavior of light within iron. The penetration depth of light in a
conductor is
\be
\delta = \frac{\lambda}{2\pi\gamma},
\ee
where the wavelength in vacuum can be expressed by its frequency
according to $\lambda = 1/ \sqrt{\nu^2 \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}$. The
extinction coefficient is
\be
\gamma = \frac{n}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ -1 + \left( 1+ \left(
\frac{\sigma}{2\pi\nu\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_r} \right)^2 \right) ^{1/2}
\right] ^{1/2} ,
\ee
where the refractive index is $n=\sqrt{\varepsilon_r \mu_r }$. For
metals we get the very good approximation
\be
\delta\approx\left( \frac{1}{\pi\mu_0\mu_r\sigma\nu} \right) ^{1/2}.
\ee
The specific resistance of iron is
\be
1/ \sigma = 8.7\times 10^{-8}\Omega\mbox{m},
\ee
its permeability is $\mu_r \geq 1$. For red light of $\lambda =630$nm
and $\nu =4.8\times 10^{14}$Hz we get the penetration depth
\be
\delta = 6.9\mbox{nm}.
\ee

Only a small fraction of the sunlight can enter the iron layer. Three
effects have to be considered. (i) The red glass allows the penetration
of about $\varepsilon_1 \sim 50\% $ of the sunlight only. (ii) Only
$\varepsilon_2 =2/ \pi \simeq 64\% $ of
the sunlight can penetrate the polarization filter. (iii) Reflection
losses at the surface of the iron layer have to be considered. The
refractive index for electric photon light is given by
\begin{equation}
\bar n^{2} = \frac{n^{2}}{2} \left( 1+ \sqrt{ 1+ \left(
\frac{\sigma}{2\pi\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_r \nu} \right)^{2}} \right).
\end{equation}
For metals we get the very good approximation
\begin{equation}
\bar n \simeq \sqrt{ \frac{\mu_r \sigma}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 \nu}}.
\end{equation}
The fraction of the sunlight which is not reflected is
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_3 = \frac{2}{1+ \bar n}=
\frac{2}{1+ \sqrt{\mu_r \sigma /(4\pi\varepsilon_0 \nu )}}
\end{equation}
and therefore $\varepsilon_3 \simeq 0.13$ for the system considered. Taken
together,
the three effects allow only
$\varepsilon_1 \varepsilon_2 \varepsilon_3 \sim 4\% $
of the sunlight to enter the iron layer.

The detection limit of the naked eye is $10^{-13}$ times the brightness
of sunlight provided the light source is pointlike. For an extended
source the detection limit depends on the integral and the surface
brightness. The detection limit for a source as extended as the Sun
(0.5$^{\circ}$ diameter) is $l_d \sim 10^{-12}$ times the brightness of
sunlight. If
sunlight is passed through an iron layer (or foil, respectively), then it
is detectable with the naked eye only if it has passed not more than
\be
( \ln (1/l_d ) + \ln ( \varepsilon_1 \varepsilon_2 \varepsilon_3 )) \delta
\sim 170 \mbox{nm}.
\ee
Reflection losses by haze in the atmosphere further reduce this value.

Kundt's observation of sunlight which penetrated through iron layers of
up to 290nm thickness
can hardly be explained by classical electrodynamics.
Air bubbles within the metal layers cannot explain Kundt's observation,
because air does not generate such a large rotation. Impurities, such
as glass, which do generate an additional rotation, cannot completely be
ruled out as the explanation. However, impurities are not a likely
explanation, because Kundt was able to reproduce his observation by using
several layers which he examined at various places.

Quantum effects cannot explain the observation, because they decrease
the penetration depth, whereas an increment would be required.

The observation may become understandable if Kundt has observed a
second kind of electromagnetic radiation, the magnetic photon rays.
I predict their penetration depth to be
\be
\delta_m = \delta (c/v)^2 \sim 5\mbox{mm}.
\ee
To learn whether Kundt has indeed observed magnetic photon rays, his
experiment has to be repeated.

\subsection{The Experiment by Alipasha Vaziri}

\noindent
On February 22, 2002 between 15:30 and 16:30 local time
of Vienna/Austria, Alipasha Vaziri tried an experiment
to verify my predicted magnetic photon rays.
As a light source he used a He-Ne laser of 1 milli Watt
power and wavelength 632 nano meters. He coupled the
light in a multi mode optical fibre with coupling
efficiency of 70\%. The light came out at the other end.
After 3 centi meters he coupled the light in a second
multi mode glass fibre, also with coupling efficiency
of 70\%. In front of the second optical fibre he
placed an aluminium foil to shield the electric photon
light. Behind the second optical fibre he placed an
avalanche diode with 30\% efficiency for electric photon
light of 632 nano meters wavelength as a detector.

He did four sets of runs. Each run lasted for 10 seconds.

In the first set the laser illuminated the foil. The
effective power of the laser was 56 micro Watts, because
the sensitive area of the optical fibres was smaller than
the cross-section of the laser beam.
The counts of the 15 runs were:
\begin{center}
350, 341, 339, 338, 337, 338, 331, 333, 336, 333,
325, 327, 341, 335, 343.
\end{center}
For the second set the laser was off. The counts of the
14 runs were:
\begin{center}
344, 332, 329, 337, 332, 336, 338, 336, 343, 336,
330, 344, 333, 338.
\end{center}
For the third set of experiments, he placed optical
lenses between the two optical fibres to focus the
laser beam. The effective power of the laser was 1
milli Watt. The counts of these 17 foreground runs
were:
\begin{center}
367, 343, 345, 356, 339, 348, 345, 355, 353, 358,
346, 352, 345, 347, 342, 342, 345.
\end{center}
For the fourth set, the optical lenses were placed
between the optical fibres and the laser was off.
The counts of the 15 runs were:
\begin{center}
336, 337, 330, 345, 341, 345, 340, 337, 339, 343,
345, 337, 332, 340, 330.
\end{center}
In total, he made 44 background runs and 17 foreground
runs. The mean background count rates were:
\begin{center}
set 1: 33.65 counts/s

set 2: 33.63 counts/s

set 4: 33.85 counts/s

mean : 33.71 counts/s
\end{center}
The mean foreground count rate was:
\begin{center}
set 3: 34.87 counts/s
\end{center}
Therefore the excessive count rate was 1.16 counts/s.

The error bar can be estimated as follows. Two thirds
of all data points should be within the one-sigma
error bar, 95\% of all data points should be within
the two-sigma error bar. The individual error bar
is therefore 6 counts for the 44 background runs
and 7 counts for the 17 foreground runs. The total
error bar can be calculated by dividing the
individual error bar through the square-root of the
number of runs. Hence, the total error bar for the
background is 0.9 counts, that of the foreground is
1.7 counts.

The count rates are therefore:
\begin{center}
foreground : (34.87 $\pm$ 0.17) counts/s

background : (33.71 $\pm$ 0.09) counts/s

excess rate: ( 1.16 $\pm$ 0.19) counts/s
\end{center}
The statistical significance of the result is
therefore 6 sigma.

There is another interesting point. All of the 17
foreground counts are larger than the mean of the 44
background counts. The probability for this by pure
chance is $1 : 2^{17} = 1 : 131072$.

It is difficult to explain the small excess rate by
conventional effects.

(1) The statistical significance is 6 standard
deviations.

(2) The foreground runs were made between the second
and third background measurements. The mean count
rate of set 4, which directly followed the foreground
set, is close to those of sets 1 and 2. Therefore a
variability of the detector system (dark count rate)
is not a likely explanation.

