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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\end{document}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{\bf For further information please contact:}

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

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

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

\end{document}

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

\vspace{0.0cm}

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

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

\newpage

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

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

\vspace{1cm}

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

\vspace{3cm}

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

\end{document}

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

\vspace{2cm}

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

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

\vspace{1cm}

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

\vspace{3cm}

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

\end{document}

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

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

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

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

\begin{document}

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

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

\vspace{0.8cm}

\noindent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The electric-magnetic duality is:

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

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

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

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

\section{Arguments for an Absolute Rest Frame}

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

\subsection{Space and Time Before General Relativity}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has three problems.

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

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

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

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

\subsection{General Relativity: Absolute Space and Time}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\subsection{The Experiment by August Kundt}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\subsection{The Experiment by Alipasha Vaziri}

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

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

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

set 2: 33.63 counts/s

set 4: 33.85 counts/s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The statistical significance is 6 standard
deviations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

\subsection{The Experiment by Roderic Lakes}

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

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

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

It is difficult to explain this excess by conventional
effects.

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

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

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

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

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

\section{Consequences}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\section{Acknowledgements}

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

\begin{thebibliography}{99}

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

\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

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

\vskip 1cm

\noindent
Keywords: pentaquark, diquarks

\vskip 1cm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\maketitle

\vspace{1cm}

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

\vspace{1cm}

\noindent
Atlantis/ Gibraltar/ Andalusia/ Bronze Age

\vspace{1cm}

\section{Atlantis in the Strait of Gibraltar?}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\section{Dating of the Athenian Acropolis}

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

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

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

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

\section{Comparison of Atlantis and the Sea Peoples}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\section{Location of Atlantis}

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

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

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

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

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

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

\section{Conclusion}

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

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

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

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

\end{document}

Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opa@aps.org

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

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

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

Announcement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\begin{document}

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

\bigskip

\begin{itemize}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\end{itemize}

\end{document}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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/

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/
*********************************************************

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

% 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}

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

Roderic S. Lakes: "Experimental Test of Magnetic Photons", Physics Letters 329 (2004) 298 - 300.

Best regards,
Rainer

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.

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.

He presented his experimental result in: