Two independent experiments were performed at the University of Vienna/Austria and at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. According to my interpretation, the result is that (visible) light consists of two kinds. The second kind ("magnetic photon rays") would be able to penetrate metal foils of several mm thickness.

More information on my theory and the experiments can be found at:
R. W. Kühne, "Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light", in: Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?, Eds.: A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, R. Smirnov-Rueda und A. Espinoza, (Rinton Press, Paramus, 2004, ISBN 1-58949-036-3), pp. 335-349.
http://www.rintonpress.com/books/chuby.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403026

Rainer W. Kühne
Vorm Holz 4
42119 Wuppertal
Germany
kuehne70@gmx.de

What should a young researcher do when he thinks that he has a very important theory but his professor does not allow him to publish?

I was in this situation and still suffer from it.

While writing my diploma thesis at the University of Bonn I developed a model of Dirac magnetic monopoles which predicts that electromagnetic radiation consists of two kinds of particles, Einstein’s “electric photon” and Salam’s “magnetic photon”. I suggested a tabletop experiment to verify the “magnetic photon rays”.

I planned to include my model in my diploma thesis. However, no professor at the university wanted to act as the second examiner as long as this model was part of my thesis. I removed my model from my thesis and got my diploma in physics in November 1995. By then I had published four articles in scientific journals.

Because of my model I was regarded as a crackpot in Bonn. I was unable to start a PhD thesis there. In April 1996 I started my PhD thesis at the University of Wuppertal.

I published my model in Dezember 1997 (1). I found that the duality between electricity and magnetism is analogous to the duality between curvature and torsion. I published an article on this finding (2).

My professor in Wuppertal was very unhappy about the publication of my model. He declined to accept my PhD thesis.

I am very grateful to the staff of the physical institute of the University of Dortmund who offered me a position to complete my PhD thesis. It was accepted in July 2001. By then I had published ten articles in scientific physical journals. However, after completion of my PhD thesis I remained unemployed.

I learned that August Kundt in 1885 may have already observed the magnetic photon rays I predicted. I published a paper on this interpretation (3).

I contacted several experimentalists whether they would like to test my prediction of the magnetic photon rays. My interpretation of the Kundt experiment was of great help to convince two independent researchers to perform the suggested tabletop experiment.

The first experiment was tried in Austria in February 2002 and the second experiment in the USA in June 2002. Both experiments showed a signal which was very difficult to explain without the introduction of magnetic photons. However, the signal was 1000 and 6000 times, respectively, smaller than I predicted in my publication (1).

The experimentalists were not convinced that they have proved my theory. So they have not published their results. Further experiments have not been performed. What should I do? I decided to publish their experiments including my interpretation of their results. The two experimentalists agreed with this way of publishing provided I included a statement that they strongly disagree with my interpretation of their results. The paper includes this statement and will be published as a contribution to a book (4).

To conclude, what can happen when a young researcher thinks he has an important theory? From my own experience I learned that he will get difficulties with the acceptance of his diploma thesis. It will become impossible to start a PhD thesis at the same university. His professor will decline to accept his dissertation. After completion of his PhD thesis he will be unemployed, although by then he has ten scientific publications, eight of them authored by him alone.

1. Kühne, R. W. “A Model of Magnetic Monopoles”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 3153 – 3159 (1997).
2. Kühne, R. W. “Gauge Theory of Gravity Requires Massive Torsion Field”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A. 14, 2531 – 2535 (1999).
3. Kühne, R. W. “Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics”, Electromagnetic Phenomena 3, 86 – 91 (2003).
4. Kühne, R. W. “Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light”, in: A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, R. Smirnov-Rueda & A. Espinoza (eds.) “Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?” (Rinton Press, New York, to be published), pp. 36 – 50.

Devise a more precise experiment, pay attention to both the pull and the push energies manifesting within nature. Due to the very use of the laser you applied only a brute force to your experiment making it a bit one sided.

Market your book, devise a marketable experiment that allows the experimenter to see the two kinds of light and come to his/her own conclusions, similar to the superconductor experiments. Devise practical applications and market them. Start a web-site portfolio, move-on to the next stage or application of your discovery... e.g. can a communications device be fabricated from your discovery?

Its not a race its not a get rich or famous overnight approach, that is unless you conceive of fad type products such as Wacky Wall Walkers or Pet-Rocks...

http://www.amazing1.com/ Have a look at this site and see if the parts needed to build your experiment are readable available.

You have to sell yourself too!

I have a new homepage.Its layout is far from being very good, but maybe it will be not completely uninteresting.
http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rainerkuehne/

And welcome in the world of crackpots where doing cutting edge work is only greeted with disbelieve and disgust.

I think the main focus should be on the psychology of how to sell the merchandize instead on the material itself.

And even then, the average time for a paradigm shift is likely to be 20 years, as I learned here.

I think that mainstream scientists have regarded me as a crackpot for the last twelve years (cold fusion, magnetic monopoles, Cartan's torsion, time-varying "constants", rotating universe, Atlantis).

Twenty years is a good estimate for a paradigm shift. After I completed my monopole theory in May 1995 I spoke about it to Professor Siegfried Krewald. He said: "Maybe you will get the Nobel prize for it." I answered: "Maybe, but I have to wait 20 years."

By the way, I have just created three homepages:

My actual homepage in HTML: http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rainerkuehne/

My Atlantis site in pure text (includes a satellite photo): http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rwk_atlantis/

My monopole site in pure text (the text above which will appear next year as part of a book published by Rinton Press), it has some photos to make reading easier: http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rwk_monopoles/

Okay, for the next three weeks I will be on a holiday trip.

Best regards,

Rainer

I looked at physicsforums.com , but I think it is not the appropriate medium for the discussion of my theory. The readers of the forum are students, whereas I need physicists, especially experimentators who might be interested in testing my predictions.

The magnetic photon is required by the following argumentation:

QED is a good theory, but it cannot explain the quantization of electric charge. By contrast, any theory which includes magnetic charges (magnetic monopoles) can explain it.

Most attempts to generalize QED by including magnetic monopoles lead to difficulties. The one-potential approach by Paul Dirac was not manifestly covariant and required an unphysical (unobservable) Dirac-string. Therefore the one-potential approach was rejected by Steven Weinberg. Julian Schwinger considered a two-potential approach with only one kind of photon. This approach was manifestly covariant, but required the unphysical Dirac-string and non-local potentials. Quantum field theories, however, should be local. Abdus Salam suggested a two-potential approach with two kinds of photon (electric photon and magnetic photon). His approach was manifestly covariant, the potentials were local, the Dirac string was not needed. However, his approach did not include the Lorentz force between an electric charge and a moving magnetic charge. I modified Salam's approach by including a new type of coupling which I named velocity coupling. My approach is manifestly covariant, the potentials are local, the Dirac string is avoided, and the Lorentz force between the charges exists.

The difference between the (conventional) electric photon and the (new) magnetic photon is the following.

Resting electric charges couple only to the electric photon. Resting magnetic charges couple only to the magnetic photon. Moving charges couple to both photons - via "velocity coupling".

Electromagnetic radiation including visible light consists of both electric and magnetic photons.

The difference is that magnetic photons are more difficult to absorb by metals than electric photons of the same frequency. Therefore an experiment can distinguish between them.

Yesterday I sent a press release in which I announced the possible observation of the second kind of light (magnetic photon rays). The following posting is the text of the press release.

Details of the experiment are presented also in:
http://www.beepworld.de/members62/rwk_monopoles/

Best regards,

Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light:

In a recent publication I reported the possible observation of a second kind of light.

Already in 1997 I published a theory which predicts a second kind of light. Recently, Dr. Alipasha Vaziri from the University of Vienna/Austria and Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison performed two independent experiments to verify my theory. I examined their results which appear to verify my prediction of the second kind of light.

According to my theory, the second kind of light penetrates bones and metal foils. It 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.

My 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. My theory generalizes QED in two ways. First, to describe electric and magnetic phenomena equivalently, my theory includes the magnetic monopoles which were predicted in 1931 by Nobel laureate Paul Dirac. Second, as I have 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 consists of the “magnetic photons” which were predicted in 1966 by Nobel laureate Abdus Salam.

Dr. Alipasha Vaziri from the University of Vienna/Austria made an experiment to verify my second kind of light. He 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. According to my interpretation of his data, he detected 200 magnetic photons within 170 seconds.

Wisconsin Distinguished Professor Roderic Lakes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison made an independent experiment to verify my second kind of light. He 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. According to my interpretation of his data, he confirmed the above-mentioned result at Vienna and detected 1200 magnetic photons within 4 minutes.

I have to point out that both Alipasha Vaziri and Roderic Lakes strongly disagree with my interpretation of their data. So further experiments are required to draw a final conclusion.

The possible discovery of the second kind of light was published in the scientific book:
Rainer W. Kühne, “Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light”, in: “Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?”, Editors: A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, R. Smirnov-Rueda und A. Espinoza, (Rinton Press, New York, 2004, ISBN 1-58949-036-3), pp. 36-50.