(3) Background set 4 was started directly after the
foreground set was terminated. The count rate dropped
simultaneously. Therefore it is unlikely that the
excessive count rate resulted from electronic noise
by equipment either inside or outside the laboratory.

(4) The two optical lenses were used to focus the laser
beam, so they should have decreased effects of
stray light. It is therefore unlikely that the
excess is due to stray light.

(5) The penetration depth of electric photon light of
632 nano meters in aluminium is only 3.68 nano meters.
Hence, the excess rate is not due to transmitted
electric photon light.

(6) The excessive count rate is at least 7 orders of
magnitude too small to be explicable by electric
photon light which transmitted the aluminium foil
through a pinhole or hairline crack, respectively.

(7) Because of the second optical fibre, the electric
photon light of the laser cannot have heated the
avalanche detector.

\subsection{The Experiment by Roderic Lakes}

\noindent
The third experiment was performed by Roderic Lakes
in Madison/Wisconsin in June 2002. As a light source
he used a diode pumped YAG laser at 532 nano meters
with 80 milli Watts of power. The detector was a
photomultiplier with a quantum efficiency of 10\% for
green electric photon light and a variable dark count
rate between 5 and 30 counts/s. The diameter of the
detector was 6.5 milli meters. An aluminium foil
was placed directly in front of the detector.

Roderic Lakes made 4 foreground sets and 3 background
sets. Each set consisted of 6 runs. Each run lasted for
10 seconds. The foreground and background sets
alternated.

The measured effect of the laser was 5 counts per second
above background.

It is difficult to explain this excess by conventional
effects.

(1) The foreground consisted of 5400 counts within 240 seconds.
The mean foreground count rate was significantly greater than the
mean background count rate. The background consisted of only 3200
counts within 180 seconds.

(2) Foreground and background measurements alternated.
Therefore a variability of the detector is unlikely.
For the same reason, it is unlikely that the excess
results from noise of equipment either inside or
outside the laboratory.

(3) The penetration depth of electric photon light of
532 nano meters in aluminium is only 3.38 nano meters.
Hence, the excess rate is not due to transmitted
electric photon light.

(4) The excessive count rate is at least 8 orders of
magnitude too small to be explicable by electric
photon light which transmitted the aluminium foil
through a pinhole or hairline crack, respectively.

I have to point out that neither Alipasha Vaziri nor
Roderic Lakes claim to have detected a new effect. They
wrote me that they disagree with my interpretation of their
experiments (personal communications from Alipasha Vaziri
and Roderic Lakes, June 12, 2003). Further experiments have to
be done to ensure that the excessive count rates have
indeed been generated by magnetic photon rays.

\section{Consequences}

The observation of magnetic photon rays would be a multi-dimensional
revolution in physics. Its implications would be far-reaching.

(1) The experiment would provide evidence of a second kind of electromagnetic
radiation. The penetration depth of these magnetic photon rays is
roughly one million times greater than that of
electric photon light of the same wavelength. Hence, these new rays may find
applications in medicine where X-ray and ultrasonic diagnostics are
not useful. X-ray examinations include a high risk of radiation damages,
because the examination of teeth requires high intensities of
X-rays and genitals are too sensible to radiation damages. Examinations
of bones and the brain may also become possible.

(2) A positive result would provide evidence of an extension of (quantum)
electrodynamics which includes a symmetrization of Maxwell's
equations from 1873 \cite{Maxwell}.

(3) My model describes both an electric current and a magnetic current,
even in experimental situations which do not include magnetic charges.
This new magnetic current has a larger specific resistance in conductors
than the electric current. It may find applications in electronics.

(4) The intensity of the magnetic photon rays should depend on
the absolute velocity of the laboratory. The existence of the
absolute velocity would violate Einstein's relativity principle of special
relativity from 1905 \cite{SR}. It would be interesting to learn whether
there exist further effects of absolute motion.

(5) The supposed non-existence of an absolute rest frame was the only
argument against the existence of a luminiferous aether \cite{SR}. If the
absolute velocity does exist, we have to ask whether aether
exists and what its nature is.

(6) Magnetic photon rays may contribute to our understanding of
several astrophysical and high energy particle physics phenomena
where relativistic absolute velocities appear and where electric
and magnetic photon rays are expected to be created in comparable
intensities.

\section{Acknowledgements}

\noindent
I would like to thank Alipasha Vaziri (University of Vienna/Austria)
and Roderic Lakes (University of Wisconsin/Madison) who tried the
experiments to verify the magnetic photon rays.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{QED}
S. Tomonaga, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 74}, 224 (1948). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 74}, 1439 (1948). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 75}, 651 (1949). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 76}, 790 (1949). \\
R. P. Feynman, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 76}, 749 (1949). \\
R. P. Feynman, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 76}, 769 (1949). \\
F. J. Dyson, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 75}, 486 (1949). \\
F. J. Dyson, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 75}, 1736 (1949).
\bibitem{Dirac}
P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Proc. R. Soc. A} {\bf 133}, 60 (1931).
\bibitem{Cabibbo}
N. Cabibbo and E. Ferrari, {\it Nuovo Cim.} {\bf 23}, 1147 (1962).
\bibitem{later}
C. R. Hagen, {\it Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 140}, 804 (1965). \\
D. J. Candlin, {\it Nuovo Cim.} {\bf 37}, 1390 (1965).\\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 144}, 1087 (1966). \\
D. Rosenbaum, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 147}, 891 (1966). \\
F. Rohrlich, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 150}, 1104 (1966). \\
T. M. Yan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 150}, 1349 (1966). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 151}, 1048 (1966). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 151}, 1055 (1966). \\
T. M. Yan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 155}, 1423 (1967). \\
J. G. Taylor, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 18}, 713 (1967). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 173}, 1536 (1968). \\
D. Zwanziger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 176}, 1489 (1968). \\
A. Rabl, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 179}, 1363 (1969). \\
M. Y. Han and L. C. Biedenharn, {\it Nuovo Cim. A} {\bf 2}, 544 (1971). \\
D. Zwanziger, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 3}, 880 (1971). \\
D. Zwanziger, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 6}, 458 (1972). \\
P. Vinciarelli, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 6}, 3419 (1972). \\
J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 12}, 3105 (1975). \\
R. Mignani, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 13}, 2437 (1976). \\
J. Schwinger, K. A. Milton, W. Y. Tsai, L. L. De Raad, and D. C. Clark,
{\it Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)} {\bf 101}, 451 (1976). \\
W. Barker and F. Graziani, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 18}, 3849 (1978). \\
W. Barker and F. Graziani, {\it Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 46}, 1111 (1978). \\
R. A. Brandt, F. Neri, and D. Zwanziger, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 19},
1153 (1979). \\
M. Blagojevi\'c and P. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 157}, 234
(1988). \\
R. T. Hammond, {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 23}, 973 (1991). \\
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Fusion Facts} {\bf 6} (11), 20 (1995). \\
D. Singleton, {\it Int. J. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 34}, 37 (1995). \\
D. Singleton, {\it Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 64}, 452 (1996). \\
D. Singleton, {\it Int. J. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 35}, 2419 (1996). \\
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Cold Fusion} {\bf 18}, 22 (1996). \\
P. C. R. Cardoso de Mello, S. Carneiro, and M. C. Nemes,
{\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 384}, 197 (1996). \\
M. Israelit, {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 29}, 1411 (1997). \\
M. Israelit, {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 29}, 1597 (1997). \\
M. Israelit, {\it Found. Phys.} {\bf 28}, 205 (1998). \\
M. Israelit, {\it Hadronic J.} {\bf 21}, 75 (1998). \\
S. Carneiro, {\it J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 9807}, 022 (1998). \\
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. A} {\bf 14}, 2531 (1999). \\
L. Gamberg and K. A. Milton, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 61}, 075013 (2000). \\
K. Li and C. M. Naon, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 16}, 1671 (2001). \\
K. Li, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 17}, 2647 (2002). \\
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Electromagnetic Phenomena} {\bf 3} (9), 86 (2003).
\bibitem{Salam}
A. Salam, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}, 683 (1966).
\bibitem{1}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 3153 (1997).
\bibitem{photon}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 132 (1905).
\bibitem{Penzias}
A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 142}, 419 (1965).
\bibitem{Smoot}
G. F. Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and R. A. Muller,
{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 39}, 898 (1977).
\bibitem{Aristotle}
Aristotle, De caelo (4th century BC).
\bibitem{Copernicus}
N. Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543).
\bibitem{Galileo}
G. Galilei, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove
scienze attenenti alla meccanica ed i movimente locali (Leida, Elsevier, 1638).
\bibitem{Newton}
I. Newton, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (London, 1687).
\bibitem{Leibniz}
G. W. Leibniz, Third letter to S. Clarke (1716).
\bibitem{Huyghens}
C. Huyghens, Trait\'e de la lumi\`ere (1690).
\bibitem{Maxwell}
J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism
(Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873).
\bibitem{Faraday}
M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. I
(London, Taylor and Francis, 1839). \\
M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. II
(London, Richard and John Edward Taylor, 1844). \\
M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. III
(London, Taylor and Francis, 1855).
\bibitem{Coulomb}
C. A. Coulomb, {\it Hist. M\'em. l'Acad. R. Sci.}, p. 569 (1785). \\
C. A. Coulomb, {\it Hist. M\'em. l'Acad. R. Sci.}, p. 578 (1785). \\
C. A. Coulomb, {\it Hist. M\'em. l'Acad. R. Sci.}, p. 612 (1785). \\
C. A. Coulomb, {\it Hist. M\'em. l'Acad. R. Sci.}, p. 67 (1786).
\bibitem{Ampere}
A.-M. Amp\`ere, {\it Ann. Chim. Phys.} {\bf 15}, 59 (1820). \\
A.-M. Amp\`ere, {\it Ann. Chim. Phys.} {\bf 15}, 170 (1820).
\bibitem{SR}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 891 (1905).
\bibitem{Lorentz}
J. Larmor, Aether and Matter (Cambridge, University Press, 1900). \\
H. A. Lorentz, {\it Proc. R. Acad. Amsterdam} {\bf 6}, 809 (1904).
\bibitem{Michelson}
A. A. Michelson, {\it Am. J. Sci.} {\bf 22}, 120 (1881). \\
A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, {\it Am. J. Sci.} {\bf 34}, 333 (1887).
\bibitem{EP}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 38}, 355 (1912).
\bibitem{EFE}
A. Einstein, {\it S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.}, p. 844 (1915).
\bibitem{GR}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 49}, 769 (1916).
\bibitem{grwaves}
A. Einstein, {\it S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.}, p. 154 (1918).
\bibitem{aether}
A. Einstein, \"Ather und Relativit\"atstheorie
(Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1920).
\bibitem{cosmo}
A. Einstein, {\it S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.}, p. 142 (1917).
\bibitem{desitter}
W. de Sitter, {\it Konin. Ned. Akad. Wetenschappen} {\bf 19}, 1217 (1917).
\bibitem{Friedmann}
A. Friedmann, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 10}, 377 (1922). \\
A. Friedmann, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 21}, 326 (1924). \\
G. Lema\^itre, {\it Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux.} {\bf 47}, 49 (1927).
\bibitem{Robertson}
H. P. Robertson, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 82}, 284 (1935). \\
A. G. Walker, {\it Proc. London Math. Soc.} {\bf 42}, 90 (1936).
\bibitem{Godel}
K. G\"odel, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 21}, 447 (1949).
\bibitem{Hubble}
E. P. Hubble, {\it Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 15}, 168 (1929).
\bibitem{Bondi}
H. Bondi and T. Gold, {\it Nature} {\bf 169}, 146 (1952).
\bibitem{PWBC}
P. J. E. Peebles and D. T. Wilkinson, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 174}, 2168
(1968). \\
R. N. Bracewell and E. K. Conklin, {\it Nature} {\bf 219}, 1343 (1968).
\bibitem{Peebles}
P. J. E. Peebles, Physical Cosmology (Princeton, University Press, 1971).
\bibitem{Kundt}
A. Kundt, {\it S.-B. Preu{\ss}. Acad. Wiss.} (1885) p. 1055. \\
A. Kundt, {\it Wied. Ann. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 27}, 191 (1886).

\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

\noindent
PACS: 12.38.Lg, 12.39.Mk, 12.40.Yx

\vskip 1cm

\noindent
Keywords: pentaquark, diquarks

\vskip 1cm

\noindent
Diakonov et al. \cite{1} predicted a pentaquark with the quark content
$uudd\bar s$. They predicted its spin to be $J=1/2$, its parity to be
positive,
its isospin to be $I=0$, its hypercharge to be $Y=2$, its strangeness
to be $S=+1$, its electric charge to be $Q=+e$, its mass to be
$M=1530$MeV, and its width to be $\Gamma\le 15$MeV. This pentaquark is
now named $\Theta^{+}$.

The $\Theta^{+}$ has been detected by the LEPS Collaboration \cite{2} and
confirmed by the DIANA Collaboration \cite{3}, the CLAS Collaboration
\cite{4,5}, the SAPHIR Collaboration \cite{6}, the HERMES Collaboration
\cite{7}, the SVD Collaboration \cite{8}, the COSY-TOF Collaboration
\cite{9}, and by Asratyan et al. \cite{10} who examined data of the
neutrino experiments WA21, WA25, WA59, E180, and E632. These experiments
have confirmed the properties of the $\Theta^{+}$ to be $I_3 =0$, $Y=2$,
$S=+1$, $Q=+e$, $M=(1526\ldots 1555)$MeV, and $\Gamma\le 20$MeV.

Its parity has not yet been determined experimentally. The simple
quark model and the diamond structure model of the pentaquark predict
its parity to be negative \cite{11,12}. However, Diakonov et al. \cite{1}
predicted the parity of the $\Theta^{+}$ to be positive, because the
parity of the N(1710), which should be a member of the same anti-decuplet,
has positive parity.

Jaffe and Wilczek \cite{13} suggested that the pentaquark consists of
two diquarks which are bound by the antiquark. They suggested a mass
formula for the pentaquarks. The mass $M_0 = 1440$MeV is given by the
mass of the lightest pentaquark which is assumed to be the Roper N(1440).
Pentaquarks which include a strange quark instead of an up or down quark
obtain an additional mass $m_s = 95$MeV for each strange quark. Diquarks
which contain a strange quark are supposed to be less bound than diquarks
which contain only up and down quarks. Pentaquarks which contain diquarks
which include at least one strange quark obtain an additional mass
$m_{\alpha} = 60$MeV for each diquark.

Thus, one can predict the masses of the pentaquarks according to the table 1.

\begin{table}
\caption{Properties of Pentaquarks: Anti-Decuplet and Octet}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccrc}
\hline
Particle & Diquark content & Predicted mass & Observed mass \\
& (example) & (MeV) & (MeV) \\
\hline
$\Theta$ & [$ud$]~[$ud$]$\bar s$ & $M_0 + m_s = 1535$ & 1530 \\
N & [$us$]~[$ud$]$\bar s$ & $M_0 + 2m_s + m_{\alpha}= 1690$ & 1710 \\
$\Sigma$ & [$us$]~[$us$]$\bar s$ & $M_0 + 3m_s + 2m_{\alpha}= 1845$ & 1880 \\
$\Xi$ & [$us$]~[$us$]$\bar d$ & $M_0 + 2m_s + 2m_{\alpha}= 1750$ & 1770 \\
\hline
N & [$ud$]~[$ud$]$\bar d$ & $M_0 = 1440$ & 1440 \\
$\Lambda$ & [$ds$]~[$ud$]$\bar d$ & $M_0 + m_s + m_{\alpha}= 1595$ & 1600 \\
$\Sigma$ & [$us$]~[$ud$]$\bar d$ & $M_0 + m_s + m_{\alpha}= 1595$ & 1660 \\
$\Xi$ & [$ss$]~[$us$]$\bar s$ & $M_0 + 4m_s + 2m_{\alpha}= 1940$ & 1950 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The $\Theta$(1530), N(1440), N(1710), $\Lambda$(1600), $\Sigma$(1660) ,
$\Sigma$(1880) and $\Xi$(1950) are
well established particles. Recently, the CLAS Collaboration \cite{14}
observed a cascade of $\Xi^{-}$ with masses 1321, 1530, 1620, 1690,
1770, 1820, 1860, 1950, and 2030 MeV. The $\Xi$(1770) and $\Xi$(1860)
are new states.

The $\Xi^{--}$(1862) reported by the NA49 Collaboration \cite{15} does
not appear to be a member of the anti-decuplet considered in this paper.

To conclude, this model predicts the existence of the $\Xi^{--}$(1770)
and the $\Xi^{+}$(1770). Furthermore, it predicts the $\Theta$(1530),
$\Xi$(1770) and $\Xi$(1950) to have $J^{P}= {\frac{1}{2}}^{+}$.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{1}
D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, and M. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A {\bf 359}, 305 (1997).
\bibitem{2}
LEPS Coll., T. Nakano et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 012002 (2003).
\bibitem{3}
DIANA Coll., V. V. Barmin et al., Phys. At. Nucl. {\bf 66}, 1715 (2003).
\bibitem{4}
CLAS Coll., S. Stepanyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 252001 (2003).
\bibitem{5}
CLAS Coll., V. Kubarovsky et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 032001 (2004).
\bibitem{6}
SAPHIR Coll., J. Barth et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 572}, 127 (2003).
\bibitem{7}
HERMES Coll., A. Airapetian et al., hep-ex/0312044.
\bibitem{8}
SVD Coll., A. Aleev et al., hep-ex/0401024.
\bibitem{9}
COSY-TOF Coll., M. Abdel-Bary et al., hep-ex/0403011.
\bibitem{10}
A. E. Asratyan, A. G. Dolgolenko, and M. A. Kubantsev, hep-ex/0309042.
\bibitem{11}
S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 232002 (2003).
\bibitem{12}
X.-C. Song and S.-L. Zhu, hep-ph/0403093.
\bibitem{13}
R. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 232003 (2003).
\bibitem{14}
CLAS Coll., J. W. Price et al., nucl-ex/0402006.
\bibitem{15}
NA49 Coll., C. Alt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 042003 (2004).
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

\title{Location and Dating of Atlantis}
\author{Rainer W. K\"uhne \\
Vorm Holz 4, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany \\
\em kuehne70@gmx.de}

\maketitle

\vspace{1cm}

\noindent
Abstract -- I comment on the Atlantis theory of Jacques Collina-Girard
and show that
part of Plato's Atlantis report resembles historical events around 1200 BC.
Plato's description of the Athenian acropolis resembles that of the end
of the 13th century BC. The war between Atlantis and the Eastern
Mediterranean countries resembles that of the Sea Peoples around 1200 BC.
Satellite photos of Andalusia show two rectangular structures which could
be remnants of the temples of Atlantis described by Plato.

\vspace{1cm}

\noindent
Atlantis/ Gibraltar/ Andalusia/ Bronze Age

\vspace{1cm}

\section{Atlantis in the Strait of Gibraltar?}

I would like to comment on two articles on Atlantis by Jacques
Collina-Girard \cite{3, 4}.

In his dialogues ``Timaios'' and ``Critias'' Plato described the island
state of Atlantis which was defeated by the Athenians in a war
(Crit. 108e) and which soon afterwards shall have sunken into the sea
by earthquakes and floods (Tim. 25c -- d, Crit. 108e).

Collina-Girard suggests that Atlantis was an island during the ice age
which sank into the sea around 9000 BC. This previous island is now
named ``Spartel Island''.

Its location and dating can be compared with Plato's report on Atlantis.

Atlantis lay in front of the pillars of Heracles (Tim. 24e). The
geographical coordinates of the top of Spartel Island are
35$^{\circ}$55' N and 5$^{\circ}$58' W. It is 50 kilometers in the west
of the present Strait of Gibraltar.

Approximately 9000 years before Plato's dialogue (Crit. 108e) Atlantis
sank into the sea (Tim. 25d). Because of eustatic sea level rising,
Spartel Island sank around 9000 BC into the sea. Today, the top of
Spartel Island is 56 meters below the sea level.

At the former location of Atlantis the sea is now unnavigable and
impenetrable (Tim. 25d), because of impenetrable mud (Crit. 108e -- 109a).
Today, shoal water exists some 40 kilometers in the northwest of Spartel
Island.

From the island of Atlantis one could travel to other islands (Tim. 24e).
During the ice age there existed three islands in the west of Spartel
Island, one in the north and two in the east. The tops of these islands
are now 50 to 100 meters below the sea level.

The size of the plain of Atlantis was 3000 stades (550 kilometers)
times 2000 stades (370 kilometers) (Crit. 118a). The plain was surrounded
by mountains (Crit. 118b). By contrast, the size of Spartel Island was
only 14 kilometers times 5 kilometers during the Late Glacial Maximum,
21000 -- 19000 years ago.

During the ice age, Spartel Island was an ideal place for trading
between Europe and Africa. If people settled there, then some remnants
may be detected by a future expedition.

Collina-Girard suggests that the description Plato made regarding
the city and the society of Atlantis is only fiction \cite{3}.

\section{Dating of the Athenian Acropolis}

A different interpretation of Plato's Atlantis tale can be tried as follows.

As Plato described the Athenian acropolis at the time of the war
(Crit. 111e -- 112e), these events can be compared with
archaeological knowledge.

Plato mentioned the dwellings of the warriors which were in the north of
the acropolis (Crit. 112b) and built in the 15th century BC, and a spring
which was destroyed during the earthquakes of that time (Crit. 112d).
Oskar Broneer \cite{1} discovered this spring, it has been destroyed
by an earthquake at the end of the 13th century BC. Plato wrote that
these natural catastrophes have been survived only by those who were
unable to write, so that the knowledge of writing became lost (Tim. 23c).
In fact, Ventris and Chadwick \cite{14} proved that the Mycenaean
Linear B was written in an early Greek language and that in Greece
it remained in use until 1200 BC. Afterwards the Greeks had no script
until the 8th century BC.

The Athens described by Plato resembles the bronze age Athens around 1200 BC.

\section{Comparison of Atlantis and the Sea Peoples}

Marinatos \cite{9} suggested that the Atlantean warriors were identical
with the Sea Peoples. Especially the inscriptions of the temple of
Medinet Habu which were written around 1180 BC under pharaoh Ramses III
report on these Sea Peoples. They were translated by Chabas \cite{2} and
by Edgerton and Wilson \cite{5}. In the following I will compare Plato's
description of the Atlanteans with the description of the Sea Peoples
by Ramses III. Quotations of the temple inscriptions are given in the
combination of plate number and line number:

The Atlanteans fighted against Europe and Asia (Tim. 24e) and ``every
country within the mouth'', i. e. against the Eastern Mediterranean
countries (Tim. 25b). The Sea Peoples destroyed Hatti in Anatolia,
Qode and Qarkemish in northern Syria, Arzawa in southwest Anatolia,
and Alasia on Cyprus (Plate 46.16 -- 17) and fighted against Egypt.

The Atlanteans lived on an isle (Tim. 24e, 25a, 25d, Crit. 113c) und
reigned over several other islands (Tim. 25a). Also the Sea Peoples came
from islands (Pl. 37.8 -- 9, 42.3, 46.16).

The Atlanteans reigned in Africa from the pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar)
to the frontiers of Egypt (Tim. 25a -- b). The war of the Sea Peoples
against Egypt occured simultaneously with the war of the Libyan Meshwesh.
According to Ramses' report they appeared to be allied.

Atlantis consisted of ten countries (Crit. 113e -- 114a, 119b). According to
the Karnak inscription \cite{2, 11} written under pharaoh Merenptah
around 1200 BC, the Sea Peoples consisted of the Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka,
Sherden, and Shekelesh. According to Ramses III their confederation
consisted of the union of the countries of the Peleset, Theker, Shekelesh,
Denen, and Weshesh (Pl. 46).

In the case of war the Atlanteans had more than one million soldiers
(Crit. 119a -- b). Ramses III claimed to have beaten hundreds of thousands
of enemies (Pl. 18.16, 19.4 -- 5, 27.63, 32.10, 79.7, 80.36, 80.44, 101.21,
121c.7). Occationally, he spoke of millions (Pl. 27.64, 46.4, 46.6, 79.7,
101.21) and myriads (Pl. 27.64) of enemies who were numerous like locusts
(Pl. 18.16, 80.36) or grasshoppers (Pl. 27.63).

The Atlanteans had 1200 war ships (Crit. 119b). The ships of the Sea
Peoples entered deep into the delta of the Nile (Pl. 42.5) and destroyed
the Asian Arzawa, the Cypric Alasia, and the near-eastern Ugarit and Amurru.

The Atlanteans had chariots pulled by horses (Crit. 119a). The Meshwesh
had horses (Pl. 75.37) and carts (Pl. 18.16, 75.27) which, however,
were pulled by oxes (figures to Pl. 32 -- 34).

The Atlantean kings reigned for several generations (Crit. 120d -- e) and
after this they lost their good attitudes (Crit. 121a -- b). Ramses III
wrote about the Sea Peoples that they had spent a long time, a short moment
was before them, then they entered the evil period (Pl. 80.16 -- 17).

During a day and a night Atlantis sank by a earthquake into the sea
(Tim. 25c -- d). Ramses III wrote that he let the Sea Peoples see the
majesty and force of (the God of water) Nun when he breaks out and lays
their towns and villages under a surge of water (Pl. 102.21),
moreover the mountains were in travail (Pl. 19.11).

\section{Location of Atlantis}

Plato described the place of the Atlantean capital. The capital
(Crit. 115c) was on a to-all-sides flat hill which was 50 stades
(9 kilometers) distant from the sea and lay at the edge of a plain
(Crit. 113c). This plain was rectangular (Crit. 118c) , smooth and even.
The plain lay on the southern part of the isle (Crit. 118a -- b),
in its middle (Crit. 113c). The plain was surrounded by mountains
which reached until the sea (Crit. 118a). Apart from this, the country
was very high and had a steep coast (Crit. 118a).

The isle of Atlantis was divided under the ten sons of Poseidon
(Crit. 113e). The first born, Atlas, obtained the largest and best
territory, namely the region around the capital (Crit. 114a). The second
born, Gadeiros, obtained the part at the most distant edge which reached
from the pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar) to the Gadeirean country
(the region around Cadiz) (Crit. 114b).

The first born, Atlas, obtained the largest and best part. Therefore one
can assume that the later born sons obtained smaller and smaller parts.
According to this, the second born son, Gadeiros, obtained the second
largest part of the ``isle of Atlantis''. This part included the coastal
region of Spain from Cadiz to Gibraltar. Here, the term ``isle'' should be
rather understood as ``coast'' or ``region''.

The part of the country belonging to Gadeiros was only a coastal
region of length 100 kilometers. The parts of the later born sons were
probably even smaller. Thus, the part of the country belonging to Atlas
cannot have been much distant from Cadiz.

In fact, near Cadiz their exists a rectangular (Crit. 118c), smooth and
even plain which lies at a south coast (Crit. 118a -- b). It is the plain
southwest of Sevilla through which the Guadalquivir flows. Was here
the capital of Atlantis as Hennig \cite{6, 7}, Jessen \cite{8}, and
Schulten \cite{12, 13} supposed?

Satellite photos of Andalusia show a rectangular structure with a length
of 230 meters and a width of 140 meters. It could be a remnant of the
temple of Poseidon whose length was one stade (185 meters) and whose
width was three plethra (92 meters) (Crit. 116c -- d). A further
``quadratic'' structure of size 280 meters times 240 meters could be a
remnant of the temple of Cleito and Poseidon (Crit. 116c). The geographical
coordinates of the rectangular structure are 36$^{\circ}$57'25'' $\pm$ 6'' N
and 6$^{\circ}$22'58'' $\pm$ 8'' W. The centre of the ``quadratic'' structure
is 500 meters in the southwest of the centre of the rectangular structure.
These structures lie in a mud region named ``Marisma de Hinojos''. It is
within the Parque Nacional de Donana.
The distance of the structures from Spartel Island is 120 kilometers.

\section{Conclusion}

Plato's reported ancient Athens resembles that of the end of the
bronze age at the end of the 13th century BC. His claimed war between
Atlantis and the Eastern Mediterranean countries resembles that of the
Sea Peoples around 1200 BC. The Sea Peoples probably came from the
Aegaean region \cite{10}. The city and society of Atlantis may refer
to either the iron age Tartessos or a bronze age culture in southern Spain.

If the capital of Atlantis indeed existed near the mouth of the
Guadalquivir, then we suggest that Plato's Atlantis tale is based upon
an Egyptian report on the Sea Peoples and some Greek tradition on the
Athens of that time. The report on the Atlantean city and state may
refer to a Spanish city which was possibly identical with
Tartessos which was probably destroyed by Carthaginians during the
6th century BC.

