|
Author
|
Topic: Observation of a Second Kind of Light
|
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:33
\documentstyle[12pt,german]{letter} \pagestyle{empty} \topmargin=-10mm \oddsidemargin=0pt \textwidth=160.0mm \textheight=220.0mm \begin{document}\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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:33
\documentstyle[12pt]{letter} \pagestyle{empty} \topmargin=-10mm \oddsidemargin=0pt \textwidth=160.0mm \textheight=200.0mm \begin{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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:34
\documentstyle[12pt,german]{article} \pagestyle{empty} \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3} \topmargin=-3mm \oddsidemargin=0pt \textwidth=160.0mm \textheight=240.0mm \begin{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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:38
\documentstyle[12pt,german]{article} \pagestyle{empty} \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3} \topmargin=-3mm \oddsidemargin=0pt \textwidth=160.0mm \textheight=210.0mm \begin{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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:39
\documentstyle[twoside, epsfig]{article} \textwidth=5truein \textheight=7.8truein \oddsidemargin=\evensidemargin \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-30pt} \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-30pt}\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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:43
\documentstyle[12pt]{article} \begin{document} \title{Support for the Jaffe-Wilczek \\ Diquark Model of Pentaquarks} \author{Rainer W. K\"uhne \\ {\it Vorm Holz 4, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany} \\ {\it kuehne70@gmx.de}} \maketitle \vskip 1cm \begin{abstract} \noindent I examine the diquark model of pentaquarks that was suggested by Jaffe and Wilczek. Based upon this model, I predict the states $\Theta$(1530), N(1710), $\Sigma$(1880) and $\Xi$(1770) to be members of the same anti-decuplet. Moreover I predict the states N(1440), $\Lambda$(1600), $\Sigma$(1660) and $\Xi$(1950) to be members of the corresponding octet. \end{abstract} \vskip 1cm\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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:44
\documentstyle[12pt]{article} \topmargin=-10mm \oddsidemargin=0pt \textwidth=160.0mm \textheight=225.0mm \begin{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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:49
Presse-MitteilungPress 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/ [This message has been edited by Dr. Rainer W. Kühne (edited 09-24-2004).]
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:52
Von: Valeri Dvoeglazov <valerio2@prodigy.net.mx> Datum: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:22:26 -0600Announcement. 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.
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 08:54
\documentstyle[12pt]{article}\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}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 09:00
----------------------------- The Micro Hot Fusion Scenario ----------------------------- 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).
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 09:11
http://www.rwth-aachen.de/ http://www.uni-augsburg.de/ http://www.uni-bamberg.de/ http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/ http://www.fu-berlin.de/ http://www.tu-berlin.de/ http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ http://www.uni-bonn.de/ http://www.tu-braunschweig.de/ http://www.uni-bremen.de/ http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/ http://www.uni-dortmund.de/web/de/index.html http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/ http://www.uni-erlangen.de/ http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/ http://www.uni-freiburg.de/ http://www.uni-giessen.de/ http://www.uni-goettingen.de/ http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ http://www.uni-hannover.de/ http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/ http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/ http://www.physik.uni-kl.de/ http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/Uni/ http://www.uni-kiel.de/ http://www.uni-koeln.de/ http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ http://www.uni-mainz.de/ http://www.uni-mannheim.de/ http://www.uni-marburg.de/ http://www.tu-muenchen.de/jshpchooser.tupl http://www.uni-muenchen.de/ http://www.uni-muenster.de/ http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/ http://www.uni-osnabrueck.de/ http://www.uni-passau.de/ http://www.uni-regensburg.de/ http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/ http://www.uni-trier.de/ http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/ http://www.uni-ulm.de/ http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/ http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~arrigoni/positions/applications_info.html http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~arrigoni/positions/assistent.html http://www.uni-duisburg.de/ http://www.uni-essen.de/ http://www.uni-kassel.de/ http://www.uni-paderborn.de/ http://www.uni-siegen.de/ http://www.uni-wuppertal.de/index-js.shtml
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 11:41
Dr. Rainer Kühne Wuppertal, 22.05.2003 Vorm Holz 4 42119 Wuppertal kuehne70@gmx.de Frau Kufner Sysberry GmbH Personalabteilung Sommerfeld 41
82041 Oberhaching/München Betreff: Bewerbung als Java-Anwendungsentwickler
Sehr geehrte Frau Kufner, ich bewerbe mich für die ausgeschriebene Position als Java-Anwendungsentwickler bei der Sysberry GmbH. Ich bin ortsungebunden, kreativ und lernbereit. Anspruchsvolle Themen steigern meine Leistungsbereitschaft. Mein frühester Einstiegstermin wäre der 1. April 2003. Ich habe meine Diplomarbeit in theoretischer Physik innerhalb der Regelstudienzeit erfolgreich abgeschlossen. Meine in Teamarbeit und in englischer Sprache verfaßte Doktorarbeit in theoretischer Physik habe ich voriges Jahr erfolgreich fertiggestellt. In meiner Promotionsarbeit simulierte ich Spin-Phonon-Systeme unter Anwendung der neuesten und effizientesten numerischen Quanten-Monte-Carlo-Verfahren. Hierbei vertiefte ich meine Kenntnisse in den prozeßorientierten Programmiersprachen C und Fortran, dem Betriebssystem Unix und dem Textsatzsystem Latex. Ich bin zertifizierter Programmierer der objektorientierten Programmiersprache Java 2 Plattform 1.2. Zur Zeit nehme ich an einer Weiterbildung zum SAP R/3 Anwendungsentwickler, Release 4.6B, teil. Ich verfaßte zwölf englischsprachige Abhandlungen in international renommierten physikalischen Fachzeitschriften. Zwei Artikel resultierten aus meiner Doktorarbeit. Die anderen erfolgten in Eigeninitiative. Bei diesen Arbeiten habe ich gute Erfahrungen in zielgerichteter, ergebnisorientierter Projektarbeit gesammelt. Meine Gehaltsvorstellung beträgt 40 000,-- Euro pro Jahr. Für weitere Informationen zu meiner Person stehe ich selbstverständlich gerne zur Verfügung. Über eine Einladung zu einem Vorstellungsgespräch freue ich mich. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Rainer Kühne
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 11:42
------------------------------------------------------ Lebenslauf von Rainer Kühne ------------------------------------------------------Persönliche Daten: ------------------------------ Name: Rainer Walter Kühne Adresse: Vorm Holz 4 42119 Wuppertal E-Mail: kuehne70@gmx.de Telefon: 0160-93074899 Geboren: 23. Mai 1970 in Braunschweig Familienstand: ledig Staatsangehörigkeit: deutsch Konfession: evangelisch Ausbildung: ------------------- 08/1976 - 07/1980: Grundschule in Braunschweig 08/1980 - 07/1982: Orientierungsstufe in Braunschweig 08/1982 - 05/1989: Gymnasium Martino-Katherineum in Braunschweig Abschluß: Abitur 06/1989 - 08/1990: Grundwehrdienst in Celle und Wesendorf Abschluß: Obergefreiter 10/1990 - 10/1995: Physik-Studium an der Universität Bonn Abschluß: Diplom in Physik 04/1996 - 03/2000: Aufbaustudium in Physik, Gesamthochschule Wuppertal 04/2000 - 07/2001: Aufbaustudium in Physik, Universität Dortmund Abschluß: Promotion in Physik 04/2002 - 03/2003: SAP-Anwendungsentwicklung, Release 4.6B Dekra-Akademie Wuppertal Abschluß: Sun-Zertifikat Java 2 Plattform 1.2
Besondere Fähigkeiten: ------------------------------------- Fremdsprachen: englisch, französisch Informatik: Fortran, C, Java, Latex, Unix Publikationen: 12 Abhandlungen in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften
Wuppertal, 22.05.2003 Rainer Kühne
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 11:43
Biographie von Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Dr. Rainer W. Kühne, Jahrgang 1970, studierte Physik an den Universitäten Bonn, Wuppertal und Dortmund. Sein Diplom in Physik erhielt er 1995 von der Universität Bonn. Der Betreuer seiner Diplomarbeit war Professor Wolfgang Kundt, ein langjähriger Mitarbeiter des berühmten Physikers Pasqual Jordan, der zusammen mit den Nobelpreisträgern Werner Heisenberg und Max Born die Quantenmechanik formulierte. Seinen Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) erhielt Kühne 2001 von der Universität Dortmund. Sein Doktorvater (bzw. Doktormutter) war Frau Privat-Dozent Dr. habil. Ute Löw.
Von Rainer Kühne liegen 14 physikalische Abhandlungen in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vor. In ihnen beschäftigte er sich mit den Themen kalte Kernfusion, rotierendes Universum, zeitlich variable Naturkonstanten, einer Erweiterung der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie Albert Einsteins und einer Erweiterung der Quantenelektrodynamik. In Fachkreisen sorgten insbesondere seine Arbeiten zum rotierenden Universum und seine Vorhersage einer zweiten Art von Licht für Aufsehen. Im Alter von 18 Jahren erschien seine erste Publikation zum Thema Atlantis in der damals von Erich von Däniken herausgegebenen Zeitschrift „Ancient Skies“. Über die Entdeckung von Atlantis wird er in Kürze auch in der archäologischen Fachzeitschrift „Antiquity“ publizieren. Weitere Details zu seinem Lebenslauf finden sich auf seiner Homepage http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rainerkuehne/
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 11:44
Vorschlag für die Bebilderung meines Buch-Manuskriptes „Die Entdeckung von Atlantis – Ein Erlebnisbericht“.S. 4 Edgar Cayce http://www.edgarcayce.org/health/images/edgar_cayce_portbc.jpg S. 4, 22 Erich von Däniken http://www.daeniken.com/pics/evd.jpg S. 6 Gymnasium Martino-Katharineum http://www.mk-braunschweig.de/titelmk.jpg S. 6 Platon http://freierscientologe.netfirms.com/platon.jpg S. 6 Solon http://alpha.euba.sk/~kicko/pages/pics/solon.jpg S. 11 Medinet Habu Tempel Ramses III http://www.aegypten-online.de/images/theben/ad_habu.jpg http://www.biblemysteries.com/images/Medinet_Habu_from_air.jpg http://www.biblemysteries.com/images/Medinet_Habu_Reconstruction.jpg S. 11 Seevölker http://www.bibleplaces.com/newsletter/Medinet_Habu_Sea_Peoples_mf_112902wr.jpg S. 13 Jason und Medea http://www.klio.net/RATPATROL/FILMS/JASON/MedeaHealer.jpg S. 13 Hesperiden http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9725261/hesperiden0.jpg S. 14 Thera-Santorin (Riese Talos) http://www.olympia-2004.3ws.de/image/insel-santorini-griechenland.jpg S. 15 Helgoland http://www.germanok.boo.pl/gal2/helgoland.JPG S. 19 Homer http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/homer_s.jpg S. 19 Trojanisches Pferd http://www.philognosie.net/tests/89/trojanisches_Pferd_III.jpg S. 19, 32 Skylla und Charybdis http://www.casimirianum.de/html/faecher/griech/skullaoder.gif S. 19, 32 Odysseus und Kalypso http://www.toender-gym.dk/jitt/classica/OdogKalypso.jpg
S. 20 Odysseus und Nausikaa http://www.kzu.ch/fach/as/gallerie/myth/odysseus/od_images/68.jpg S. 20 Odysseus und Penelope http://www.deutsche-liebeslyrik.de/anderes/odyss.JPG S. 21 Herodot http://www.egjiptianet.de/herodot.jpg S. 25 Gymnasium: Treppe auf der ich Wickboldt traf http://www.mk-braunschweig.de/bilder/r_gang1.jpg S. 27 Phaethon http://myhome.hanafos.com/~julyhood/img/phaethon.jpg S. 27 Deukalion und Pyrrha http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Images/dim/deucalion2307.jpg S. 28 Daedalus http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/zooms/daedalus_z.jpg S. 28 Herakles http://www.cis.ru/~miden/herakles-3.jpg S. 33 Adam und Eva http://www.exittoart.nl/domenichino/domenichino04.jpg S. 36 Sokrates http://www.exittoart.nl/domenichino/domenichino04.jpg S. 37 Tuthmoses III http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuth1.jpg S. 39 Pindar http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/pindar_s.jpg S. 45 Heinrich Schliemann http://www.net4you.net/users/poellauerg/Schliema/schliem.jpg S. 46 Herakles und Hydra von Lerna http://www.tigtail.org/TIG/TVM/E/Ancient/Etruscan/pottery/M/etruscan_hydra%2Bherakles-caeretan.c525bc.jpg S. 46 Platon und Aristoteles http://home.t-online.de/home/henkaipan/ath-plat.jpg S. 46 Alexander der Grosse http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/bereiche/ag/Hartmann/mat/ss01/images/mosaik.jpg S. 46 Xerxes http://alpha.euba.sk/~kicko/pages/pics/xerxes.jpg S. 46 Kaiser Augustus http://www.historywiz.com/images/rome/augustus.jpg S. 47 Sophie Schliemann http://www.net4you.net/users/poellauerg/Schliema/sophie.jpg S. 49 Franz Susemihl http://www.stadt-laage.de/images/susemihl.jpg S. 49 Hesiod http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/hesiod_s.jpg S. 49 Perikles http://alpha.euba.sk/~kicko/pages/pics/perikles.jpg S. 53 Catal Huyuk http://www.moczar.hu/html/atlantisz/Catal%20Huyuk.JPG S. 53 Kreta Stierspiele http://www.sonnenziele.net/kreta-10.jpg S. 59 Carl Friedrich Gauss http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/methods/maglab/gauss_big.jpg S. 60 Professoren Martin Fleischmann und Stanley Pons http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/scientist/images/pons.jpg S. 60 Professor Steven Earl Jones http://physics1.byu.edu/atomic/steve_jones.jpg S. 60 Professor Steven Koonin http://www.isop.ucla.edu/cms/images/steven-koonin-text.jpg S.62 Werner Heisenberg http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/guides/ahqp/images/heisenberg.jpg S. 62 Albert Einstein http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:FQar3nIP2_oJ:csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein_clerk.gif S. 62 Murray Gell-Mann http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1969/gell-mann.gif S. 62 Professor August Kundt http://www.fys.kuleuven.ac.be/pradem/fysici/kundt.jpg S. 63 Dr. Alipasha Vaziri http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/alipasha/bild.jpg