My theory of 1997 where I predicted the second kind of light has been published in the physical journal “Modern Physics Letters A” which is published by the scientific publishing house „World Scientific Publishing Company“.
Rainer W. Kühne, “A Model of Magnetic Monopoles”, in: “Modern Physics Letters A” 12, pp. 3153-3159 (1997). http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/12/1240/S0217732397003277.html http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9708394

Contact information:

Dr. Rainer W. Kühne
Vorm Holz 4
42119 Wuppertal
Germany
Phone: 0049 160 93074899
E-Mail: kuehne70@gmx.de
Homepage: http://t2.physik.uni-dortmund.de/person/kuehne.html

according to my theory, the magnetic photons spread out with the speed of light, i. e. within vaccum they spread out with 299 792 458 m/s. Within vaccum, light consists only of photons (electric photons and magnetic photons). Within matter the situation is more complicated, light consists of polarons. Polarons consist of photons and phonons (i. e. "sound" waves), according to the quantum theory of condensed matter physics. Within matter, light spreads out always less than the vaccum speed of light.

I am somewhat sceptical that there really exist people who can look through bodies. If they really could, why don't they earn much money with their ability? Their ability would be very helpful in medicine (X-ray and holographic diagnostics cannot always be successfully applied). Many people would even pay much money if they had someone who could look through walls, in order to spy or something like that. But also secret services and the police would benefit from such abilities: lost people could be easier found.

But let us assume for a moment that some people do have the ability to look through flesh (or even walls). If it is indeed a physical phenomenon then it has to obey physical laws. For example, when looking through a thin layer of flesh, then something must be seen clearly (small absorption). When looking through thicker and thicker layers, then it will become more and more difficult to see something (because of absorption and scattering). This is comparable to looking through water or fogg.

In principle, magnetic photons should be detectable by human eyes. According to my theory, light sources do not produce many magnetic photons (only one magnetic photon per 10^12 electric photons). With good eyes, one should see the magnetic photon part of the sunlight with human eyes.

In 2003 I argued that August Kundt, the teacher of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, may have observed sunlight with his naked eyes. Reference:

R. W. Kühne, Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics, Electromagnetic Phenomena 3, 86-91 (2003).
http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/rainerkuehne/20040114.2/1/kuehneep.pdf

I do not know whether magnetic photon rays could have something to do with the reported ability of people who claim to be able to look through flesh. This has to be tested by experiment.

By the way, my interpretation of the two experiments (posting above) has now been published, the reference is:

R. W. Kühne, Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light, in: Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?, Eds.: Andrew Chubykalo, Vladimir Onoochin, Roman Smirnov-Rueda und Augusto Espinoza, (Rinton Press, Parasmus, 2004, ISBN 1-58949-036-3), pp. 36-50.
http://www.rintonpress.com/books/
http://www.rintonpress.com/catalogue/

Best regards,

Rainer

thank you for the information. What is the reference? Can I read about it on any website?

Best regards,

Rainer

[This message has been edited by Skunkworks7-27 (edited 02-10-2004).]

the two experiments I described in my article have been performed as follows.

Experiment at University of Vienna: A red laser beam (He-Ne laser) of 1 mW power was the light source. The foil consisted of aluminium (simple foil as used for the kitchen). The detector was an avalanche diode (single photon counter).

Experiment at University of Wisconsin at Madison: A green laser beam of 80 mW power was used (YAG laser) as light source. Again, a simple kitchen foil (aluminium) was used to shield the conventional light ( = electric photon light). the detector was a photomultiplier tube.

Best regards,

On light travelling through matter,it slows down when in a translucent or transparent medium but speeds up again to precisely the usual speed as if it's being pushed along by something.What is this something?

this medium may be some kind of aether. Indeed, I do think that a luminiferous aether could exist.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209107

In this preprint I give some arguments for a preferred rest frame. This preprint is part of my contribution which has appeared in the book published by Rinton Press.

Best regards,

I should clarify four points.

(1) The interaction cross-section is not identical with the geometrical cross-section. The interaction cross-section is a function of the strength and range of an interaction. One can usually calculate with it as if it were a geometrical cross-section.

(2) The interaction cross-section of a magnetic photon is smaller than that of an electric photon ONLY if an interaction with electric charges ic considered. By contrast, if an interaction with a magnetic charge (magnetic monopole) is considered, then the interaction cross-section of a magnetic photon is larger than that of an electric photon. Moreover this comparison is valid only if an electric and a magnetic photon of the same energy are considered.

(3) I once thought that the magnetic photon has a finite rest mass which is different from the rest mass of the electric photon. But I dropped this possibility, because then the free elecromagnetic field would not propagate as a wave. It can propagate as a wave only if electric and magnetic photon have the same rest mass (which could be zero). A finite rest mass of these photons makes difficulties, because the Dirac quantization condition is satisfied only if both electric and magnetic photon have zero rest mass.

Dirac considered the Lorentz force between an elecric and a magnetic charge. His result was that the Lorentz force generates an angular momentum which is identical to the product of the interacting electric and magnetic charge. Angular momentum is quantized. This can be satified only if electric and magnetic charge are also quantized, i. e. appear only in discrete units. This is now called the Dirac quantization condition.

(4) The free electromagnetic field can propagate as a wave only if electric and magnetic photon propagate with the same velocity. Hence, the magnetic photon cannot be superluminal.

Sorry for my late reaction I was overloaded the last month.

Good to have it published. I'm not about physicsforums. I guess there are some autoroties present and more theory devellopers:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10182

Anyway, I started a new thread just to see what happens. It can't hurt to promote your work a little.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15324

many thanks for your posting on physicsforums. Some advertisement of my work will certainly be helpful.

Best regards,

Rainer

(4) The free electromagnetic field can propagate as a wave only if electric and magnetic photon propagate with the same velocity. Hence, the magnetic photon cannot be superluminal.

Under which conditions would it be possible for a magnetic photon to propagate WITHOUT its correlate electric photon?

in quantum theory, we have much to work with probabilities, rather than actual happenings.

In the case of magnetic photons this means that every mechanism that produces electric photons does also produce, with a certain probability, magnetic photons. And vice versa.

For example, a normal lamp, say of 100 Watts, emits nearly all its energy in electric photons (10^20 per second). A fraction of about one millionth is emitted in the form of magnetic photons, i.e. 100 micro Watts (10^14 per second).

On the tree level (i.e. first order of perturbation theory in quantum field theory), a magnetic photon can propagate without any further photon (electric or magnetic). On higher orders of perturbation theory, the situation becomes more difficult. The loop diagrams of the Feynman graphs play a role. Photons can dissiciate into electron-positron pairs, for example. Probably, a magnetic photon can be transformed in this way into an electric photon ans vice versa. However, I am not certain about this point.

Of course, all what I said about the magnetic photon is correct only if my theory itself is correct. The findings of Alipasha Vaziri and Roderic Lakes have still be to be verified by independent investigators.

from the power station to the lamp we have an electric current. It consists of electrons, not of photons.

There are certain situations where the production of magnetic photons can be enhanced over the ppm level.

The probability 10^-6 I quoted is the square of the absolute velocity of the Earth in units of the vaccum speed of light.

If you can enhance the absolute velocity of the light source, then you will also enhance the probability for magnetic photon production, which increases with the square of the absolute velocity of the light source.

Therefore, in a fast moving spaceship, the production of magnetic photons (by a lamp) will be much larger.

Of course, magnetic photons should also be created with very high probability by magnetic monopoles (e.g. their synchrotron radiation). So far, no monopoles have been detected. But the researchers at the Tevatron at Fermilab are searching for monopoles.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9803023

Phys.Rev.Lett. 81 (1998) 524-529

Best regards,
Rainer

Best regards, Rainer Kühne

\noindent
Dr. Rainer K\"uhne \hspace{8.5cm} Wuppertal, 24.10.2003 \\
Vorm Holz 4 \\
42119 Wuppertal

\vspace{0.8cm}

\noindent
Frau \\
Jacqueline Martin \\
Personalabteilung \\
H\"onigsberg und D\"uvel Datentechnik GmbH \\
August-Horch-Stra{\ss}e 2

\noindent
38518 Gifhorn

\vspace{0.8cm}

\noindent
{\bf Anwendungsprogrammierer, ENR 39101-060601-97327}

\vspace{0.5cm}

\noindent

Sehr geehrte Frau Martin,

vielen Dank f\"ur Ihr Interesse an meiner Stellenanzeige in ``Markt
und Chance''. Ich bewerbe mich als Anwendungsentwickler bei der
H\"onigsberg und D\"uvel Datentechnik GmbH.

Ich habe meine Diplomarbeit in theoretischer Physik innerhalb
der Regelstudienzeit erfolgreich abgeschlossen.