\section{Acknowledgements}
I thank Werner Wickboldt for pointing out to me the structures on the
satellite photos which he interpreted as possible remnants of the
temples of Atlantis. I thank Georgeos Diaz-Montexano for showing me
independent satellite photos which confirm the existence of the two
rectangular structures.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{1}
Broneer, O., A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis,
Hesperia 8 (1939) 317 -- 429.
\bibitem{2}
Chabas, F., Etudes sur l'Antiquit\'e historique d'apr\`es les sources
\'egyptiennes et les monuments r\'eput\'es prehistoriques,
Maisonneuve, Paris, 1872.
\bibitem{3}
Collina-Girard, J., L'Atlantide devant le d\'etroit de Gibraltar?
Mythe et g\'eologie, C. R. de l'Academie des Sciences (2a)
333 (2001) 233 -- 240.
\bibitem{4}
Collina-Girard, J., La Crise Finiglaciaire \`a Gibraltar et l'Atlantide:
Tradition orale et G\'eologie?, Pr\'ehistoire Anthropologie
M\'editerran\'eennes T. 10 -- 11 (2001 -- 2002) 53 -- 60.
\bibitem{5}
Edgerton, W. F., Wilson, J. A., Historical Records of Ramses III.
The Texts in Medinet Habu, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1936.
\bibitem{6}
Hennig, R., Das R\"atsel der Atlantis, Meereskunde 14 (1925) 1 -- 29.
\bibitem{7}
Hennig, R., Zum Verst\"andnis des Begriffs ``S\"aulen'' in der
antiken Geographie, Petermanns geographische Mitteilungen
73 (1927) 80 -- 87.
\bibitem{8}
Jessen, O., Tartessos-Atlantis, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft f\"ur
Erdkunde (1925) 184.
\bibitem{9}
Marinatos, S., Peri ton Thrulon tes Atlantidos, Kretica Chronica
4 (1950) 195 -- 213.
\bibitem{10}
Maspero, G., Review of F. Chabas's Etudes, Revue Critique d'Histoire
et de Litt\'erature (1873) 81 -- 86.
\bibitem{11}
Roug\'e, E. de, Extraits d'un m\'emoire sur les attaques dirig\'ees
contre l'Egypte par les peuples de la M\'editerranee vers le XXVe
si\`ecle avant notre \`ere, Didier, Paris, 1867.
\bibitem{12}
Schulten, A., Tartessos und Atlantis, Petermanns geographische
Mitteilungen 73 (1927) 284 -- 288.
\bibitem{13}
Schulten, A., Atlantis, Rheinisches Museum f\"ur Philologie
88 (1939) 326 -- 346.
\bibitem{14}
Ventris, M., Chadwick, J., Evidence for Greek Dialect in the
Mycenaean Archives, Journal of Hellenic Studies 73 (1953) 86 -- 103.
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

Press Release

info@hbg.dpa.de
info@dpa.de
info@tdb.dpa.de
aktuelles@ddp.de
chefredaktion@apa.at
kultur@apa.at
pr@ap.org
editor@reuters.com
singapore.newsroom@reuters.com
pwoods@cp.org
copy@pa.press.net
presse@itar-tass.com
tips@upi.com
kaigai.job@kyodonews.jp
Contact@afp.com
De.kontakt@reuters.com
skr-em@sda-ats.ch
Newseditor@your.abc.net.au
xinhua@xinhua.org
irnanet@irna.net
ape@ana.gr

scinews@sciserv.org
spie@spie.org
editor@sciencedaily.com

ty_trippet@timeinc.com
debra_richman@timeinc.com
jennifer_zawadzinski@timeinc.com
karen_palmer@timeinc.com
diana_pearson@timeinc.com
Editors@newsweek.com
DieZeit@zeit.de
zeitiminternet@zeit.de
presse@stern.de
Spiegel@spiegel.de
Spiegel_online@spiegel.de
Marion_Flickenschild@spiegel.de
Mail@spiegel-tv.de
Redaktion_mm_online@manager-magazin.de
redaktion@focus.de
wgloede@adweek.com
mburgi@adweek.com

b.grueskin@wsj.com
dave.pettit@wsj.com
online.editors@barrons.com
randy.kilgore@wsj.com
ken.ficara@wsj.com
michael.henry@wsj.com
nywireroom@dowjones.com
presse@ftd.de
info@ftd.de

pressedienst@DasErste.de
pressestelle@ard.de
alpha.oesterreich@orf.at
office@tw1.at
atre.oesterreich@orf.at
online@orf.at
teletext@orf.at
oe1.online@orf.at
Info@n-tv.de
CNN@cnn.com
newsonline@bbc.co.uk
speakout@foxnews.com
cable@msnbc.com
world@msnbc.com
peterjennings@worldnewstonight.abcnews.com
newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk
info@bbc.co.uk
eason.jordan@turner.com
tom.johnson@turner.com
rick.davis@turner.com
gerald.levin@twi.com
community@cnn.com

Editor@wired.com
Pressreleases@smh.com.au
weekly@guardian.co.uk
publisher@nytimes.com
president@nytimes.com
oped@nytimes.com
editorial@nytimes.com
abramowitz@washpost.com
allenh@washpost.com
news@edit.nydailynews.com
foreign.news@thetimes.co.uk
online.editor@thetimes.co.uk
mirror@wijeya.lk
letters@htimes.com
epage@bhamnews.com
kseitz@postherald.com
soundoff@sunherald.com
feedback@djournal.com
letters@usnews.com
editor@usatoday.com
ombudsman@npr.org
letters@latimes.com
info@bild.t-online.de
redaktion@express.de
pri@myfaz.net
mg@myfaz.net
cop@myfaz.net
redaktion@welt.de
redaktion@bayernkurier.de
redaktion@stz.zgs.de
redaktion@dd-v.de
feuilleton@nd-online.de
redaktion@nzz.ch
online@fr-aktuell.de
internet@diepresse.com
zentralredaktion@waz.de
wissenschaft@waz.de
redaktion@tagesspiegel.de
chefred@taz.de
haz@madsack.de
online@haz.de
redaktion@sueddeutsche.de
redaktion@express.de
redaktion@kleinezeitung.at
kultur@kronenzeitung.at
chefredaktion@kronenzeitung.at
redaktion@bzv.de
office@telekurier.at
profil@telekurier.at
online@rp-online.de
Redaktion@BILD.de
handelsblatt@vhb.de
online@capital.de
redaktion@merkur.de
woche@woche.de
redaktion@augsburger-allgemeine.de
bnn_red_ka@compuserve.com
redaktion@badische-zeitung.de
redaktion@berliner-morgenpost.de
info@die-tagespost.com
redaktion@fraenkischer-tag.de
iamedien@mopo.de
redaktion@stimme.de
service@kn-online.de
redaktion@ln-luebeck.de
mittelbayerische@mz.donau.de
mz-halle@t-online.de
redaktion@rhein-zeitung.de
wiwo@vhb.de

avvenire@avvenire.it
nome.cognome@iltirreno.it
quotidiani@rcs.it
ornet@ossrom.va
Lettere@ilfoglio.it
segreteria@ilgiornale.it
larepubblica@repubblica.it
Redazione@ilmanifesto.it
posta@ilmessaggero.it
rinascita@rinascita.net
lettere@lastampa.it
espresso@espressoedit.it
panorama@mondadori.it
famigliacristiana@stpauls.it

editors@amsci.org
opn@osa.org
ptpub@aip.org
pwld@iop.org
nature@nature.com
science_editors@aaas.org
science@science-int.co.uk
lancet.editorial@lancet.com
michael.hatcher@iop.org
jacqueline.hewett@iop.org
oliver.graydon@iop.org
cern.courier@cern.ch
Thomas.Buehrke@t-online.de
Roland.Wengenmayr@t-online.de
redaktion@physik-journal.de
NR@wissenschaftliche-verlagsgesellschaft.de
redaktion@spektrum.com
wissenschaft@dva.de
briefe@geo.de