S. 63 Professor Roderic Lakes http://mandm.engr.wisc.edu/pictures/faculty/lakes.jpg S. 64 Werner Wickboldt http://www.paranormal.de/hexen/bilder/atlantis.JPG S. 69 Georgeos Diaz-Montexano http://usuarios.lycos.es/atlantisiberia/6c8c4960.jpg S. 69 Satellitenphoto Guadalquivir http://209.15.138.224/inmonacional/images/s_guadalquivir1.jpg S. 69 Satelliten-Photo Zwei Atlantis-Tempel http://www.beepworld.de/memberdateien/members62/rwk_atlantis/aerea5.jpg S. 69 Aufnahmen vom Parque Nacional de Donana http://waste.ideal.es/fotos/odiel2.jpg http://waste.ideal.es/fotos/odiel3.jpg S. 70 Jacques Collina-Girard http://usuarios.lycos.es/atlantisiberia/6bd78960.jpg S. 70 Spartel Insel http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/9999/99991320F1.JPG S. 71 Gilgamesch-Epos http://www.joerg-sieger.de/einleit/extras/bilder/klein/05009000.jpg S. 72 Professor Martin Carver (Antiquity) http://antiquity.ac.uk/Images/carver.gif S. 74 Strabo http://www.chufu.de/Strabon/strabon.jpg ********************************************************* Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Vorm Holz 4 42119 Wuppertal E-Mail: kuehne70@gmx.de Internet: http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rainerkuehne/ *********************************************************
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-08-2004 11:50
The last email of Kristin Iizuka:Subject: bin vernetzt !!!!! Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:07:38 +0100 (MET) hi rainer, stell dir vor: die software von 1+1 von stefan wurde heute zu mir geleitet. ich habe mich telefonisch vom adviser einleiten lassen und es hat nach 30 minutn geklappt, ohne daß hier programme oder software abgestürzt ist. ist das nicht toll ? also, können wir jetz von hier aus bankern und montag ght auf jeden fall. das megamin ist auch schon gekommen. jetzt brauchst du gar nix mehr machen - außer montag in aller ruhe kommen. toll, gelle ? aber versprechen konnt ich das halt nicht. ich habe auch nicht damit gerechnet. der medizinische dienst war da - so eine stunde. es war tierisch anstrengnd für mich. ich glaube, es muß jetzt die zeit kommen, wo ich lang schlafe, viel erhole. das war einfach zuviel zettel, organisation, durchsetzen, kämpfen. spendierwt du montag mal die waffelröllchen oder einen aufback-käseküchlein ? muß ja nicht oft sein... liebe grüße kristin
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-13-2004 01:12
\documentclass[10pt,twoside]{article} % A adapter \`a l'ordinateur, ici pour un Macintosh %\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[applemac]{inputenc} \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath} \def\volnum{Manuscrit} %\def\volnum{Volume xx no y, 200z} % pour la c\'esure %\french% Format des AFLB %\usepackage{aflbcours} %\pdebut{1} \def\pacs#1{\LP P.A.C.S.: #1} \title{On the New Standard Model of Particle Physics} %\titleshort{Titre court \dots} %\authorshort{P. Nom} \author{Rainer W. K\"uhne \\ Lechstr. 63, 38120 Braunschweig, Germany \\ kuehne70@gmx.de} %\address{} \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0pt} \begin{document} \maketitle
\vskip 1cm \begin{abstract} The new standard model of elementary particle physics is described by three Lagrangians, those of QFD, QCD, and QEMD. We point out that QEMD requires a modification of the standard (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics. \end{abstract} %\pacs{} \section{On the New Standard Model}
The new standard model of elementary particle physics is described by three Lagrangians. These are the Weinberg -- Salam Lagrangian of quantum flavour dynamics (QFD) \cite{1}, the Fritzsch -- Gell-Mann -- Leutwyler Lagrangian of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) \cite{2}, and the K\"uhne Lagrangian of quantum electromagnetodynamics (QEMD) \cite{3, 4}. Both QFD and QCD are non-Abelian gauge invariant quantum field theories (Yang -- Mills theories) \cite{5}. The gauge group SU(2) explains the quantization of isospin \cite{6} and the gauge group SU(3) explains the quantization of colour charge \cite{2}. By contrast, the gauge group U(1) of quantum electrodynamics (QED) \cite{7} cannot explain the quantization of electric charge. QEMD is a generalization of QED. It includes Dirac magnetic monopoles \cite{8} and two kinds of photons, Einstein's electric photon \cite{9} and Salam's magnetic photon \cite{10}. The gauge group U(1) $\times$ U'(1) of QEMD explains the quantization of electric charge \cite{3, 4}. The revolutionary concept of QEMD is the introduction of velocity coupling \cite{3}. The magnetic photon couples via velocity coupling to electric charges. This requires the introduction of a velocity operator and allows the definition of a force operator. Recall that the original formulation of quantum mechanics does not include velocity and force operators \cite{11}. The concept of motion is also not included in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics \cite{12}. Therefore QEMD challenges the Copenhagen interpretation \cite{4}. QEMD requires that the velocity coupling for emission and absorption processes does not describe a relative velocity but the absolute velocity of the electric charge which emits or absorbs, respectively, the magnetic photon \cite{3, 4}. The concept of the absolute velocity violates the relativity principle of Special Relativity \cite{13}. However, I have shown \cite{14} that it is compatible with General Relativity \cite{15} which even requires an absolute frame \cite{14}. The magnetic photon rays predicted by QEMD \cite{3} have been observed in two recent experiments \cite{14}. So we suggest that the new standard model of particle physics includes QFD, QCD, and QEMD. \section{On Quantum Electromagnetodynamics} QFD and QCD are well described in textbooks. By contrast, QEMD is so new that it has not yet entered into textbooks. Here we will summarize the major equations of QEMD. 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 $a^{\mu}=(\varphi , {\bf a})$. 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} the Lagrangian of the Dirac fermion $\Psi$ within the electromagnetic field reads, \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L} & = & - \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4}f_{\mu\nu}f^{\mu\nu} + \bar\Psi i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\Psi - m_{0}\bar\Psi \Psi \nonumber \\ & & -Q\bar\Psi \gamma^{\mu}\Psi A_{\mu} - q\bar\Psi \gamma^{\mu}\Psi a_{\mu} +Q\bar\Psi \gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}\Psi a_{\mu} +q\bar\Psi \gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}\Psi A_{\mu}, \end{eqnarray} where $m_0$ denotes its rest mass, $Q$ its electric charge, and $q$ its magnetic charge. By using the Euler-Lagrange equations we obtain the Dirac equation \begin{equation} (i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}-m_{0})\Psi = (Q\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu} +q\gamma^{\mu}a_{\mu} -Q\gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}a_{\mu} -q\gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}A_{\mu})\Psi . \end{equation} By introducing the four-currents \begin{eqnarray} J^{\mu} & = & Q\bar\Psi \gamma^{\mu}\Psi -q\bar\Psi \gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu} u_{\nu}\Psi \\ j^{\mu} & = & q\bar\Psi \gamma^{\mu}\Psi -Q\bar\Psi \gamma^{5}\sigma^{\mu\nu} u_{\nu}\Psi \end{eqnarray} the Euler-Lagrange equations yield 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. This formula for the Lorentz force is rather trivial for the classical theory. Non-trivial is that this formula can be applied to the quantum field theory. This becomes possible because of the introduction of the velocity coupling which includes a velocity operator and allows the definition of a force operator. The Lorentz force cannot be derived from the Lagrangian, because it is not an equation of motion. 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} 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} I dedicate this work to the memory of my sweetheart Kristin Iizuka who passed away on March 15, 2004 at age 41. \vskip 30pt %\begin{fref} \begin{thebibliography}{99} % eref si anglais \bibitem{1} S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 19}, 1264 (1967). \\ A. Salam, Elementary Particle Physics, ed. N. Svartholm (Almqvist, Stockholm, 1968), p. 367. \bibitem{2} H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 47}, 365 (1973). \bibitem{3} R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 3153 (1997). \\ (= hep-ph/9708394). \bibitem{4} R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Electromagnetic Phenomena} {\bf 3}, 86 (2003). \\ (= hep-ph/0205229). \bibitem{5} C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 96}, 191 (1954). \bibitem{6} W. Heisenberg, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 77}, 1 (1932). \bibitem{7} S. Tomonaga, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 74}, 224 (1948). \\ J. Schwinger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 73}, 416 (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 Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 20}, 367 (1948). \\ 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{8} P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Proc. R. Soc. A} {\bf 133}, 60 (1931). \bibitem{9} A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 132 (1905). \bibitem{10} A. Salam, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}, 683 (1966). \bibitem{11} W. Heisenberg, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 33}, 879 (1925). \\ E. Schr\"odinger, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 79}, 361 (1926). \bibitem{12} W. Heisenberg, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 43}, 172 (1927). \\ N. Bohr, {\it Nature} {\bf 121}, 580 (1928). \\ N. Bohr, {\it Naturwiss.} {\bf 16}, 245 (1928). \\ N. Bohr, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 48}, 696 (1935). \bibitem{13} A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 891 (1905). \bibitem{14} R. W. K\"uhne, Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics? -- New Horizons, eds. A. Chubykalo, A. Espinoza, R. Smirnov-Rueda, and V. Onoochin (Rinton Press, Paramus, 2004) p. 335. \\ (= physics/0403026). \bibitem{15} A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 49}, 769 (1916). \end{thebibliography} %\end{fref}
%\man{27 mai 2003} \end{document}
IP: 132.195.105.10 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-11-2004 09:03
From frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Mar 15 18:36:35 2002 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:41:55 -0800 From: "Sherman Frankel;" <frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu>Dear Rainer, I am now in Berkeley but my messages are being automatically forwarded. I fear that I do not understand enough about multimode glass fibres and I was never sure how your magnetic photons differed from ordinary ones. Foe example, if a monopole passing through material radiated, how would these photons differ from ordinary ones. Do they,say, move in the direction B x E rather than E x B? sherman frankel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ahluwalia@phases.reduaz.mx Fri Mar 15 20:57:49 2002 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:04:13 -0600 (CST) From: "D. V. Ahluwalia" <ahluwalia@phases.reduaz.mx> Dear Rainer, I am happy that your prediction has been put to test. Of course, a factor of 1000 is troubling. Nevertheless, excess events - if anomalous - should carry some origin. What statistical significance do the excess events carry -- i.e. how many sigmas is the excess? Also, has the Vaziri published these results - and can he rule out systematic errors? I look forward to hear from you. I'll be away from 18th to early April. My best wishes, Dharam D. V. Ahluwalia http://phases.reduaz.mx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From tom.weiler@vanderbilt.edu Fri Mar 15 21:33:03 2002 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:31:13 -0600 From: Tom Weiler <tom.weiler@vanderbilt.edu> Subject: Re: magnetic photons Hi Rainer. Thanks you for the update on magnetic photons. I certainly remain interested. I hope you are right with a symmetrized EM duality. However, my pessimism with this latest result runs counter to your optimism. Should not Poisson stats apply to the counting rate, in which case square root of background give noise five times bigger than the "effect"? best regards, Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From garcia@dft.if.uerj.br Mon Mar 18 09:30:56 2002 From: "L.C. Garcia de Andrade" <garcia@dft.if.uerj.br> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:52:49 -0300 Thanks for your nice communication!But to be quite honest I do not know what can I do to help you. Are you suggesting that the magnetic photons could be massive and that they could be explained by torsion or something?? Best wishes Garcia de Andrade -----Mensagem original----- De: Rainer Kuehne <kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de> Para: garcia@dft.if.uerj.br <garcia@dft.if.uerj.br> Data: Segunda-feira, 18 de Marco de 2002 05:01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From schmuel@informatics.bangor.ac.uk Mon Mar 18 10:17:17 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:18:30 +0000 (GMT) From: "Samuel L. Braunstein" <schmuel@informatics.bangor.ac.uk> Dear Rainer, thanks for the info. I am a little busy right now, but I will try to have a look at this work. Perhaps you could send me the preprints? With best wishes, Sam Braunstein Professor Samuel L. Braunstein Informatics, Dean Street University of Wales Bangor LL57 1UT United Kingdom +44 (1248) 38-2808: work +44 (1248) 36-1429: fax schmuel@sees.bangor.ac.uk www.sees.bangor.ac.uk/~schmuel/home.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl Mon Mar 18 11:47:02 2002 From: "romsioda" <romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:02:31 +0100 Dear Rainer, Thanks for letting me know the interesting results. I wish to congratulate you, also for the Ph.D. of which I see (Dr!) the first time. With kindest compliments, Roman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From gamberg@physics.upenn.edu Mon Mar 18 13:08:39 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:10:31 -0500 (EST) From: Leonard Gamberg <gamberg@physics.upenn.edu> Dear Rainer, I am aware of your papers on this subject and about two years ago when I was still at the Univ. of Oklahoma George Kalbfleish and I sat down to look at your work that was in Mod. Phys. A or Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A if I recall correctly. I did see some connection at the time with the older theories of Salam et al if I'm not mistaken. In any event I recall that it avoided the problem of the Dirac string and singular potentials or at least if I recall correctly. The notion of two photons was intriguing to say the least. I wonder if the quantization condition is still holding? I do recall some connection between that and the two photon theory.
This is very interesting news. I will try to get up to speed on it. Thanks very much for sending along this news. Sincerely, Leonard Gamberg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu Mon Mar 18 17:18:47 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:17:28 -0800 From: "Sherman Frankel" <frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu> Thanks for your note. It has been some time but did you ever read my old 1976 paper in amer. jour. of physics. I think I mailed it to you some two years ago. In it I showed that if magnetic charge existed AND if one required P nd T conservation one could derive all the laws of e and m without coulonb or biot savart. So where are the magnetic charges? I nw am finishing a note saying that if there were a very small violation of P and T in electromagnetism there would be several astrophysical consequencesthat could be looked for. I still would like your comments on that old paper even though we both have different ideas about e and m. I will be at the Niels Bohr Inst in a few weeks to give a talk on my proposal. sincerely sherman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu Mon Mar 18 18:48:14 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:46:21 -0800 From: "Sherman Frankel" <frankel@eecs.berkeley.edu> There is a problem with dyons and I think they must be ruled out. Since we know that magnetic charge is is a pseudoscalar odd under T and electric charge is a scalar even under T, a particle having both would not have any clear P and T properties. Normally particles have charge distributions so the charge of a pi + is spread out over the pion because of the 2/3 and 1/3 quarks swarming about. A separated electric charge e and magnetic charge g do not have any attractive force. If separated by a distance r and moving with relative velocity v the magnetic-electric force is at right angles to r and not attractive. . I too wonder if an electromagnetic violation of P and T is reflected in weak interactions but I do not have the theoretical expertise to pursue this I will be in Denmark April 4 to 12 to finalize sale of my beautiful farmstead and possibly give a seminar on monopoles at nbi. Thanks for your comments. Let's keep in touch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl Mon Mar 18 18:58:07 2002 From: "romsioda" <romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:13:25 +0100 Dear Rainer, Thanks for the new message. I am happy to know that you have such challenging ideas in theoretical physics. I am only an electrochemist, but physics always interested me a lot. Maybe, there will be a chance to meet again. Do you have a family, i.e. wife and children? Eva and me are grandparents since September last year, thanks to our younger son Maciek and his wife Agnieszka. It is a boy. I shall be most happy to hear more of you, with kindest compliments, Roman
PS. What was the subject matter of your Ph.D.? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From valeri@ahobon.reduaz.mx Mon Mar 18 22:42:06 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:59:21 -0600 From: Valeri Dvoeglazov <valeri@ahobon.reduaz.mx> Dear Prof. Kuehne, Thank you for your experimental information. I was aware about the paper you published. Yours Sincerely, Valeri Dvoeglazov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From sasha@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au Tue Mar 19 08:30:48 2002 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:34:40 +1100 (EST) From: Alexander Ignatiev <sasha@physics.unimelb.edu.au> Dear Rainer, I remember very well your papers which you sent me a few years ago-- they are extremely interesting, original and exciting. Thank you very much for your message -- needless to say this is the most astonishing result that I have heard recently -- especially because it is a lab experiment, not an asrophysical or cosmological observation. Is there any publication yet? With my best wishes Alex Ignatiev ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl Tue Mar 19 19:15:38 2002 From: "romsioda" <romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:31:05 +0100 Dear Rainer, Thanks for further news. It would be nice to meet again, except that I do not travel abroad anymore, last time I travelled to France and Japan in '98. My work mostly consists of teaching. I have published recently theoretical papers with a friend in Canada, named Prof. T.Z. Fahidy at University of Waterloo. Here, in Siedlce, I still have to prepare a research paper jointly with my assistant, a young lady. We do experimental work on electrolysis of organic compounds, which should be her Ph.D. project. The experimental results are interesting and can be nicely correlated with quantum mechanical calculations according to approximate methods. It should be an interesting paper, when we shall finish this work. With friendly greetings, Roman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From dougs@csufresno.edu Wed Mar 20 05:45:01 2002 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:40:26 -0800 From: Doug Singleton <dougs@csufresno.edu> Dear Rainer, Sorry for the delayed reply. Yes this is an interesting result if true. I'll think about it and look up the Nature article you cited. I've already read your paper with interest several years back when it first appeared. In any case if the result is true it points to something beyond standard E&M, but also not quite in agreement with the simple magnetic photon idea. In my own investigation into the magnetic photon I proposed that the magnetic photon may have a mass via the Higgs or a Higgs-like mechanism. If this is so then maybe this may explain the reduced observation rate of your initial prediction (making the magnetic photon massive would lead to a exponential fall off for the magnetic Coulomb field -- i.e. one would have a Yukawa field. Maybe the mass of the magnetic photon could be fixed by requiring it to give a count rate in agreement with observation. Any this is an interesting result and I'll think on it some more. Hope things are well with you. Best regards, Doug ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From ul@thp.Uni-Koeln.DE Thu Mar 21 12:09:19 2002 From: ul@thp.Uni-Koeln.DE (Ute Loew) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:01:30 +0100 Hallo Herr Kuehne, bitte melden Sie sich bei Herrn Muetter. Gruss Ute Loew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Thu Mar 21 16:08:04 2002 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:15:17 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hi, >Alipasha Vaziri observed a mean count rate of 34.87/s (17 runs for 10 >seconds each). He made three background measures. 15 runs (for 10 seconds >each) with laser on (effective power of 56 micro Watt) but without lenses >yielded a mean count rate of 33.65/s. 14 runs (for 10 seconds >each) with laser off and without lenses yielded a mean count rate of 33.63/s. >15 runs (for 10 seconds each) with laser off and with lenses yielded a mean >count rate of 33.85/s. The mean background was therefore 33.71 counts/s. >The excess was (34.87 - 33.71) counts/s = 1.16 counts/s. What is the statistical error on this count rate? What is the resolution of the counter due to systematic effects? (Like background temperature, sensitivity to vibrations, stray light at other wavelengthes, etc.) It is impossible to judge the significance of results without bounds on the statistical and systematic errors of the setup. Personally, I would judge the absence of the predicted countrate of 1200/s as a falsification of the magnetic photon theory. Are there any free parameters which could be tuned in such a way that the model is consistent with the experiment? With kind regards, Wolfram _____________________________________________________________ Dr. Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@Feldtheorie.de> Theoretical studies in quantum field theories _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at Thu Mar 21 17:20:05 2002 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:27:42 +0100 From: Alipasha Vaziri <vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at> Lieber Rainer, Ich weiss persoenlich nicht was davon zu halten ist. Eines ist sicher Streulich kann man nie (zu mindestens mit unseren Mitteln) zu 100% ausschliessen. Die Multimodefasern koennen im Prinzip Licht durchlassen eventuell bei den Steckverbindungen oder Ummantelung. Ideal waere eine Singlemodefaser, weil sich dorch nur eine transversale Mode ausbreiten kann. Aber das habe ich auch ausprobiert, nur dort ist das Problem, dass die Zaehlrate so stark absinkt, dass man dann keinen Kontrast hat. bis zum naechsten Mal Ali ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From saulo@fis.ufba.br Thu Mar 21 19:46:21 2002 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:23:36 -0300 From: Saulo Carneiro <saulo@fis.ufba.br> Dear Rainer, Sorry for the delay. Thank you, very much for the information on Dr. Vaziri's experiment. I hope the results could be a confirmation of your theory (in spite of my critical view about it, as I commented some time ago). Please let me know if you find any explanation for the discrepancy between your predictions and the experimental results. Wishes, Saulo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lakes@engr.wisc.edu Thu Mar 21 20:36:38 2002 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:41:22 -0600 To: kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de Subject: light Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From loew@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de Fri Mar 22 15:06:46 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:13:54 +0100 From: Ute Loew <loew@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de> Hallo Herr Kuehne, melden Sie sich doch bitte einmal bei mir. Am besten Sie rufen mich an der Uni an. Ich wollte mit Ihnen ueber Bewerbungen sprechen. Ich habe allerdings nichts Konkretes nur eine vage Idee, die ich mit Ihnen diskutieren will. Alles Gute Ihre Ute Loew P.S. Sie koennen sicher von A. Feldderjohans Buero kurz bei mir anrufen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jmendez@dis.ulpgc.es Fri Mar 22 15:09:33 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:08:16 +0000 From: Juan Mendez <jmendez@dis.ulpgc.es> Rainer Kuehne wrote: > Recently, a small signal has been observed which might be interpreted > as a possible signal for these magnetic photon rays. > Very interesting. It opens a way to consider the existence of small divergences in the accepted form of the Electromagnetic Theory. What is the interpretation of the discovery authors?. And more important: What is the opinion of other experts don't related with Electromagnetics Duality?. In this case of the Dual Electromagnetics, my perception is the existence of a lot of incredulity by the "Professional Research System". In some cases, as the empirical discovery of theorical predictions, the scientific community thinks that this is an experimental error instead of a proof related with an "unconventional" Theory. Notice that the Electromagnetic Theory is the mainstone of the Field Theory, that is the Modern Physics. Thank you for the new. Good Bye. -- Juan Mendez Rodriguez Dpto. Informatica y Sistemas Univ. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 35017 Las Palmas, Canary Islands Spain | /| / |\ / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \ -/------| \ \=============/ jmendez@dis.ulpgc.es ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Fri Mar 22 16:17:04 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:24:33 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hallo Rainer, >(1) Zur statistischen Signifikanz: [...] Ich verstehe - statistischer Natur ist der Fehler daher wahrscheinlich nicht. >(2) Die Dunkelzaehlrate ist Temperatur-abhaengig. Eine leichte > Fluktuation der Temperatur koennte einen Effekt vortaeuschen. >(3) Streulicht ist ein Problem. Es kann nicht mit 100%iger > Wahrscheinlichkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Alipasha sagt, die > Multimodefasern koennen im Prinzip Licht durchlassen, > eventuell bei den Steckverbindungen oder der Ummantelung. Das wuerde ich als moegliche Fehlerquelle fuer systematische Fehler anfuehren. Kann man das Experiment vielleicht mal "gekuehlt" und "gewaermt" machen und dann die Dunkelzaehlraten vergleichen? Zum Streulicht faellt mir auch nichts ein ... > I considered the following possibilities: [...] Ist es notwendig, dass die Photonen Ruhemassen haben? So weit ich weiss, geben die meisten Experimente sehr stringente Obergrenzen fuer die Photonmassen vor. Insbesondere die super-genauen QED-Messungen sind konsistent mit masselosen Photonen. Koennte man z.B. das anomale magnetische Moment des Elektrons auch in einer Theorie mit magnetischen Photonen reproduzieren? Schoene Gruesse, Wolfram _____________________________________________________________ Dr. Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@Feldtheorie.de> Theoretical studies in quantum field theories _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From saulo@fis.ufba.br Fri Mar 22 16:34:55 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:12:04 -0300 From: Saulo Carneiro <saulo@fis.ufba.br> Dear Rainer, As I have commented before, I do not agree that your lagrangian describes properly the interaction between electric charges and magnetic monopoles, because it does not lead to the correct Lorentz equation in the classical limit. Of course, one can consider it as describing another physical system, or, in other words, as being a modified theory of magnetic monopoles (not Dirac poles). But, even in this case, it is necessary to verify whether the lagrangian represents a system of positive total energy. To my opinion, the correct description of Maxwell electrodynamics with charges and poles should involve two massless photons which, due to a generalized gauge invariance, are indistinguishable from the observational point of view (see our papers in Phys.Lett.B and JHEP). Nevertheless, one could imagine a process of spontaneous symmetry braking of the generalized gauge invariance, which generates mass to one kind of photons (magnetic photons, say). As a result we would have the usual gauge invariance of Maxwell theory, which would describe the interaction between electric charges. And additional massive photons that would intermediate a short-range interaction (between poles, between charges and poles, or both?). In this context, the (now) massive magnetic photons could perhaps explain the result of the experiment and the puzzling factor 1000. Please think about and give me your opinion. Best wishes, Saulo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at Fri Mar 22 17:30:19 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:38:15 +0100 From: Alipasha Vaziri <vaziri.alipasha@exp.univie.ac.at> lieber rainer, ich glaube dass man in meinem experiment die erhoehung der zaehlrate durch die erwaermung ausschliessen kann, da erstens die folie reflektierend war und zweitens zwischen der folie und dem detektor wieder nur eine glasfaser war wodurch mir die ausbreitung der waermestrahlung sehr unwahrscheinlich erscheint. ich bin am morgen fuer 2 wochen auf konferenzen, ich werde wahrscheinlich daher erst dir wieder zurueckschreiben, wenn ich in wien bin. ciao ali -- Alipasha Vaziri Institute of Experimental Physics University of Vienna Boltzmanngasse 5 A-1090 Vienna AUSTRIA Tel: +43-1-4277-51226 -51201 Fax: +43-1-4277-9512 http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Sat Mar 23 17:04:47 2002 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 17:12:32 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hallo Rainer, >Bislang hat Alipasha seine Experimente mit einer gekuehlten >Lawinendiode durchgefuehrt, bei -30 Grad Celsius (diese Information >habe ich aus seiner Diplomarbeit, http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at). >Ich denke, bei Zimmertemperatur ist die Dunkelzaehlrate um ein Vielfaches >hoeher, der eventuelle Ueberschuss durch magnetische Photonen waere dann >unsichtbar. Wieviel machen Temperaturschwankungen um +/- 1 Grad aus? Je nachdem, ob draussen gerade die Sonne scheint oder es Nacht ist, koennte es durchaus einen Einfluss haben. (Vielleicht geht der nicht systematisch in irgendeine Richtung, aber man sollte ja nichts von vorneherein ausschliessen ...) Allerdings kenne ich mich mit der Technik nicht genug aus, um solche Einfluesse beurteilen zu koennen. >Ich bezweifle, dass die super-genauen QED-Messungen hierueber eine >Auskunft geben. Der Uebergang von der massiven zur masselosen Theorie >ist stetig, wenn die Theorie abelsch ist (fuer die QED gezeigt von >Stueckelberg, 1943 oder so). Aber die Eichinvarianz der Theorie wird doch durch den Massenterm zerstoert, oder? Es kann sein (kann ich aber auswendig nicht sagen), dass die Renormierbarkeit bei einer abelschen Theorie trotzdem gesichert bleibt. Kann mich aber auch irren ... >Das ist der Grund, weshalb bei der >Bornschen Naeherung ein fiktives Yukawa-Potential eingefuehrt und danach >der Grenzfall Ruhmasse gegen null gemacht wird und gemacht werden darf. >Fuer nicht-abelsche Theorien gilt das nicht mehr. Das haben Van Dam, >Veltman (der Nobelpreistraeger) und andere 1970 und 1972 bewiesen. Fuer nicht-abelsche Theorien ist AFAIK auch die Renormierbarkeit nicht mehr gegeben. Deswegen muss man im GSW-Modell den relativ komplizierten Higgs-Mechanismus einfuehren. >Das anomale magnetische Moment des Elektrons ist also kein Problem. Eine andere Frage bezuegl. der magn. Photonen waere, ob DIESE (mit oder ohne Masse) einen Einfluss auf dieses Messergebnis haetten. >Ein besserer Test fuer die Photon-Ruhmasse sind Tests des 1/r Gesetzes >des Potentials. Mit der Pioneer-Sonde wurde so das 1/r Gesetz fuer >das Magnetfeld des Jupiters nachgewiesen (upper limit der Photon-Masse: >10^-16 eV), kosmologische Beobachtungen an intergalaktischen Magnetfeldern >lieferten ein upper limit von 10^-22 eV (nicht ganz frei von Hypothesen, >insbesonder wurden vernachlaessigbare elektrische Stroeme angenommen). >Das beste Labor-Experiment lieferte 10^-16 eV fuer das upper limit der >Photon-Masse (Roderic Lakes 1998), das zweibeste lieferte 10^-13 eV >fuer das upper limit (Ott et al. 1993). Danke fuer die Hinweise. Aus dieser Aussage folgt, dass diese Obergrenze genauer ist als das anomale magnetische Moment des Elektrons. Schoene Gruesse, Wolfram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From saulo@fis.ufba.br Sat Mar 23 17:14:27 2002 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:19:06 -0300 (GRNLNDST) Dear Rainer, I will think on the problem of Dirac quantization condition. If I have any other idea on the subject, I contact you again. Please let me also know about your future progress, ok? Regards, Saulo. Rainer Kuehne <kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de>: > > Dear Saulo, > > thank you for your comments. I agree that my Lagrangian does not yield > the > correct Lorentz force. Here is a problem and maybe the origin of the > puzzling factor of 1000. > > I know that Douglas Singleton thinks that the magnetic photon may have a > > nonzero rest mass. However, I think it is difficult to explain the > Dirac quantization condition with a Yukawa field. On the semi-classical > level, I think, the quantization condition requires both photons to be > massless. > > But the factor of roughly 1000 is clearly unexpected for me. > So I will be open-minded for every possible solution. > > Best regards, > > Rainer > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www.webmail.ufba.br ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From maisheev@mx.ihep.su Sun Mar 24 09:28:35 2002 From: "maisheev" <maisheev@mx.ihep.su> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:43:59 +0300
Dear Dr. Kuehne: Thank you for you information. Now I can not give any comments on it, because I have a few free time due to experimental program on our accelerator. I think that I will read pointed references in nearelist future. Besides, I know that some new type of photon were discussed in literature (for example see hep-ph/9707479). Best regards V.Maisheev ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From israelit@macam.ac.il Sun Mar 24 10:31:57 2002 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:28:01 +0200 From: israelit <israelit@macam.ac.il> Subject: Re:electrodynamics Lieber Herr Kuehne, Vielen Dank fuer die sehr interessante Mitteilung. Fuer eine hard copy Ihres Artikels waere ich im voraus dankbar. Mit den besten Gruessen Mark Israelit. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark Israelit, Dept. of Physics, University of Haifa – Oranim, TIVON – 36006, ISRAEL. Tel: xx972-4-9838704 . Fax: xx972-4-9832167. E-mail: israelit@macam.ac.il israelit@physics.technion.ac.il ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl Mon Mar 25 16:50:00 2002 From: "romsioda" <romsioda@ap.siedlce.pl> Subject: Congratulations! Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:07:58 +0100 Dear Rainer, I am happy to hear about the interest in your work and thank you for letting me know. Greetings, Roman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Mon Mar 25 17:57:56 2002 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:06:12 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hallo Rainer, >Zu den Temperaturschwankungen: Ich werde Alipasha fragen, fuer die >naechsten zwei Wochen ist er allerdings auf einer Konferenz, so dass >er mir wohl nicht mailen kann. Fuer das durchgefuehrte Experiment ist >der Tag-Nacht-Effekt allerdings unwesentlich, die Messungen wurden >innerhalb einer Stunde durchgefuehrt, von 15:30 bis 16:30 (inclusive >der Hintergrund-Messungen). Naja ... wenn die Apparatur noch steht, ist es vielleicht interessant, die Messung jetzt nochmal zu wiederholen. Es kann ja immer irgendetwas sein. Vielleicht ist es auch ein Geraet im Nachbarlabor, das manchmal an- und manchmal ausgeschaltet ist ... >Zum Masseterm: Die Eichinvarianz wird auf jeden Fall zerstoert. Zustimmung. Das ist schon sehr uebel. Ich habe noch etwas ueber das Problem nachgedacht, und glaube nun, dass auch die QED fuer massive Photonen nicht renormierbar ist. Fuer die Renormierbarkeitsbeweise brauchst Du die Ward-Identitaeten, die direkt mit den Symmetrieeigenschaften der quantisierten Theorie zusammenhaengen. Und die duerfen nicht gebrochen sein (weder durch Anomalien noch explizit), sonst ist die Renormierbarkeit der Theorie gefaehrdet. Dieses Argument muesste sowohl fuer abelsche als auch nicht-abelsche Eichtheorien gelten, also auch fuer die QED. >Die Frage ist nur, wie. Spontane Symmetrie-Brechung via Higgs-Mechanismus >ist in einer abelschen Theorie schwierig oder sogar unmoeglich. Wieso geht das nicht? Gibt es dafuer einen offensichtlichen Grund, oder hast Du irgendwelche Literatur parat? >Zur Renormierbarkeit: Da gibt es ohnehin ein Problem. Die Kopplungskonstante >ist wegen der Dirac-Quantisierungsbedingung 137.036/4 = 34.259, oder falls >es freie Quarks gibt, 9 x 34.259 = 308.331. Stoerungstheorie in gewohnter >Weise geht nicht. Aber was ist dann mit der Renormierbarkeit? Ich habe jetzt Deine Arbeit mal ueberflogen und dort sind einige meiner Fragen beantwortet worden. Offenbar enthaelt die Wechselwirkung einen Tensorterm und der ist i.A. nicht perturbativ renormierbar. Oft sieht man eine solche Theorie allerdings als effektive Theorie einer zugrundeliegenden, renormierbaren Theorie an. Die Abhaengigkeit vom Bezugssystem wuerde dann aber auf eine Form von Gravitationstheorie hinauslaufen. Auf jeden Fall musst Du erstmal das Transformationsverhalten aller Vektoren angeben. Deine Argumentation mit dem Ruhesystem, dass durch die kosmische Hintergrundstrahlung gegeben ist, zeichnet ein absolutes Ruhesystem nicht wirklich aus - es ist das Machsche Prinzip, wodurch lediglich ein Bezugssystem in Bezug auf die anderen Massen im Universum ausgezeichnet ist. Die Auszeichnung des Bezugssystems geschieht NICHT durch die eigentlichen Bewegungsgleichungen, sondern lediglich durch die Randbedingungen. Dein Lagrangian jedoch enthaelt explizit eine Bezugssystemabhaengigkeit in den Bewegungsgleichungen. Wenn Du einen solchen Lagrangian hast, wird er automatisch nicht mehr Lorentzinvariant sein. Eine Quantisierung im Rahmen einer relativistischen Quantenfeldtheorie (wie der QED) ist wegen der Bezugssystemabhaengigkeit dann ebenfalls nicht moeglich. Du koenntest natuerlich in dem System quantisieren, wo u_\mu=0 (aus Deiner Arbeit) ist, und dann immer noch eine Quantenfeldtheorie bekommen. Jedoch wird es sehr schwer sein, dieses - bezugssystemabhaengige - Modell an das Standardmodell zu koppeln. Ein wesentliches Element der relat. QFTs ist naemlich die Lorentzinvarianz des Vakuumzustandes ... Allerdings gibt es auch sonst einen Haufen technischer Probleme: Du kannst keine Bornsche Naeherung machen, denn dies ist ja nichts anderes als der erste Term der Stoerungstheorie (ohne Schleifenkorrekturen). Wenn die Stoerungsreihe allerdings nicht definiert ist (weil der Kopplungsterm nicht die freie Theorie modifiziert, sondern dominiert), hast Du ein Problem. Dann gibt es u.U. auch nicht mal einen klassischen Limes (es gibt Leute, die glauben, dass die QCD ebenfalls so eine Theorie ist). Die QED besitzt allerdings einen solchen. Man hat die Energieabhaengigkeit der schwachen Kopplung uebrigens ebenfalls gemessen und eine exzellente Uebereinstimmung mit der QED-Vorhersage gefunden. Eine (fuer Q->0) divergente Kopplung an eine nicht-triviale Theorie muesste eigentlich ein Problem sein. >Zum magnetischen Moment: Ich bezweifle, dass das magnetische Photon >hier Auswirkungen zeigt. Auf dem Tree-level sollte kein Austausch eines >virtuellen magnetischen Photons stattfinden, solange kein Monopol in der >Naehe ist. Die Loop-Beitraege von magnetischem "Nordpol" und >"Suedpol" sollten sich wohl gegenseitig wegheben. Ich bin mir aber nicht >100 prozentig sicher. Das magnetische Moment wurde allerdings bis zu ziemlich hohen Ordnungen berechnet. Dort gehen auch Schleifen von virtuellen Elektronen und effektiven "Photon-photon-graphen" ein. Eine weitere Teilchensorte wuerde man hier somit auf jeden Fall indirekt durch virtuelle Teilchen gesehen haben. Schoene Gruesse, Wolfram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From tom.weiler@vanderbilt.edu Mon Mar 25 22:42:02 2002 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:42:46 -0600 From: Tom Weiler <tom.weiler@vanderbilt.edu> Subject: Re: magphos Rainer, i am traveling for a few days. I will get back to you later. best, Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From mtmt@qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp Tue Mar 26 08:33:46 2002 From: "Takaaki MATSUMOTO" <mtmt@qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp> Subject: congratulation Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:10:31 +0900 Dear Dr. Rainer Kuehne, congratulation! I was very pleased to hear that your photons were measured by Austrian researchers. Since I heard the phton from you last year, I have been having interests. But I had no chance to try again with an precise instrument, because I failed to get funds. I believe that your photons will be emitted much more with my discharge experiment. I would like to see details of the experiment. Thank you again and sorry for being late because of a meeting not in Sapporo. Best regards, Matsumoto Taka-aki ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Tue Mar 26 18:03:13 2002 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:11:45 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hallo Rainer, >Ich denke auch, es waere gut, wenn Alipasha den Versuch noch einmal >wiederholen wuerde. Am besten auch mit einem anderen Stueck Folie. [...] Das ist auch eine gute Idee! An die Folie hatte ich noch gar nicht gedacht ... >Zum Higgs-Mechanismus in der abelschen Theorie habe ich keine Literatur parat. >Vielleicht zwei Argumente (die allerdings auf schwachen Fuessen stehen): >(1) Der Higgs-Mechanismus bricht eine Symmetrie in eine andere, etwa >(2) Ein reell-wertiges Higgs-Feld kann ich mir nur schwer vorstellen. Was spricht gegen L(phi) = 1/2 m^2 phi^2(x) + lambda phi^4(x) ? Das liefert ein einfaches, einkomponentiges, reelles Higgsfeld (m>0, lambda<0). Dann entwickelst Du quasiklassisch um ein Minimum und koppelst das Ganze dann an ein U(1)-Feld. Und schon hast Du (durch den VEV des Higgsfeldes) einen nicht-verschwindenden Masseterm drinstehen. > Gaebe es ungegessene extrem leichte Higgs-Bosonen, > so waeren sie wohl bereits entdeckt worden. Sicherlich. Es geht mir jetzt nicht um experimentellen Nachweis, sondern nur um die Frage, ob der Higgsmechanismus in der U(1) funktionieren wuerde oder nicht. Realisiert ist er so hoechstwahrscheinlich nirgends. >Zur Tensor-Kopplung: In der Mesonen-Theorie wird die Tensorkopplung >als Gradienten-Kopplung aufgefasst und als Teil einer effektiven Theorie >(der QCD) betrachtet. [...] >Ich schrieb sie an den Vertex. Um einen Vektor zu erhalten, musste ich >die Vektorkopplung ersetzen. Eine skalare Kopplung oder eine Tensorkopplung >war moeglich. Intuitiv entschied ich mich fuer die Tensorkopplung. Die Tensorkopplung in der Mesonentheorie ist zwar nicht perturbativ renormierbar, allerdings ist der resultierende Lagrangian ein Lorentzskalar. Dein Lagrangian ist kein Lorentzskalar => keine relativistische Quantenfeldtheorie. Und dann stellt sich die Frage, worunter dieser Lagrangian sonst invariant ist? Galilei geht nicht, Lorentz geht auch nicht, also was moechtest Du sonst nehmen? >Zur Lorentz-Invarianz: Relativitaetsprinzip und Lorentz-Invarianz sind nicht >dasselbe. In der klassischen Physik ist ja auch ein absolutes Ruhsystem >moeglich (Relativitaetsprinzip verletzt), waehrend die Galilei-Invarianz >erfuellt ist. Ich glaube, wir sollten die Begriffe klaeren: Meine Defs. sind wie folgt: 1.) Lorentzinvarianz bedeutet, dass die Physik auf einer Mannigfaltigkeit mit 3 Raum und 1 Zeitkoordinate beschrieben werden kann. Die zugehoerigen Karten haben alle eine flache Metrik, d.h. es existiert eine Transformation, mit der der metrische Tensor GLOBAL auf g=diag(1,-1,-1,-1) gebracht werden kann. Ich postuliere nun, dass meine Bewegungsgleichungen Lorentzinvariant sein muessen, d.h. gemaess der Gruppe transformieren muessen, die die Zweiform a*a (bezuegl. der Metrik g) invariant laesst. In diesem Falle kann ich relat. QFTs definieren und mit den ueblichen Begriffen arbeiten. 2.) Galilei-Invarianz ist ein Limes der Lorentzinvarianz, den man fuer kleine Geschwindigkeiten v<c erhaelt. Hier gibt es allerdings auch KEIN absolutes Ruhesystem. Die Maxwellgleichungen sind NICHT Galilei-invariant, sondern Lorentz-invariant => Lichtausbreitung kann nicht durch Galilei-Transformationen beschrieben werden (Michelson-Morley-Experiment). Wenn Du Galilei-invariante WWs betrachtest, dann kannst Du damit auch kein bevorzugtes Bezugssystem definieren. Das geht nur, wenn Du versuchst, Lorentz-invariante Objekte zu Galilei-transformieren, was aber so ist, als wuerdest Du beweisen, dass Kreise quadratisch sind, indem Du sie auf einen Wuerfel klebst. >Auch in der allgemeinen Relativitaet ist es so, die >relativistische Kosmologie ist lokal Lorentz-Invariant, waehrend es ein >absolutes Bezugssystem und eine absolute Zeit gibt. [...] Nein, die gibt es nicht. Die relat. Kosmologie geht von den Einsteinschen Feldgleichungen aus, die ohne weitere Annahmen ueber die Randbedingungen kein absolutes Bezugssystem kennen. Durch das Postulieren des kosmologischen Prinzips werden dann Randbedingungen vorgegeben und man erhaelt einen relativ allgemeinen Ansatz fuer die Walker-Metrik. In diesem stehen dann natuerlich gewisse Parameter drin, von denen ein Beobachter einen als Zeitparameter definieren kann. Wesentlich ist also hierbei: Die eigentlichen Feldgleichungen kennen kein absolutes Bezugssystem. Durch das kosmologische Prinzip werden allerdings Randbedingungen gefordert, die einen Zeitparameter definieren koennen. >Uebrigens ist die spezielle Relativitaet kein Spezialfall der >allgemeinen Relativitaet. Denn das Aequivalenzprinzip, das so >fundamental in der ART ist, ist in der SRT maximal verletzt. Die ART ist eine Theorie ueber die Bewegungsgleichungen der Metrik g. Relat. QFTs koennen wir nur in dem Spezialfall definieren, dass dir Metrik g statisch ist und global auf die Form g=diag(1,-1,-1,-1) gebracht werden kann. Das Aequivalenzprinzip koennen wir also hier ueberhaupt nicht verwenden. Noch etwas Philosophie ;^) >Zu Renormierbarkeit und Eichprinzip: Ich habe gewisse Zweifel, dass >renormierbare Theorien und das Eichprinzip "der heilige Gral" zum >Verstaendnis der Quantenfeldtheorien sind. >(1) Warum eigentlich Stoerungstheorie und Renormierung? Stoerungstheorie >wird gewoehnlich betrieben, wenn man mit der exakten Theorie nicht >zurecht kommt. Aber liegt das nicht oft daran, dass die exakte Theorie >falsch ist? Ein historisches Beispiel: [...] Die Epizyklentheorie ist ja auch nicht falsch gewesen. Sie ermoeglicht eine exakte Beschreibung der Planetenbewegung, wenn auch mit unendlich vielen Parametern. Die Newtonsche Theorie braucht lediglich die Massen und die Gravitationskonstante (also endlich viele Parameter). Wenn Du also zwei Theorien hast - eine einfache mit wenig Parametern und eine komplizierte mit unendlich vielen - welche nimmst Du dann? I.d.R. wenden die Physiker das Prinzip von Occams Razor an und nehmen die einfachere. >(2) Warum Eichtheorien? Weil sie die einzigen renormierbaren Theorien sind. Nein, es gibt auch andere Theorien, die Renormierbar sind. Es gibt ein Theorem von Weinberg, mit dessen Hilfe Du feststellen kannst, ob Dein Lagrangian renormierbar ist oder nicht. Eine Eichtheorie muss es dafuer nicht sein. Der Vorteil von Eichtheorien ist, das man mit einer ganz einfachen Annahme (ein Elektron ist unabhaengig davon, welche Phase ich gerade hier und ein Beobachter im Andromedanebel in die Wellenfunktion hineinschreiben) die Eigenschaften und die Art der Kopplung erhalte. Mit minimalen Forderungen bekomme ich eine Theorie, die die gesamte Elektrodynamik einfach und simpel beschreiben kann. >-- Liegt das Problem mit der Suche nach der Quanten-Gravitation vielleicht >darin, dass die Gravitation gar nicht durch eine Eichtheorie beschrieben >wird? Nun, ich habe 1999 selbst ein Paper zum Thema Eichtheorie der >Gravitation publiziert (und dabei die Lehrmeinung nachgebetet). Das kann natuerlich sein. Allerdings fuehrt eine Eichtheorie einen Grundgedanken der Relativitaetstheorie fort - die Physik ist unabhaengig davon, welche Konvention (Koordinaten oder Phasen in Wellenfunktionen) ich zu ihrer Beschreibung verwende. Dieses Prinzip ist so simpel und einfach und trotzdem so erfolgreich, dass man es nur ungern aufgibt. Wenn es einen Angriffspunkt bei Eichtheorien gibt, wuerde ich den eher bei den Quantisierungsbedingungen suchen. Denn DIE sind in jedem Fall Bezugssystemabhaengig. Bei einer relat. QFT im Pfadintegralformalismus ist das Ganze zwar nicht mehr ganz so offensichtlich, aber eine Kovarianz des Quantisierungsverfahrens ist nicht mehr gegeben. Fuer eine Theorie der Quantengravitation braeuchtest Du also ein Bezugssystem zum Quantisieren der Metrik g, anderseits jedoch sollte die Physik unabhaengig von der Wahl dieses Bezugssystems sein. Die Inkompatibilitaet dieser Begriffe sind auch der Grund fuer zahlreiche konzeptionelle Probleme der klassischen Naeherungen wie Hawking-Strahlung etc. Schoene Gruesse, Wolfram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From grk@phyast.nhn.ou.edu Wed Mar 27 20:21:32 2002 From: George Kalbfleisch <grk@nhn.ou.