president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@whitehouse.gov

opa@aps.org

frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu
ahluwalia@iucaa.ernet.in
ahluwalia@heritage.reduaz.mx
tom.weiler@vanderbilt.edu
garcia@dft.if.uerj.br
schmuel@informatics.bangor.ac.uk
romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl
gamberg@physics.upenn.edu
valeri@ahobon.reduaz.mx
sasha@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au
dougs@csufresno.edu
saulo@fis.ufba.br
jmendez@dis.ulpgc.es
maisheev@mx.ihep.su
mtmt@qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp
grk@phyast.nhn.ou.edu
israelit@macam.ac.il
Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de
schlesen@mf.mpg.de

lviola@c3.lanl.gov
dik.bouwmeester@qubit.org
demartini@caspur.it
francesco.demartini@uniroma1.it
ouchrif@mail.desy.de
rcv@pbi.ernet.in
umerciga@savba.sk
adams@milo.phys.ksu.edu
ragulsky@ipmnet.ru
zuev@sci.lebedev.ru
frisch@hep.uchicago.edu
renic@iemr.vl.net.ua
milton@phyast.nhn.ou.edu

http://members.lycos.co.uk/cch01/bilder/

Announcement.

The Nova Science Publishers (NY, USA) continues the series of the books "Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology". We have published one with the 14 papers which have been selected from about 40 submissions last year. In future it is assumed to launch a Journal with the same title. In 2004 the new book will be published under the title "Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology:New Development". It will be dedicated to the following themes (as in 2003):

1. Dilaton gravity.
2. Quantum Mechanical Phases, Neutrino and Gravity. Photon and Gravity.
3. Spin connection and 4-potential. Axion, Torsion and Notoph.
4. Curvature as a Scalar Field over the Minkowski Space.
5. Multidimensional Gravity. De Sitter Gravity. Weyl Approach.
6. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Approach to Gravity (a la S. Weinberg). Parity Violation.
7. Non-commutative Space-time.

Among Editors are: V. Dvoeglazov ( valeri@ahobon.reduaz.mx ), A. Espinoza Garrido ( agarrido@cantera.reduaz.mx ). Several outstanding scientists expressed their interest to participate in the Project. We invite contributions (in order to start a Journal we need, at least, 40 good contributions per year). The deadline for submission papers for the 2004 issue is October 31, 2004. However, we hope to continue the publication either in the forms of book series or in the journal form. The acceptable topics of the papers are indicated in the title of the Journal and are not restricted by the themes of this issue.

We are ready to consider other candidates for the Editorial Board of the Book Series/Journal.

Inquiries concerning submission of papers and orders should be sent to novascidd@aol.com or valeri@ahobon.reduaz.mx and novascience@earthlink.net

PS. I attach the Table of Content of the 2003 issue.

\pagenumbering{roman}
\setcounter{page}{5}

\begin{document}

\centerline{\large{\bf Table of Content}}

\bigskip

\begin{itemize}

\item
V. V. Dvoeglazov and A. A. Espinoza Garrido, Editorial Introduction\dotfill{vi-ix}

\item
R. M. Yamaleev,Extended Relativistic Mechanics of Charged Particle\\
.\dotfill{1-16}

\item
J. Koci\'nski and M. Wierzbicki, The Schwarzschild Solution in a Kaluza-Klein Theory with Two Times\dotfill{17-32}

\item
R. W. K\"uhne,Cartan Torsion: Necessity and Observational Evidence\\
.\dotfill{33-37}

\item
J. Garecki, On Torsion in a Theory of Gravity\dotfill{38-53}

\item
S. C. Tiwari, Electron in the Einstein-Weyl Space\dotfill{54-60}

\item
R. L. Amoroso and J.-P. Vigier, Toward the Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism\dotfill{61-76}

\item
A. Camacho, Time Evolution of a Quantum Particle and a Generalized Uncertainty Principle\dotfill{77-82}

\item
S. Ghosh, The Seiberg-Witten Map in Noncommutative Field Theory: an Alternative Interpretation\dotfill{83-93}

\item
O. Oron and L. P. Horwitz, Relativistic Brownian Motion\dotfill{94-104}

\item
G.-j. Ni, A New Insight into the Negative-Mass Paradox of Gravity and the Accelerating Universe\dotfill{105-116}

\item
G.-j. Ni, A Minimal Three-Flavor Model for Neutrino Oscillation Based on Superluminal Property\dotfill{117-127}

\item
I. A. Eganova, The World of Events Reality: Instantaneous Action as a Connection of Events Through Time\dotfill{128-139}

\item
R. M. Kiehn, A Topological Perspective of Cosmology\dotfill{140-167}

\item
R. T. Cahill, Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves\dotfill{168-226}

\end{itemize}

\end{document}

Rainer W. Kuhne
Lechstr. 63, 38120 Braunschweig, Germany
e-mail: kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de

-------------------------------------------------------
Abstract. The cold fusion neutron emissions can be
explained by the micro hot fusion scenario. We describe
the model and present the experimental evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------

During the years 1986 and 1989 three experimental teams independently
reported to have discovered cold fusion. The experiments differed
strongly from one another, both in the applied methods and the
reported results. Hence, the observational results need not necessarily
result from one unique physical mechanism. Let us take a brief look at
these three types of cold fusion.

Type 1: Mechanically treated LiD and heavy ice samples were reported to
have emitted neutron bursts having lasted for roughly ten minutes [1, 2].

Type 2: Motivated by geophysical observations (anomalous isotope ratios
[3, 4]), electrolysis of deuterided metal was performed and reported
to have generated low levels of neutrons of 2.5 MeV energy [3]. These
emissions appeared a few hours after the start of electrolysis and
terminated several hours later [3].

Type 3: Electrolysis of deuterided metals was reported to have emitted
high levels of heat appearing days after the start of electrolysis [5-7].
Signals of nuclear fusion (neutrons, gamma rays) were at least 10 orders
of magnitude too small to explain the reported heat emissions [5-7].

The experiments of type 1 were motivated by positive results of
fracto-emission experiments and explained by the fracto-fusion model
[1, 2]. An analogous "micro hot fusion" scenario was suggested [8] for
the explanation of the type 2 experiments.

The micro hot fusion scenario can be described as follows [9, 10]. When
hydrogen is absorbed by metals, then it can form hydrid bubbles around
impurities and dislocation nuclei. During their growth the bubbles
deform the metal lattice and build up mechanical stresses. After several
hours these stresses have become strong enough to create cracks which
propagate through the metal lattice. These cracks are expected to form
preferentially at the boundary between hydrid bubble and the weaker
hydrided metal. If strongly hydrided bubbles behave like insulators,
then the different electronegativities of bubble and metal generate
electrically charged crack sides. In strongly hydrided metals the
electrons can be assumed to be stronger bound than the hydrogen nuclei.
Therefore the electric fields within the cracks are allowed to accelerate
the hydrogen nuclei up to keV energies. If the hydrogen isotope deuterium
is used, then the keV energy deuterons are able to fuse. Subsequent
neutron emission is the consequence.

This scenario is able to explain many characteristics of the neutron
and charged particle emissions reported by successful cold fusion
experiments [9, 11, 12]. It is also able to explain why a high number of
cold fusion experiments yielded negative results [9, 13]. Main reasons
for failures appear to be insufficient sensitivity of the detectors and
ignorance of the essential original observation [1-4] that the emissions
terminated a few hours after the start of electrolysis or several
minutes after the mechanical treatment, respectively.

Micro hot fusion is not able to explain the cold fusion experiments
of type 3. A highly speculative attempt, "extended micro hot fusion"
[14], was suggested as a unifying scheme for the explanation of all
cold fusion experiments.

I would like to point out a misunderstanding which exists for already
eight years. Jones et al. [15] retracted only the neutron burst claims
[16, 17]. The apparent bursts were traced to high-voltage breakdown in the
electronics of the detectors. The low-level neutron emissions reported in
Refs. [3, 4] were not retracted. I am grateful to Steven Jones for this
clarification (personal correspondence from 28 December 2001).

To decide whether micro hot fusion is indeed the mechanism for the
cold fusion of types 1 and 2, experiments of the kind suggested in
Refs. [9] and [13] should be performed.

The experimental evidence for the micro hot fusion scenario is presented in
the table.

Table: Cold Fusion Phenomena which Can Be Explained by Micro Hot Fusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Phenomenon Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | Emission of 2.5 MeV neutrons | Deuteron-deuteron fusion
| [3, 4, 18-24] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 | Emission of 3.0 MeV protons | Deuteron-deuteron fusion
| [25-27] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 | Near-surface process for | Crack-formation near palladium
| palladium [3, 4, 9, 28] | surface [29]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 | Deuterium gas emission [30, 31] | Gas desorption by crack formation
| | [9]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 | Acoustic emissions | Relaxation of Metal Lattice by
| simultaneously with neutron | crack formation [35]
| [32, 33] and proton bursts [34] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 | Radio emission simultaneously | Formation of high electric fields
| with proton bursts [34] | within the cracks [35]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 | Disappearence of neutron | Bubble growth time is between 0.1
| emission several hours after | sec and 1 day [37]; fracture time
| the start of electrolysis | is several hours [38]
| [3, 4, 18, 19, 36] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 | Emission of 10**4 ... 10**7 | Calculation: Refs. [37, 38]
| neutrons per cm**3 of electrode |
| material (many experiments |
| where neutrons have been |
| detected) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 | Ratio of 100 emitted neutrons | Only 1 of 10**12 of the keV
| per Joule liberated [30,39-41] | deuterons undergoes fusion
| | reactions [14]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 | Heat emission from ordinary | Formation of bubbles, cracks and
| hydrogen loaded cells [42] | electric fields is independent of
| | the hydrogen isotope used
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 | Emission of keV electrons | Fracto-emission by formation of
| [43-47], positively charged keV | strong electric fields with
| ions [44, 48], X-rays [49-52], | 10**7 ... 10**8 V/cm and
| radio-waves [45] and | 10**4 ... 10**5 V [1, 2, 51, 57]
| electrification [53, 54] from |
| various hydrided materials and |
| neutron emission [1, 2, 55, 56] |
| from deuterided materials |
| minutes after mechanical |
| treatment |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 | Many non-successful experiments | Various possible explanations
| | [9, 13]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1. V. A. Klyuev et al., Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12, 551 (1986).
2. B. V. Derjaguin et al., Colloid. J. USSR 48, 8 (1986).
3. S. E. Jones et al., Nature 338, 737 (1989).
4. S. E. Jones et al., J. Fusion Energy 9, 199 (1990).
5. M. Fleischmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989).
6. M. Fleischmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 263, 187 (1989).
7. M. Fleischmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
8. J. S. Cohen and J. D. Davies, Nature 338, 705 (1989).
9. R. W. Kuhne, Fusion Technol. 25, 198 (1994).
10. R. W. Kuhne, Fusion Technol. 37, 265 (2000).
11. R. W. Kuhne, Phys. Lett. A 155, 467 (1991).
12. R. W. Kuhne, Fusion Facts Vol. 6, No. 11, p. 19 (1995).
13. R. W. Kuhne, Phys. Lett. A 159, 208 (1991).
14. R. W. Kuhne and R. E. Sioda, Fusion Technol. 27, 187 (1995).
15. S. E. Jones et al., Fusion Technol. 26T, 143 (1994).
16. H. O. Menlove et al., J. Fusion Energy 9, 215 (1990).
17. H. O. Menlove et al., J. Fusion Energy 9, 495 (1990).
18. A. Bertin et al., Nuovo Cim. A 101, 997 (1989).
19. A. Bertin et al., J. Fusion Energy 9, 209 (1990).
20. K. L. Wolf et al., J. Fusion Energy 9, 105 (1990).
21. K. L. Wolf et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 228, 341 (1991).
22. T. Bressani et al., Nuovo Cim. A 104, 1413 (1991).
23. E. Botta et al., Nuovo Cim. A 105, 1663 (1992).
24. M. Bittner et al., Fusion Technol. 23, 346 (1993).
25. R. Taniguchi et al., Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 28, L2021 (1989).
26. S. E. Jones et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 228, 397 (1991).
27. G. F. Cerofolini et al., Nuovo Cim. A 105, 741 (1992).
28. N. Wada and K. Nishizawa, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 28, L2017 (1989).
29. P. B. Price, Nature 343, 542 (1990).
30. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 29, L666 (1990).
31. Y. Arata and Y. C. Zhang, Proc. Jpn. Acad. B 66, 1 (1990).
32. P. I. Golubnichii et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 228, 151 (1991).
33 P. I. Golubnichii et al., JETP Lett. 53, 122 (1991).
34. P. I. Golubnichii et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 228, 146 (1991).
35. P. I. Golubnichii et al., Sov. Phys. Dokl. 34, 628 (1989).
36. B. Emmoth et al., SIF Conf. Proc. 24, 79 (1990).
37. S. E. Segre et al., Europhys. Lett. 11, 201 (1990).
38. V. A. Tsarev, Sov. Phys. Usp. 33, 881 (1990).
39. D. Gozzi et al., Nuovo Cim. A 103, 143 (1990).
40. D. Gozzi et al., SIF Conf. Proc. 24, 241 (1990).
41. A. G. Lipson et al., Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 18, 673 (1992).
42. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, AIP Conf. Proc. 228, 354 (1991).
43. V. V. Karassev et al., Dokl. Akad. Nauk 88, 777 (1953).
44. J. Wolbrandt et al., Phys. St. Sol. A 27, 53 (1975).
45. J. T. Dickinson et al., J. Mater. Sci. 16, 2897 (1981).
46. J. Mathison et al. J. Appl. Phys. 65, 1923 (1989).
47. A. G. Lipson et al., Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 15, 783 (1989).
48. J. T. Dickinson et al., J. Mater. Res. 5, 109 (1990).
49. V. V. Lymar et al., IX-All Union Conf. Acoustics (Moscow, Nauka, 1977),
p. 65.
50. T. M. Belyaeva et al., Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 10, 341 (1984).
51. V. I. Berkov et al., Sov. Phys. Dokl. 32, 381 (1987).
52. V. A. Klyuev et al., Dokl. Akad. Nauk 279, 415 (1984).
53. M. I. Kornfeld, J. Phys. D 11, 1295 (1978).
54. Yu. I. Golovin et al., Sov. Phys. Sol. St. 27, 671 (1985).
55. M. A. Yaroslavskii, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 34, 637 (1989).
56. M. A. Yaroslavskii, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 34, 648 (1989).
57. B. V. Derjaguin et al., Sov. Phys. Dokl. 19, 208 (1974).