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:27:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Vaziri's Null Result Dear Prof. Kuehne, Three observations. 1). Since 1.16/s < 1200, your proposal is "falsified" as you stated in your Note of 9/25/2000. 2). Error bars need to be assigned to the measurements. Your 1.16/s has an (statistical) error of =/-0.52 /s, ie. only a 2.2 sigma effect. 3). If you wish to somehow revise your prediction by 1/1000, then more statistics needs to be run, at least 100 sec/run per cycle of 4 conditions, and then repeated say at least 3 times for reproducibility, ie get some kind of systematic error as well. I have contemplated doing this myself from time to time, but always too busy. I have the HeNe 1 mW laser sitting on my desk for 2 years now. Vaziri did your proposed experiment to a levelyou suggested. If you propose something further, then you need to justify a range for your revised predictions. And then a test 1/1000 or so better can be used to argue for relativity being "good" ???? Keep me informed. Sincerely GRK (George R Kalbfleisch) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de Thu Mar 28 15:02:55 2002 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:11:55 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram.Schroers@feldtheorie.de> Hallo Rainer, ich bin gerade auf dem Sprung zum Zug. Deswegen noch ganz kurz: >Kannst Du mir die Referenz der Arbeit >von Weinberg nennen? Ich dachte bislang, dass Eichtheorien die >einzigen Theorien sind, deren Renormierbarkeit gezeigt wurde. >Was sind die anderen renormierbaren Theorien, sind es verallgemeinerte >Eichtheorien oder etwas ganz anderes? Das Theorem bezieht sich auf die WW-Terme, die im Lagrangian stehen. Du zaehlst die Dimensionalitaet des Terms nach gewissen Regeln. Wenn die hoechste Dimensionalitaet aller WW-Terme < die Raumdimension ist, ist die Theorie "superrenormierbar". Ist sie gleich der Raumdimension, ist die Theorie renormierbar, ansonsten nicht-renormierbar. Dabei ist es nicht wesentlich, ob die Theorie eine Eichtheorie ist oder nicht. Die Arbeit von Weinberg habe ich leider nicht parat, aber Du kannst in den Cheng+Li schauen. Im Kapitel ueber "Power-counting and Renormalization" (oder so aehnlich) ist das Ganze erklaert. >Viele Gruesse und frohe Ostern Danke gleichfalls! Schoene Gruesse, Wolfram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From garcia@dft.if.uerj.br Wed Apr 3 00:19:32 2002 From: "L.C. Garcia de Andrade" <garcia@dft.if.uerj.br> To: "Rainer Kuehne" <kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de> Dear Prof. Kuehne I am considering the possibility of visiting Germany next year for two months with a DAAD fellowship, I have already been a fellow from Berlin-FU in 98. Of course I am considering some universities which I could work and I would be happy if one of these could be yours. Please write to me if you have some interest on a common project on torsion detection and cosmology, meanwhile allow me to tell you my recent work on the field: CQG-18(2001) 3097. Best wishes Garcia de Andrade -----Mensagem original----- De: Rainer Kuehne <kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de> Para: garcia@dft.if.uerj.br <garcia@dft.if.uerj.br> Data: Segunda-feira, 18 de Marco de 2002 05:01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From gamberg@physics.upenn.edu Thu Apr 4 17:46:59 2002 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:42:35 -0500 (EST) From: Leonard Gamberg <gamberg@physics.upenn.edu> Dear Rainer, Sorry not to get back to you until now. As I'm sure you are aware monopole physics is a risky business. The rewards for making progress are huge but many people are skeptical of the existence of Dirac like monopoles at electroweak scale an below. I think simply because with much effort by serious people over the years , both experimentalists and theorists, they just simply have not been detected. If you have come up with something new the impact would be huge. On the other hand very serious people have worked very hard and come up emtpy handed. Of course this does not invalidate the advances we have made from amassing theoretical and experimental information from all of the null results and deeper theoretical understandings that have come along with that . I have never tried to use monopoles as a research project to "hang my hat" though I find it immensly interesting and thought provoking. As you may know I have spent more of my time in theory and phenomenolgy of hadron physics with more modest success but of course more experimental evidence. I guess you job prospects in Germany are tempered by the very few possible jobs. I was also a post doc in Germany at T\"ubingen from 1995-1996 and I know the situation in Germany is pretty bad from the standpoint of employment. Here in the states its only a little better, partially because we have the college system which affords and opportunity to pursue research but with a much higher teaching load. There are more jobs becasue of these positions but the time for research is really cut in half. Nonetheless its a job and one to be appreciative of. I am presently in the stage of moving into one of those positions. I have been mainly doing post doc work and now a lectureship at Upenn but will be moving into a more permanent position in the fall. I of course wish you the best in finding something ; its not easy these days to find a position. Well let me know if anything comes from the monopole work. I hope to devote some time to it again in the fall (or maybe this summer as I might go to visit Univ. of OK where Kim Milton and I worked with George Kalbfleisch on the Univ. of Oklahoma monopole project). Best wishes, Leonard Dr. Leonard Gamberg Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Pennsylvania David Rittenhouse Labs 209 South 33rd Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396 http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/~gamberg Office: 2C3 Phone: 215-898-7882 Fax: 215-898-2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lakes@engr.wisc.edu Mon Apr 15 16:55:58 2002 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:56:06 -0600 From: Rod Lakes <lakes@engr.wisc.edu>
>Rainer Thus far it is not definitive owing to the heating effect. We have a superior detector on order and will do the experiment with that. Cheers, Rod ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From schlesen@mf.mpg.de Tue Apr 30 10:15:10 2002 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:14:26 +0200 From: Frank Schlesener <schlesen@mf.mpg.de> Hallo Rainer, danke fuer die Info-mail von vor ein paar Wochen. Schade, dass die Messungen keine signifikannten Ergebnisse liefern konnten, die Deine Theorie bestaetigen. Ich erinnere mich noch, dass ich die Idee recht faszinierend fand. Aehnlich ging es mir auch mit Deinem paper zu nicht konstanten Naturkonstanten. Dazu habe ich in der aktuellen Ausgabe von Nature (Vol416 p803) einen kurzen Artikel gefunden. Vielleicht interessiert es Dich ja. Ansonsten nichts fuer ungut. Gruss Frank ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-11-2004 09:05
Dear Sherman, (March 18, 10:05)I know rather nothing about multi mode glass fibres. However, in his previous (and published) experiments, Alipasha was successful in using mono mode glass fibres. In this new experiment he used multi mode glass fibres to reduce the effects of stray light. (In June 2001 he and Gregor Weihs tried the experiment with the mono mode glass fibres, but the stray light dominated everything.) I predict that electric photon and magnetic photon have identical quantum numbers, i.e. spin of one, negative parity, zero rest mass, zero charge. The only difference is how they couple to charges. Electric charges couple via vector coupling to electric photons and via tensor coupling (velocity coupling) to magnetic photons. Magnetic charges couple via vector coupling to magnetic photons and via tensor coupling (velocity coupling) to electric photons. Electric photons move in the direction E x B. The dual transformation is E -> B and B -> -E. Therefore the direction of magnetic photons should be B x (-E) = E x B, i.e. it should be identical with that of electric photons. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Dharam, (March 18, 10:28) Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 I think that 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. From this I get that the error bar for each measurement is about 6 counts for the 44 background measurements and 7 counts for the 17 foreground measurements. The total error bar for the background is then 6counts/sqrt(44)=0.9counts, that of the foreground is 7counts/sqrt(17)=1.7counts. The one-sigma error bar for the excess is then sqrt( 0.9^2 + 1.7^2 ) counts = 1.9 counts. Or, for the count rate: 0.19 counts/s. As the excess is 1.16 counts/s I would estimate the statistical significance to be about 6 sigma. There is another interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. Alipasha has not published the results. The reason is that systematical errors (a slightly varying electronic noise due to temperature fluctuations) and stray light cannot be completely ruled out. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Tom, (March 18, 10:33) the measurement data are not Poisson distributed. The background is mainly due to electronic noise. Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 I think that 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. From this I get that the error bar for each measurement is about 6 counts for the 44 background measurements and 7 counts for the 17 foreground measurements. The total error bar for the background is then 6counts/sqrt(44)=0.9counts, that of the foreground is 7counts/sqrt(17)=1.7counts. The one-sigma error bar for the excess is then sqrt( 0.9^2 + 1.7^2 ) counts = 1.9 counts. Or, for the count rate: 0.19 counts/s. As the excess is 1.16 counts/s I would estimate the statistical significance to be about 6 sigma. There is another interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Dr. Garcia de Andrade, (March 18, 10:53) thanks for your reply. The magnetic photon should have zero rest mass. But there is an analogy with respect to torsion. The electric-magnetic duality is: 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 Quite interestingly, gravitation theory appears to have an analogous duality: gravitational mass --- spin curvature --- torsion graviton --- tordion I discussed this analogy in my paper: R. W. Kuehne, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 2531 (1999); available online via: http://www.worldscinet.com/journals/ijmpa/14/1416/0160.html http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9806026 Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Samuel, (March 18, 10:59) thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, Alipasha has not yet made a preprint out of his data. He will need some further experiments to definitely rule out systematic effects and stray light. I will be very happy if you have questions or (critical) comments about the experiment. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Roman, (March 18, 12:23) thank you for the congratulations. I got my Ph.D. at the University of Dortmund on July 19, 2001. It was supervised by Dr. Sc. Ute Loew (female) and Prof. Andreas Kluemper. Abstract and PDF-version of my thesis (written in English) are available via: http://eldorado.uni-dortmund.de:8080/FB2/ls8/forschung/2001/Kuehne Today I informed several scientists on the possible finding of the magnetic photon rays. I already got some replies, most are sceptical, there is certainly some discussion required. Of course, further and independent experiments are required to decide whether or not the signal is real or due to systematical effects or stray light. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Leonard, (March 18, 18:00) thank you for your reply. My paper was published in Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 3153 (1997). My model includes two kinds of photon and avoids the Dirac string and singular potentials (like the model of Salam). The model of Salam does not satisfy the Dirac quantization condition, because in his model the magnetic photon does not couple to hadrons. In my model, however, I interpret the tensor coupling not as derivative coupling but as a new coupling (velocity coupling). My model satisfies the quantization condition, because I consider the Lorentz force as something fundamental. -- Usually, one learns that classical electrodynamics is Maxwell's equations and their solutions. But my professor said in his lecture (I forgot who it was): No, classical electrodynamics is Maxwell's equations plus Lorentz force and their solutions; one cannot derive the Lorentz force from Maxwell's equations. So the Dirac quantization condition can be satisfied, in my opinion, only if the Lorentz force and therefore force operator and velocity operator exist. I think you discussed also my preprint hep-ex/0010040 with George Kalbfleisch. In it I argued that August Kundt (the teacher of Roentgen) may have seen the magnetic photon rays in his experiment in 1885. I have a new preprint, physics/0201056, where I pointed out especially the many and far-reaching consequences of my model. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Sherman, (March 18, 18:13) I have received and read your 1976 paper. I have to read it again to comment on it. By the way, Julian Schwinger had a Science article in 1968 or 1969 where he speculated whether hadrons could consist of dyons. In this way he tried to solve the observed CP-violation in K-meson decay which until now is still unexplained. CP-violation can be parametrized by the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, but then there appears the strong CP problem. In 1977 the axion was suggested by Peccei and Quinn to solve this strong CP problem. However, the axion (in its original version) has been ruled out experimentally. So I think the physical origin of the CP violation is still unclear. Of course, Schwinger's model of hadrons has been ruled out. The quark model and QCD are correct (or, at least, good approximations of the reality). But I wonder whether magnetic monopoles could be responsible for the CP violation. I will read your 1976 paper again. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Sherman, (March 19, 12:16) I think the major difference between our ideas is whether or not magnetic charges are scalars or pseudoscalars. But I can see several similarities. Let us regard the formulae of my paper Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 3153 (1997). (1) Now let us consider the case without magnetic charges, q = 0. Then my model has, of course, an electric four-current, eq. (11), but also a nonzero magnetic four-current, eq. (12). This nonzero magnetic four-current results from the tensor coupling of electric charges with the magnetic photon. In this respect, electric charges somewhat resemble magnetic charges. This magnetic four-current (in the absense of magnetic charges) is required also for the behavior of visible light in metals. Electric photon light has a penetration depth of several nano meters. According to classical electrodynamics, the penetration depth is determined by the electric conductivity. The physical interpretation is that the absorbed electric photon light generates an electric current. My model predicts the interaction cross-section of a magnetic photon to be 10^-6 times that of an electric photon of the same energy when interacting with electric charges. Hence, magnetic photon light (with frequencies of the visible light) should have a penetration depth of several milli meters in metals. So the magnetic conductivity should be several orders of magnitude smaller than the electric conductivity. But this nonzero magnetic conductivity means also that absorbed magnetic photon light generates a magnetic current. I have difficulties to interpret this magnetic current. Possibly, it means that moving electric charges are not only an electric current but also a magnetic current. (2) To obtain the parity violation in the interaction of an electric charge Q with a magnetic charge q, I had to introduce the Dirac matrix gamma_5 in the Lagrangian, eq. (9). I wonder what this gamma_5 means when my formulae are applied on the classical theory. I cannot exclude that my formulae then resemble (or maybe become identical to) your formulae, i.e. electric charge Q and magnetic charge q (when gamma_5 is taken into account) obtain opposite parities. This is not yet clear to me. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Roman, (March 19, 12:31) congratulations to your grandchild. I do not yet have a wife or a child. My parents have still some time to wait before they will become grandparents. The subject of my Ph.D. was the thermodynamics of antiferromagnetic Heisenberg systems. This subject became of interest since 1987 when people realized that the high-temperature superconducting materials become antiferromagnets above the critical temperature. -- Actually this subject was introduced by Heisenberg in 1928 for the ferromagnetic case. At present, I am busy to find a job. I am unemployed since July 1, 2001. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Alex, (March 19, 12:38) thank you for your kind reply. Alipasha Vaziri has not yet made a preprint out of it. He has to repeat his experiment to rule out systematical effects and stray light. Naturally, it would be helpful if someone else could reproduce the experiment and verify the signal. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Doug, (March 20, 12:44) thank you for the kind reply. The factor of about 1000 is puzzling, because during the last seven years I spent much time to consider possible effects which may alter my prediction by a certain factor. I considered the following possibilities: (1) Electric and magnetic photon have different rest masses. In this case the four-potentials are described by two Proca-equations. But I think that in this case the free electric field and the free magnetic field cannot be described by wave equations. (2) Electric and magnetic photon can mix. I think this is possible only if these two photons differ by at least two quantum numbers, say parity and rest mass. In this case rest mass eigenstate and parity eigenstate should not occur simultaneously -- comparable to the rest mass eigenstate and the strangeness eigenstate in the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. (3) Electric and magnetic photon can oscillate, analogous to neutrino oscillations and the K-meson oscillations. But to explain the factor of 1000 the rest masses should be very large. (4) Higher order corrections should be considered. But the coupling of an electric charge to a magnetic photon is only alpha_e * v^2 = 10^-8. And the self-energy contributions of the magnetic photon (i.e. virtual monopole-antimonopole pairs) should be negligible at 2 eV energy, because monopole-antimonopole pairs have been searched for and the lower limit of their rest mass is several GeV. There is a loophole, the monopole-antimonopole pairs may decay very rapidly because of the large coupling constant of 34 or 308. In this case the peak would be very broad and can be confused with the background. This happened with the sigma-meson. (5) The coupling constant is not simply alpha_e * v^2, but it is reduced by a further factor. In this case, I think, the Lorentz force between electric and magnetic charge cannot be generated, but a force which is smaller than the Lorentz force by this factor. (6) The efficiency of lasers to produce magnetic photons may be less than that of conventional light sources of the same power. -- Well, I do not know. (7) The coupling alpha_e * v^2 is strictly valid only for the coupling of free electric charges to magnetic photons. But in a conductor light interacts with the electromagnetic field (not with particles). This may change the prediction. -- Again, I do not know. In any case, I do not yet understand the factor of 1000. It was a great surprise to me. But I hope that someone will reproduce the experiment to confirm the signal and to determine the factor more precisely. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Tom, (March 21, 12:05) I am curious. Do you agree with my interpretation of the statistics? Do you think that the excess may be due to magnetic photon rays or do you think that it is rather stray light or some systematical fluctuation of the detector system? I am not really certain, because the possible signal is very small and roughly 1000 times smaller than my prediction. In any case the signal should be verified or falsified by an independent experimentalist. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 22, 12:46) vielen Dank fuer Deine Mail und Deine Fragen. Ich kann sie nur zum Teil beantworten, da ich das Experiment nicht persoenlich ausgefuehrt habe und auch nicht beim Experiment anwesend war. (1) Zur statistischen Signifikanz: Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 I think that 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. From this I get that the error bar for each measurement is about 6 counts for the 44 background measurements and 7 counts for the 17 foreground measurements. The total error bar for the background is then 6counts/sqrt(44)=0.9counts, that of the foreground is 7counts/sqrt(17)=1.7counts. The one-sigma error bar for the excess is then sqrt( 0.9^2 + 1.7^2 ) counts = 1.9 counts. Or, for the count rate: 0.19 counts/s. As the excess is 1.16 counts/s I would estimate the statistical significance to be about 6 sigma. There is another interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. (2) Die Dunkelzaehlrate ist Temperatur-abhaengig. Eine leichte Fluktuation der Temperatur koennte einen Effekt vortaeuschen. (3) Streulicht ist ein Problem. Es kann nicht mit 100%iger Wahrscheinlichkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Alipasha sagt, die Multimodefasern koennen im Prinzip Licht durchlassen, eventuell bei den Steckverbindungen oder der Ummantelung. (4) The factor of about 1000 is puzzling, because during the last seven years I spent much time to consider possible effects which may alter my prediction by a certain factor. I considered the following possibilities: (a) Electric and magnetic photon have different rest masses. In this case the four-potentials are described by two Proca-equations. But I think that in this case the free electric field and the free magnetic field cannot be described by wave equations. (b) Electric and magnetic photon can mix. I think this is possible only if these two photons differ by at least two quantum numbers, say parity and rest mass. In this case rest mass eigenstate and parity eigenstate should not occur simultaneously -- comparable to the rest mass eigenstate and the strangeness eigenstate in the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. (c) Electric and magnetic photon can oscillate, analogous to neutrino oscillations and the K-meson oscillations. But to explain the factor of 1000 the rest masses should be very large. (d) Higher order corrections should be considered. But the coupling of an electric charge to a magnetic photon is only alpha_e * v^2 = 10^-8. And the self-energy contributions of the magnetic photon (i.e. virtual monopole-antimonopole pairs) should be negligible at 2 eV energy, because monopole-antimonopole pairs have been searched for and the lower limit of their rest mass is several GeV. There is a loophole, the monopole-antimonopole pairs may decay very rapidly because of the large coupling constant of 34 or 308. In this case the peak would be very broad and can be confused with the background. This happened with the sigma-meson. (e) The coupling constant is not simply alpha_e * v^2, but it is reduced by a further factor. In this case, I think, the Lorentz force between electric and magnetic charge cannot be generated, but a force which is smaller than the Lorentz force by this factor. (f) The efficiency of lasers to produce magnetic photons may be less than that of conventional light sources of the same power. -- Well, I do not know. (g) The coupling alpha_e * v^2 is strictly valid only for the coupling of free electric charges to magnetic photons. But in a conductor light interacts with the electromagnetic field (not with particles). This may change the prediction. -- Again, I do not know. Aber: Professor Roderic Lakes von der University of Wisconsin fuehrte ein unabhaengiges Experiment durch. Er schrieb mir gestern Abend: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Ali, (March 22, 12:49)
vielen Dank fuer die Information. Uebrigens erhielt ich gestern Abend eine Mail von Roderic Lakes. Er scheint das Signal moeglicherweise zu bestaetigen. Er schrieb: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Rod, (March 22, 12:54) this is very interesting. Please continue. I hope the possible signal will be confirmed. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Saulo, (March 22, 14:13) many thanks for your kind reply. The factor of about 1000 is puzzling, because during the last seven years I spent much time to consider possible effects which may alter my prediction by a certain factor. I considered the following possibilities: (1) Electric and magnetic photon have different rest masses. In this case the four-potentials are described by two Proca-equations. But I think that in this case the free electric field and the free magnetic field cannot be described by wave equations. (2) Electric and magnetic photon can mix. I think this is possible only if these two photons differ by at least two quantum numbers, say parity and rest mass. In this case rest mass eigenstate and parity eigenstate should not occur simultaneously -- comparable to the rest mass eigenstate and the strangeness eigenstate in the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. (3) Electric and magnetic photon can oscillate, analogous to neutrino oscillations and the K-meson oscillations. But to explain the factor of 1000 the rest masses should be very large. (4) Higher order corrections should be considered. But the coupling of an electric charge to a magnetic photon is only alpha_e * v^2 = 10^-8. And the self-energy contributions of the magnetic photon (i.e. virtual monopole-antimonopole pairs) should be negligible at 2 eV energy, because monopole-antimonopole pairs have been searched for and the lower limit of their rest mass is several GeV. There is a loophole, the monopole-antimonopole pairs may decay very rapidly because of the large coupling constant of 34 or 308. In this case the peak would be very broad and can be confused with the background. This happened with the sigma-meson. (5) The coupling constant is not simply alpha_e * v^2, but it is reduced by a further factor. In this case, I think, the Lorentz force between electric and magnetic charge cannot be generated, but a force which is smaller than the Lorentz force by this factor. (6) The efficiency of lasers to produce magnetic photons may be less than that of conventional light sources of the same power. -- Well, I do not know. (7) The coupling alpha_e * v^2 is strictly valid only for the coupling of free electric charges to magnetic photons. But in a conductor light interacts with the electromagnetic field (not with particles). This may change the prediction. -- Again, I do not know. Yesterday evening I received an e-mail from Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes. He tried an independent experiment. He wrote: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Juan, (March 22, 18:50) Alipasha Vaziri is not certain about the interpretation. He thinks that stray light can never be excluded with 100% certainty. Stray light may appear at the plug connections or the cover. In his own words (unfortunately, we correspond in German language): Ich weiss persoenlich nicht was davon zu halten ist. Eines ist sicher Streulich kann man nie (zu mindestens mit unseren Mitteln) zu 100% ausschliessen. Die Multimodefasern koennen im Prinzip Licht durchlassen eventuell bei den Steckverbindungen oder Ummantelung. Ideal waere eine Singlemodefaser, weil sich dorch nur eine transversale Mode ausbreiten kann. Aber das habe ich auch ausprobiert, nur dort ist das Problem, dass die Zaehlrate so stark absinkt, dass man dann keinen Kontrast hat. Yesterday evening, I received an e-mail from Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes (University of Wisconsin at Madison). He did an independent experiment and wrote: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod I should remark that Alipasha Vaziri and Roderic Lakes have not done research on electromagnetic duality and monopoles before (as far as I know). Alipasha Vaziri is a PhD student of Anton Zeilinger who is very famous for his work on quantum entanglement, quantum teleportation, quantum cryptography, GHZ theorem (i.e. Bell theorem for a three-particle state which is described by equations instead of inequations). Anton Zeilinger has 10 publications in Nature and Science together. I am certain that he will in not-to-distant future win the Nobel prize for his work on quantum teleportation. Roderic Lakes is famous for his discovery of certain foams which very unconventional properties. He has 8 or 9 publications in Nature and Science together. Yes, I know only too well what mainstream scientists think when they are confronted with new ideas or with new experimental data. I have worked on subjects such as cold fusion (this is a very active field of research, however, the sonoluminescence fusion reported in the March 15 issue of Science has nothing to due with it -- and is in my opinion wrong), the cosmic rotation axis reported in 1997, the possibility of a time-varying fine-structure constant reported in 1999, and the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. Refs.: cold fusion bibliography: http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/ cosmic axis: http://xxx.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9708109 alpha: http://xxx.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908356 Pioneer: http://xxx.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9809075 Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 22, 19:11) vielen Dank fuer die Kommentare. Bislang hat Alipasha seine Experimente mit einer gekuehlten Lawinendiode durchgefuehrt, bei -30 Grad Celsius (diese Information habe ich aus seiner Diplomarbeit, http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at). Ich denke, bei Zimmertemperatur ist die Dunkelzaehlrate um ein Vielfaches hoeher, der eventuelle Ueberschuss durch magnetische Photonen waere dann unsichtbar. Ich bin der Meinung, dass die Dirac-Quantisierungsbedingung nur erfuellt ist, wenn beide Photonen exakt Ruhemasse null haben. Dieser Meinung sind die meisten Autoren, die auf diesem Gebiet arbeiten. Eine andere Meinung hat Douglas Singleton, er meint, das magnetische Photon koenne eine endliche Ruhmasse haben. Ich bezweifle, dass die super-genauen QED-Messungen hierueber eine Auskunft geben. Der Uebergang von der massiven zur masselosen Theorie ist stetig, wenn die Theorie abelsch ist (fuer die QED gezeigt von Stueckelberg, 1943 oder so). Das ist der Grund, weshalb bei der Bornschen Naeherung ein fiktives Yukawa-Potential eingefuehrt und danach der Grenzfall Ruhmasse gegen null gemacht wird und gemacht werden darf. Fuer nicht-abelsche Theorien gilt das nicht mehr. Das haben Van Dam, Veltman (der Nobelpreistraeger) und andere 1970 und 1972 bewiesen. Das anomale magnetische Moment des Elektrons ist also kein Problem. Ein besserer Test fuer die Photon-Ruhmasse sind Tests des 1/r Gesetzes des Potentials. Mit der Pioneer-Sonde wurde so das 1/r Gesetz fuer das Magnetfeld des Jupiters nachgewiesen (upper limit der Photon-Masse: 10^-16 eV), kosmologische Beobachtungen an intergalaktischen Magnetfeldern lieferten ein upper limit von 10^-22 eV (nicht ganz frei von Hypothesen, insbesonder wurden vernachlaessigbare elektrische Stroeme angenommen). Das beste Labor-Experiment lieferte 10^-16 eV fuer das upper limit der Photon-Masse (Roderic Lakes 1998), das zweibeste lieferte 10^-13 eV fuer das upper limit (Ott et al. 1993). Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Saulo, (March 22, 19:19) thank you for your comments. I agree that my Lagrangian does not yield the correct Lorentz force. Here is a problem and maybe the origin of the puzzling factor of 1000. I know that Douglas Singleton thinks that the magnetic photon may have a nonzero rest mass. However, I think it is difficult to explain the Dirac quantization condition with a Yukawa field. On the semi-classical level, I think, the quantization condition requires both photons to be massless. But the factor of roughly 1000 is clearly unexpected for me. So I will be open-minded for every possible solution. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 22, 19:24) ich sollte meine Mails frueher lesen. Alipasha schrieb mir um 17:30: "ich glaube dass man in meinem experiment die erhoehung der zaehlrate durch die erwaermung ausschliessen kann, da erstens die folie reflektierend war und zweitens zwischen der folie und dem detektor wieder nur eine glasfaser war wodurch mir die ausbreitung der waermestrahlung sehr unwahrscheinlich erscheint." Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (March 25, 11:57) Dear Sherman, Dharam, Tom, Roman, Leonard, Valeri Dvoeglazov, Alex, Doug, Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison tried an independent experiment. He wrote me on March 21: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod There are now three confirmations of my theory, although none is yet conclusive: (1) The experiment of Alipasha Vaziri. (2) The experiment of Roderic Lakes. (3) The experiment of August Kundt in 1885 which I interpreted as a possible observation of the magnetic photon rays; http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0010040 . Maybe this will help me also to find a job. I am unemployed since July 1, 2001. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: my theory verified (March 25, 12:19) Liebe Christiane, meine Theorie wurde experimentell bestaetigt. Die magnetische Photon Strahlung wurde in zwei unabhaengigen Experimenten nachgewiesen. Alipasha Vaziri, ein Doktorand von Anton Zeilinger, fuehrte das erste Experiment aus. Der Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes bestaetigte das Ergebnis in einem zweiten Experiment. Rund um die Welt zeigt sich Begeisterung: bei Douglas Singleton (USA), Thomas Weiler (USA), Sherman Frankel (USA), Leonard Gamberg (USA), Dharam Ahluwalia (Mexico), Valeri Dvoeglasov (Mexico), Saulo Carneiro (Brasilien), Juan Mendez (Gran Canaria), Roman Sioda (Polen), V. Maisheev (Russland), Mark Israelit (Israel) und Alexander Ignatiev (Australien). Ob ich wohl doch noch den beruehmten Anruf aus Stockholm erhalte? Herzliche Gruesse, Dein Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 25, 12:54) vielen Dank fuer Deine Kommentare und Dein Interesse. Zu den Temperaturschwankungen: Ich werde Alipasha fragen, fuer die naechsten zwei Wochen ist er allerdings auf einer Konferenz, so dass er mir wohl nicht mailen kann. Fuer das durchgefuehrte Experiment ist der Tag-Nacht-Effekt allerdings unwesentlich, die Messungen wurden innerhalb einer Stunde durchgefuehrt, von 15:30 bis 16:30 (inclusive der Hintergrund-Messungen). Zum Masseterm: Die Eichinvarianz wird auf jeden Fall zerstoert. Die Frage ist nur, wie. Spontane Symmetrie-Brechung via Higgs-Mechanismus ist in einer abelschen Theorie schwierig oder sogar unmoeglich. Explizite Symmetrie-Brechung durch Raumkruemmung wurde zwar auf spekulativer Weise untersucht (Michael Turner 1988 in PRD), aber solange es keine lebensfaehige Theorie der Quanten-Gravitation gibt, werde ich hier kein Urteil wagen. Zur Renormierbarkeit: Da gibt es ohnehin ein Problem. Die Kopplungskonstante ist wegen der Dirac-Quantisierungsbedingung 137.036/4 = 34.259, oder falls es freie Quarks gibt, 9 x 34.259 = 308.331. Stoerungstheorie in gewohnter Weise geht nicht. Aber was ist dann mit der Renormierbarkeit? Zum magnetischen Moment: Ich bezweifle, dass das magnetische Photon hier Auswirkungen zeigt. Auf dem Tree-level sollte kein Austausch eines virtuellen magnetischen Photons stattfinden, solange kein Monopol in der Naehe ist. Die Loop-Beitraege von magnetischem "Nordpol" und "Suedpol" sollten sich wohl gegenseitig wegheben. Ich bin mir aber nicht 100 prozentig sicher. Und eine kleine Korrektur: statt irgendwelchen 1/r Feldern beim Jupiter meinte ich natuerlich die 1/r^2 Abhaengigkeit. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Dr. Maisheev, (March 25, 13:02) thank you for your kind reply and the preprint hep-ph/9707479 about muonic photons. I had not heard of this idea before. I will read the preprint or its published version in Nucl. Phys. B. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison tried an independent experiment. He wrote me on March 21: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod There are now three confirmations of my theory, although none is yet conclusive: (1) The experiment of Alipasha Vaziri. (2) The experiment of Roderic Lakes. (3) The experiment of August Kundt in 1885 which I interpreted as a possible observation of the magnetic photon rays; http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0010040 . Maybe this will help me also to find a job. I am unemployed since July 1, 2001. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lieber Mark Israelit, (March 25, 13:14) vielen Dank fuer Ihre Antwort. Einen reprint meines Mod. Phys. Lett. A Artikels von 1997 habe ich leider nicht mehr. Ueber das Experiment von Alipasha Vaziri gibt es auch noch keinen Preprint, da erst alle moeglichen Fehlerquellen ausgeschlossen werden muessen. Leider sind dies sehr viele, moegliche Anfaelligkeiten des Detektors und der Elektronik gegen Temperatur-Veraenderungen, Feuchtigkeit, Vibrationen und so weiter. Aber: Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes von der University of Wisconsin at Madison unternahm ein unabhaengiges Experiment. Am 21. Maerz schrieb er mir: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod Es gibt jetzt drei Bestaetigungen meiner Theorie, wenn auch keine bislang definitiv ist: (1) Das Experiment von Alipasha Vaziri. (2) Das Experiment von Roderic Lakes. (3) Das Experiment von August Kundt in 1885, das ich als moegliche Beobachtung der magnetischen Photon Strahlung interpretiert habe; http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0010040 . Vielleicht wird mir dies helfen, eine bezahlte Arbeit zu finden. Ich bin seit dem 1. Juli 2001 arbeitslos. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 26, 17:11) vielen Dank fuer Deine Kommentare und Anregungen. Ich denke auch, es waere gut, wenn Alipasha den Versuch noch einmal wiederholen wuerde. Am besten auch mit einem anderen Stueck Folie. So kann nicht nur ein unbekanntes Geraet im Hintergrund ausgeschlossen werden, sondern auch, dass normales Licht durch einen Haarriss oder eine Luftblase in der Alufolie ging. Zum Higgs-Mechanismus in der abelschen Theorie habe ich keine Literatur parat. Vielleicht zwei Argumente (die allerdings auf schwachen Fuessen stehen): (1) Der Higgs-Mechanismus bricht eine Symmetrie in eine andere, etwa SU(5) -> SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) bei 10^15 GeV oder SU(2)xU(1) -> U(1) bei 10^2 GeV aber wie saehe eine Brechung der U(1) aus, U(1) -> ? (2) Ein reell-wertiges Higgs-Feld kann ich mir nur schwer vorstellen. Ein komplex-wertiges aber laesst sich in ein Higgs^+ und ein Higgs^- transformieren, also zwei Teilchen. Bei komplizierteren Modellen noch mehr. Fuer eine Brechung der U(1) braucht man aber nur ein Higgs-Boson. Gaebe es ungegessene extrem leichte Higgs-Bosonen, so waeren sie wohl bereits entdeckt worden. Zur Tensor-Kopplung: In der Mesonen-Theorie wird die Tensorkopplung als Gradienten-Kopplung aufgefasst und als Teil einer effektiven Theorie (der QCD) betrachtet. Deshalb nahm Salam auch an, dass die Tensorkopplung (Gradienten-Kopplung) nicht fuer Leptonen gilt. Deshalb konnte er aber die Lorentzkraft zwischen Monopol und Elektron nicht erklaeren. -- Deshalb versuchte ich einen anderen Weg. Ich nahm an, dass es fundamentale elektrisch geladene Teilchen und auch fundamentale magnetisch geladene Teilchen gibt. Ob die ersteren mit den Leptonen und Quarks uebereinstimmen, ist fuer diesen Zweck nicht wichtig. Um die Lorentzkraft zu erzeugen, muss die Geschwindigkeit irgendwo in den Feynman-Graphen auftauchen. Ich schrieb sie an den Vertex. Um einen Vektor zu erhalten, musste ich die Vektorkopplung ersetzen. Eine skalare Kopplung oder eine Tensorkopplung war moeglich. Intuitiv entschied ich mich fuer die Tensorkopplung. Zur Lorentz-Invarianz: Relativitaetsprinzip und Lorentz-Invarianz sind nicht dasselbe. In der klassischen Physik ist ja auch ein absolutes Ruhsystem moeglich (Relativitaetsprinzip verletzt), waehrend die Galilei-Invarianz erfuellt ist. Auch in der allgemeinen Relativitaet ist es so, die relativistische Kosmologie ist lokal Lorentz-Invariant, waehrend es ein absolutes Bezugssystem und eine absolute Zeit gibt. Die Hubble-Zeit und damit das Alter des Universums ist absolut, nicht relativ. Das absolute System ist das mit der kosmischen Expansion bewegte System, das sogenannte comoving frame. Es ist beobachtbar dadurch, dass es das System ist, in dem der Rotverschiebungseffekt aus Hubble-Effekt und Doppler-Effekt isotrop ist, und es ist auch das System, in dem die 3K-Hintergrungstrahlung keinen Doppler-Effekt zeigt, also isotrop ist. -- Uebrigens ist die spezielle Relativitaet kein Spezialfall der allgemeinen Relativitaet. Denn das Aequivalenzprinzip, das so fundamental in der ART ist, ist in der SRT maximal verletzt. Zu Renormierbarkeit und Eichprinzip: Ich habe gewisse Zweifel, dass renormierbare Theorien und das Eichprinzip "der heilige Gral" zum Verstaendnis der Quantenfeldtheorien sind. (1) Warum eigentlich Stoerungstheorie und Renormierung? Stoerungstheorie wird gewoehnlich betrieben, wenn man mit der exakten Theorie nicht zurecht kommt. Aber liegt das nicht oft daran, dass die exakte Theorie falsch ist? Ein historisches Beispiel: In der antiken Astronomie war die Erde der Mittelpunkt der Welt (geozentrisches Weltbild). Die Sonne, Sterne und Planeten bewegten sich auf Kreisbahnen und mit konstanter Geschwindigkeit auf den Kreisen. So konnte man zwar einigermassen die Bewegung der Sonne und der Sterne verstehen, fuer die Planeten brauchte man aber Kreise in Kreisen (Epizykel). Das war nichts anderes als Stoerungstheorie, die einzelnen Epizykel konnte man nicht beobachten. Sollte man auch bei der Quantenfeldtheorie die Stoerungstheorie ersetzen? Gitter-Eichtheorie als Loesung scheint mir allerdings auch nicht ideal. (2) Warum Eichtheorien? Weil sie die einzigen renormierbaren Theorien sind. Gut, aber wenn ich die Renormierbarkeit und Stoerungstheorie ersetzen will? -- Die Potentiale sind als 1-Formen "fundamental." Die Felder als 2-Formen werden durch partielle Ableitungen aus den Potentialen erhalten, sind also weniger fundamental. Eichtheorien scheinen aber das Gegenteil zu beschreiben. Feldstaerken sind beobachtbar, Potentiale als deren Integrale sind aber nur beobachtbar bis auf eine Phase, also wohl weniger fundamental. -- Liegt das Problem mit der Suche nach der Quanten-Gravitation vielleicht darin, dass die Gravitation gar nicht durch eine Eichtheorie beschrieben wird? Nun, ich habe 1999 selbst ein Paper zum Thema Eichtheorie der Gravitation publiziert (und dabei die Lehrmeinung nachgebetet). -- Die Gedanken in diesem Absatz sollten keine Behauptungen sein, sondern eher philosophische Spekulationen, wie man sie am ehesten in einer Kaffeepause aeussert. Ich bin nicht sicher, ob man Effekte durch virtuelle magnetische Photonen so einfach beobachten kann. Die Kopplung von elektrischen Ladungen an virtuelle magnetische Photonen wird ja nur bei der Streuung (Lorentzkraft) von elektrischen an magnetischen Ladungen benoetigt. Bei der Streuung zweier elektrischer Ladungen sollte entweder der Austausch elektrischer Photonen genuegen, oder (was auf das gleiche herauslaeuft), die zusaetzlichen Beitraege der virtuellen magnetischen Photonen sollten sich wegheben (in welche Richtung sollte die Kraft wirken?). Ich gebe aber zu, dass ich mir in diesen Punkten nicht sicher bin. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lieber Herr Kundt, (March 27, 12:04) vielen Dank fuer Ihre E-Mail. Ich werde Peter Schneider fragen, ob er eine Stelle zu vergeben hat. Ja, ich fuerchte, ich habe mich zu lange nicht bei Ihnen gemeldet. Dafuer habe ich des oefteren mit Carsten van de Bruck korrespondiert als er noch bei Robert Brandenberger war. Erinnern Sie sich noch an mein Modell ueber magnetische Monopole und meine Vorhersage eines zweiten Photons, sowie der magnetic photon rays? Es dauerte etwas, bis meine Ideen veroeffentlicht wurden, in Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 3153 (1997). Kuerzlich wurde mein Modell experimentell bestaetigt. Die magnetische Photon Strahlung wurde in zwei unabhaengigen Experimenten nachgewiesen. Alipasha Vaziri, ein Doktorand von Anton Zeilinger, fuehrte das erste Experiment aus (im Februar). Der Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes bestaetigte das Ergebnis in einem zweiten Experiment (im Maerz). Es ist aber noch nicht definitiv, da erst noch alle moeglichen Fehlerquellen ausgeschlossen werden muessen. Leider sind dies sehr viele, Streustrahlung, moegliche Anfaelligkeiten des Detektors und der Elektronik gegen Temperatur- Veraenderungen, Feuchtigkeit, Vibrationen und so weiter. Viele Gruesse, Ihr Rainer Kuehne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Takaaki Matsumoto, (March 27, 12:22) many thanks for your reply and your congratulations. There is not yet any preprint which describes the details of the experiment. The reason is that possible other sources for the signal have to be definitely ruled out, such as stray light, misbehaviour of the detector and the electronics etc. I hardly know more about the experiment than I have already mentioned. The only thing I can give are the raw data: Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 There is an interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison tried an independent experiment. He wrote me on March 21: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod I do not know more about this experiment. But I hope that I will hear more about forthcoming experiments by the experimenters within the following weeks. I will inform you about the progress made. Best regards, Rainer P.S. Please direct your e-mail to my Wuppertal address: kuehne@theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear George Kalbfleisch, (March 28, 12:19) thank you for your kind reply and the critical comments. (1) This factor of 1000 is puzzling. I have no explanation for it. At least, my simple version of the model is ruled out. However, the Alipasha Vaziri experiment appears to confirm the magnetic photon rays. (2) The measurement data are not Poisson distributed. The background is mainly due to electronic noise. Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 I think that 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. From this I get that the error bar for each measurement is about 6 counts for the 44 background measurements and 7 counts for the 17 foreground measurements. The total error bar for the background is then 6counts/sqrt(44)=0.9counts, that of the foreground is 7counts/sqrt(17)=1.7counts. The one-sigma error bar for the excess is then sqrt( 0.9^2 + 1.7^2 ) counts = 1.9 counts. Or, for the count rate: 0.19 counts/s. As the excess is 1.16 counts/s I would estimate the statistical significance to be about 6 sigma. There is another interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. (3) I agree. The experiment has to be repeated several times. Longer measurement times should also be used. And several aluminium foils should be used to rule out material errors, such as air bubbles or hair cracks. The main problem is stray light. Alipasha says that it cannot be completely ruled out. In his own words: "Ich weiss persoenlich nicht, was davon zu halten ist. Eines ist sicher, Streulicht kann man nie (zumindest mit unseren Mitteln) zu 100% ausschliessen. Die Multimodefasern koennen im Prinzip Licht durchlassen, eventuell bei den Steckverbindungen oder der Ummantelung. Ideal waere eine Singlemodefaser, weil sich dorch nur eine transversale Mode ausbreiten kann. Aber das habe ich auch ausprobiert, nur dort ist das Problem, dass die Zaehlrate so stark absinkt, dass man dann keinen Kontrast hat." Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison tried an independent experiment. He wrote me on March 21: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod There are now three confirmations of the magnetic photon rays, although none is yet conclusive: (1) The experiment of Alipasha Vaziri. (2) The experiment of Roderic Lakes. (3) The experiment of August Kundt in 1885 which I interpreted as a possible observation of the magnetic photon rays; http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0010040 . Naturally, it would be very helpful if Alipasha Vaziri, Roderic Lakes, or a third experimentalist could repeat the experiment. If you have the possibility and the time available, then I would be very happy if you could do it. Please let me know whether you agree or disagree with my answers to items (1) to (3). Critical comments are very welcome. Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lieber Alipasha, (March 28, 12:41) meine Kollegen haben einige Vorschlaege gemacht, wie systematische Effekte quantitativ bestimmt werden koennten. (1) Die Messzeit pro Run sollte von 10 Sekunden auf mindestens 100 Sekunden erhoeht werden, um eine bessere Statistik zu erhalten. (2) Die Prozedur mit dem Laser-an und Laser-aus Experiment sollte mindestens vier mal wiederholt werden, um systematische Effekte quantitativ abzuschaetzen. Fragen, die mir gestellt wurden, lauten: (a) Koennten geringe Temperatur-Fluktuationen der Luft oder der Kuehlung die Zaehlrate erhoeht haben? (b) Koennten Vibrationen die Zaehlrate erhoeht haben? (c) Koennte ein Geraet in der Naehe oder im Nachbar-Labor die Zaehlrate erhoeht haben? (3) Es sollte nicht immer dasselbe Stueck Alu-Folie verwendet werden, um Luftblasen und Haar-Risse in der Folie auszuschliessen, durch die gewoehnliches Licht kommen koennte. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (March 28, 13:49) vielen Dank fuer Deine Mail. Ich werde nach Ostern naeher darauf eingehen. Vorab eine Frage: Kannst Du mir die Referenz der Arbeit von Weinberg nennen? Ich dachte bislang, dass Eichtheorien die einzigen Theorien sind, deren Renormierbarkeit gezeigt wurde. Was sind die anderen renormierbaren Theorien, sind es verallgemeinerte Eichtheorien oder etwas ganz anderes? Viele Gruesse und frohe Ostern Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Wolfram, (April 02, 19:07) mir sind ueber Ostern leider nur wenige Ideen eingefallen. Daher nur in Kuerze: Gegen das einkomponentige reelle Higgsfeld kann ich wenigstens im Moment nichts einwenden. Mein Lagrangian ist tatsaechlich kein Lorentzskalar. Ein Teil der Bewegungsgleichungen (die modifizierten Maxwell-Gleichungen) und die Lorentz-Kraft sind aber Lorentz-invariant. Bei der modifizierten Dirac-Gleichung bin ich mir nicht sicher, da die Geschwindigkeit erscheint und sie vermutlich als Absolutgeschwindigkeit interpretiert werden muss. Ich frage mich allerdings, ob dies schlimm ist oder eher wuenschenswert. Wie Du richtig sagst, sind die Quantisierungsbedingungen der Eichtheorien Bezugssystem-abhaengig. Und die relativistische Kosmologie benoetigt ein absolutes Ruhsystem. -- Ich frage mich, ob das kosmologische Prinzip hier wirklich benoetigt wird. Es sind ja auch kosmologische Modelle denkbar, etwa das Mixmaster-Universum von Misner, in dem ein anfangs chaotisches, anisotropes, inhomogenes Universum in ein nahezu isotropes und homogenes (Friedmann-Lemaitre-)Universum uebergeht, das durch die Robertson-Walker-Metrik beschrieben wird. Wenn diese isotrope Spaetphase ein absolutes Bezugssystem hat, so sollte wohl auch die chaotische Fruehphase eines haben. Das absolute Bezugssystem wird ja nicht asymptotisch hinzukommen (d.h. langsam "eingeschaltet" werden). Meinen Hinweis auf die Galilei-Invarianz meinte ich nur als historisches Beispiel. Wiederbeleben wollte ich sie nicht, weder im urspruenglichen Sinne noch im Sinne von Lorentz und Poincare, die die Lorentz-Transformationen als effektive Transformationen bedingt durch dynamische Aether-Effekte ansahen. Zur Eichtheorie der Gravitation moechte ich bemerken: Dies wurde meines Wissens zuerst versucht von Utiyama 1956, der als Eichgruppe die Lorentz-Gruppe waehlte. Kibble und Sciama 1961 und 1962 erweiterten die Theorie um die Cartan-Torsion, so dass die Eichgruppe die Lorentz-Gruppe wurde. Schliesslich wurde spaeter Weyls Eichprinzip (d. h. die Nicht-Metrizitaet) von 1918 aufgenommen und auch R^2 Terme. Probleme ergaben sich nun, dass die Theorie einerseits eine Eichtheorie sein sollte und andererseits die ART als Grenzfall herauskommen sollte. Damit die R^2 Terme hier nicht dominierten, mussten zahlreiche Korrektur-Terme eingefuehrt werden. Beschrieben ist dies im Review-Artikel von Hehl et al. Phys. Reports 1995. Ich finde den dort angegebenen Lagrangian allerdings so unhandlich, dass ich mich frage, ob man das Konzept der Eichtheorie der Gravitation nicht lieber aufgeben sollte. Denn dieser Review-Artikel behandelt nur die klassische Theorie; wie sie quantisiert werden soll, weiss man bislang noch nicht. An das Theorem mit der Renormierbarkeit erinnere ich mich ganz dunkel. Ich wusste bislang nicht, dass es von Weinberg stammt. Ich fasse noch einmal die Probleme meines Modells zusammen, die Probleme sollen ja nicht unter den Tisch gekehrt werden. (1) Der Lagrangian ist nicht Lorentz-invariant. (2) Der Tensorterm ist nicht perturbativ renormierbar. (3) Die Lorentz-Kraft folgt nicht aus dem Lagrangian. (4) Die vorhergesagte Intensitaet der magnetic photon rays ist (mindestens) einen Faktor 1000 groesser als experimentell gemessen. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Garcia de Andrade, (April 03, 17:42) I am very interested in the subjects of Cartan's torsion and cosmology. And I would be very happy if I could work with you on these subjects. However, I got my PhD on July 19, 2001 and I am unemployed since July 1, 2001. I would be very very very happy if I could find a job! By the way, Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison tried an independent experiment. He wrote me on March 21: Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod There are now three confirmations of my theory, although none is yet conclusive: (1) The experiment of Alipasha Vaziri. (2) The experiment of Roderic Lakes. (3) The experiment of August Kundt in 1885 which I interpreted as a possible observation of the magnetic photon rays; http://xxx.arXiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0010040 . Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Rod, (April 15, 16:07) I have two questions concerning your experiment. Can you exclude that the possible signal was due to stray light? Was the signal clearly or only slightly above the detector sensitivity? Best regards, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lieber Alipasha, (April 24, 17:20) Roderic Lakes hat im Maerz versucht, den moeglichen Ueberschuss, den Dein Experiment lieferte, zu reproduzieren. Er schien ein schwaches Signal von der richtigen Groessenordnung, also 10^-15, zu sehen, konnte aber Hintergrundeffekte (Waermeeffekte) nicht aussschliessen. Er schrieb mir nun, dass er einen Detektor bestellt hat, der viel empfindlicher als sein Newport ist, und er den Versuch mit dem neuen Detektor wiederholen will. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hallo Frank, (May 03, 17:25) vielen Dank fuer Deine mail. Ich sehe die Sache nicht ganz so schwarz. Tatsaechlich liegt ein winziger Ueberschuss vor (6 sigma), der aber um einen Faktor 1000 kleiner ist als meine Vorhersage. Ich gebe hier die Rohdaten an (in englisch, da ich die Info-mail und replies auf einige Antworten rund um die Welt geschickt habe): Alipasha measured the following counts (each measurement took 10 seconds): laser on, no lenses: 350 341 339 338 337 338 331 333 336 333 325 327 341 335 343 laser off, no lenses: 344 332 329 337 332 336 338 336 343 336 330 344 333 338 laser on, with lenses ("foreground"): 367 343 345 356 339 348 345 355 353 358 346 352 345 347 342 342 345 laser off, with lenses: 336 337 330 345 341 345 340 337 339 343 345 337 332 340 330 I think that 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. From this I get that the error bar for each measurement is about 6 counts for the 44 background measurements and 7 counts for the 17 foreground measurements. The total error bar for the background is then 6counts/sqrt(44)=0.9counts, that of the foreground is 7counts/sqrt(17)=1.7counts. The one-sigma error bar for the excess is then sqrt( 0.9^2 + 1.7^2 ) counts = 1.9 counts. Or, for the count rate: 0.19 counts/s. As the excess is 1.16 counts/s I would estimate the statistical significance to be about 6 sigma. There is another interesting point. The mean for the 44 background measures is 337.1 counts. All 17 of the foreground measures are larger than this value. The probability for this by pure chance is 1: 2^17 = 1: 131072. Der Faktor scheint also nicht 10^-12 zu sein, wie von mir vorhergesagt, sondern 10^-15. Uebrigens hat Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes ein aehnliches Experiment mit einem aehnlichen Ergebnis ausgefuehrt (der Detektor war wohl ein einfacher Newport silicon sensor detector). Er schrieb mir: Thu Mar 21 20:36:38 2002 Dear Rainer - I tried another experiment with a much stronger light source. I did see response suggestive of a transmission on the order 10^-15 but since there was a slow transient, I am concerned heating of the foil layer may have altered the conductance of the silicon detector. For that reason it is not yet conclusive. I will try another approach. Cheers, Rod und: Mon Apr 15 16:55:58 2002 Rainer Thus far it is not definitive owing to the heating effect. We have a superior detector on order and will do the experiment with that. Cheers, Rod Auf das Ergebnis bin ich gespannt. Aber ich werde wohl einige Zeit warten muessen. Ich habe den Nature-Artikel Vol416 p803 gelesen. Ueber das Webb et al. paper fasst er sich leider sehr kurz. Auch hier bleibt abzuwarten, ob das Signal bestaetigt wird. Viele Gruesse Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-11-2004 09:10
Hi, the preceding two (very long) postings present my correspondence with leading scientists regarding the possible observation of a second kind of light by Alipasha Vaziri and Roderic Lakes.The first posting presents the opinions of the scientists and the second one presents my replies. The date of the e-mails is from 15 March 2002 until 03 May 2002. Best regards, Rainer
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
via mars 2 Member Posts: 1638 From: arlington, va. Registered: May 2004
|
posted 05-18-2004 10:02
very long indeed! perhaps this thread should be called observation of kuhne's trials and travails in the world of physics. anyway, glad to hear that things are (presumably) moving along. not at the speed of light though, eh?
IP: 141.156.138.104 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-19-2004 03:42
Dear via mars 2, I have somewhat to agree. "Observation of Kühne's trials and travails in the world of physics" would certainly be appropriate.But there is a sad story behind it. I have a diploma and a PhD in physics, I have authored 12 scientific articles and coauthored 3 further ones. Nevertheless I am unemployed since I completed my PhD thesis in July 2001. I think it is quite understandable that I have becoming somewhat mad during the recent months. Best regards, Rainer
IP: 132.195.109.95 |
via mars 2 Member Posts: 1638 From: arlington, va. Registered: May 2004
|
posted 05-19-2004 09:15
apply for a job with a different name? seems like you're paying the price for bucking the establishment. happens to me all the time ...perhaps the ultimate revenge is to make some money with an invention of some sort. that, or concoct a deathray and threaten the proper instigator(s) - just kidding. really, you may want to look into military applications - though it doesn't seem to suit your personality. you come across as a little light-hearted, and may not wish for your work to be used in that type of venue. anyway, good luck.
IP: 138.88.166.201 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-21-2004 06:08
Dear via mars 2,my theory may have several possible applications. Those which may be of financial interest include medical applications. By using the second kind of light one may look through human bodies, i.e. they behave somewhat like X-rays although they are in the visible light. Radiation damages are therefore reduced. I outlined the possible applications of my theory in one of my articles: R. W. Kühne, "Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics", in: Electromagnetic Phenomena 3, 86-91 (2003). http://www.emph.com.ua/9/pdf/kuhne.pdf http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/rainerkuehne/20040114.2/1/kuehneep.pdf Best regards, Rainer
IP: 132.195.104.17 |
via mars 2 Member Posts: 1638 From: arlington, va. Registered: May 2004
|
posted 05-21-2004 11:04
ah, but how best to control density? what would be the method for control of depth of penetration? no, don't tell me, but would that not be a consideration? just trying to help on the practical side of things ... let's just say my father had an inventive side to him, and i learned that practicality, and timing, as well as market forces, means everything. it seems our friend TSM has some insight on these matters, if perhaps you were to proceed?
IP: 138.88.168.98 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-08-2004 04:10
Dear friends, I just learned that Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes reported in the August issue of the scientific journal "Physics Letters A" on his experiment to test the magnetic photon rays I predicted.Roderic S. Lakes: "Experimental Test of Magnetic Photons", Physics Letters 329 (2004) 298 - 300. Best regards, Rainer
IP: 193.30.79.210 |
rajesh Member Posts: 703 From: Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 11-08-2004 08:42
Dear Dr Kuhne:If something seems to be going wrong from your original assumptions, then try the other way round. First reduce the thickness of your Aluminum Foil to a critical limit where it should not allow for the penetration of any of the Electric Photons. This is supposed to increase and maximize the number of penetrating Magnetic Photons that you can count and record. Then replace this thin Al Foil with your “Standard Al Foil” and repeat the experiment with all other conditions being kept as constant. Now count and record the number of penetrating Magnetic Photons. Hope it should be reduced. If possible, further increase the thickness of Al Foil to a scientifically acceptable limit (may just keep two foils!) and repeat the experiment with all other conditions being kept as constant. Now count and record the number of penetrating Magnetic Photons. Hope it should be further reduced. Ultimately replace the Al Foil with a thick Lead Slab and repeat the experiment with all other conditions being kept as constant. Now count and record the number of penetrating Magnetic Photons. Hope it should be zero or at the worst it may indicate the background radiation. All other readings should be corrected in line with this background radiation if required. If your theory of “Magnetic Photons ” is correct and if the Light Source is powerful enough and if the Photon Sensor is sensitive enough and if the Al Foils are pure enough, then the count of Magnetic Photons should show a progressively reducing trend. If this is successful, then you can repeat this experiment with other thickness of Foils and can formulate an empirical equation correlating the number of “Penetrating Magnetic Photons” Vs “Aluminum Foil Thickness ”. If the life and time permit and if the “Light Source” is variable and measurable, then you can also incorporate “The Strength of Input Light Source” as a variable component in your Formulation. Please make it sure that coherent formation of Laser in any way is not disturbing your proportion of “Electric Photons Vs Magnetic Photons”. Please check whether coherency shall definitely result in the proportionate increase of Magnetic Photons. (BTW Laser were fortunately introduced in to college textbooks after I completed my education without them). Now assume that your experimental results are true and then based upon this please check and correlate your original formulations from the reverse end and arrive at the beginning of your own formulae. If you do not find the scope for any error, then you can reiterate the whole calculations to and fro for many times till you arrive at a section that may be looking completely absurd, illogical and unscientific. Hopefully the error or contradiction may lie there. It may lie either within the perimeter of your own formulae or within the scope of experiment. Please correct it judiciously till both the ends meet properly within acceptable margins. As you have repeatedly asserted the difference of 1000 times at many places, so I can apprehend that there can be a hidden error of 10**3 at some place. Or like Plato are you confusing somewhere between a Meter and a Millimeter in Atlantean matters? (Joke please). And you need not to believe me in scientific matters... My Indonesian version of Atlantis may bear a testimony to that. With Regards…
IP: 210.214.134.175 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-22-2004 05:43
Dear Rajesh,the situation is more complicated. In my opinion, there are conceptual difficulties with my theory - the wave-particle duality does not properly work in solid material, but only in vaccuum. Best regards, Rainer
IP: 193.30.79.210 |
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne Member Posts: 145 From: Braunschweig, Germany Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-21-2005 13:41
Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes tested my "model of magnetic monopoles" in which I predicted a second kind of light.He presented his experimental result in: Lakes, R. S., "Experimental test of magnetic photons", Physics Letters A , 329 (4-5), 298-300 July (2004). http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/magnPhoton.pdf
IP: 80.142.117.48 | |