Meine in englischer Sprache verfa{\ss}te Doktorarbeit in theoretischer
Physik habe ich im Jahre 2001
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 proze{\ss}orientierten Programmiersprachen C und Fortran,
den Betriebssystemen Unix und Linux und dem Textsatzsystem Latex.

Ich bin zertifizierter Programmierer der objektorientierten
Programmiersprache Java 2 Plattform 1.2.

Im Rahmen einer Weiterbildungsma{\ss}nahme bei der Dekra GmbH gewann
ich betriebswirtschaftliche Kenntnisse, insbesondere erlernte ich die
Anwendungsentwicklung mit SAP R/3 Release 4.6B und die Programmierung
mit Abap/4.

Ich verfasste zw\"olf englischsprachige Abhandlungen in
physikalischen Zeitschriften. Zwei Artikel resultierten
aus meiner Doktorarbeit. Die anderen erfolgten in Eigeninitiative.

F\"ur weitere Informationen zu meiner Person stehe ich
selbstverst\"andlich gerne zur Verf\"u-gung. \"Uber eine Einladung
zu einem Vorstellungsgespr\"ach freue ich mich.

Mit freundlichen Gr\"u{\ss}en

\vspace{0.3cm}

Rainer K\"uhne

\vspace{1.0cm}
$\underline{\mbox{Anlagen}}$

\end{document}

%\topmargin=0mm
%\oddsidemargin=0pt
%\textwidth=160.0mm
%\textheight=170.0mm
%\begin{document}

%\begin{center}
%{\Large {\bf Cartan's Torsion: Necessity and Observational Evidence}}

%\vspace{0.5cm}

%Rainer W. K\"uhne \\
%{\it Lechstr. 63, 38120 Braunschweig, Germany} \\
%kuehne70@gmx.de

%\end{center}

%\vspace{0.5cm}

%\noindent
This article starts with the mathematical definition, concrete description,
and physical meaning of Cartan's torsion. I proceed with the argumentation
that torsion is required for the description of intrinsic spin. Moreover I
argue that the duality between curvature and torsion is analogous to the
duality between electricity and magnetism. I conclude this article by
pointing out that the aligned rotation axes of the galaxies of the
Perseus-Pisces supercluster may be interpreted as a topological defect
generated by torsion.

\section{What is Cartan's Torsion?}

When a four-vector $C^k$ is parallely displaced from the four-position
$x^k$ to $x^k + dx^k$, then it changes according to the prescription,
\begin{equation}
dC^k= - \Gamma^{k}_{ij} (x) C^j dx^{i} .
\end{equation}
This is the definition for the position-dependent affine connection
$\Gamma^{k}_{ij}$. According to general relativity \cite{1}, it has only
a symmetric part,
\begin{equation}
\{ \}^{k}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} ( \Gamma^{k}_{ij} + \Gamma^{k}_{ji} ),
\end{equation}
which is called "Christoffel symbol." The anti-symmetric part of the
affine connection is called "Cartan's torsion" \cite{2},
\begin{equation}
T^{k}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} ( \Gamma^{k}_{ij} - \Gamma^{k}_{ji} ).
\end{equation}
According to general relativity, the torsion tensor is zero. The
introduction
of a nonzero torsion tensor means therefore an extension of general
relativity.

Quite remarkably, the torsion tensor transforms as a tensor under local
Lorentz transformations, whereas the Christoffel symbol does not.

The torsion tensor can be viewed as the translational field strength.
It represents a closure failure of infinitesimal displacements. In
spacetimes
which include torsion, infinitesimal parallelograms do not close.

We know from Einstein's general relativity \cite{1} that gravitational mass
is connected with curvature via
\begin{equation}
G^{ij}= \kappa\Sigma^{ij},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
G^{ij}= R^{ij} - \frac{1}{2} g^{ij}R^{k}_{k}
\end{equation}
is the Einstein tensor, $\Sigma^{ij}$ is the stress-energy (energy-momentum)
tensor, $R^{ij}$ is the Ricci tensor, $g^{ij}$ is the metric tensor,
$R^{k}_{k}$ is the Ricci scalar, and $\kappa = -8\pi G/c^4$ is the
Einstein constant.

Analogously, intrinsic spin is connected with Cartan's torsion via
\begin{equation}
T^{ijk} = \kappa\tau^{ijk},
\end{equation}
where $\tau^{ijk}$ is the spin tensor \cite{3}. The equations (4) and (6)
show the duality between mass and spin and between curvature and torsion,
respectively.

Directly from the definition of the affine connection, Eq. (1), one
obtains the differential equation of autoparallel curves,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2x^k}{ds^2} + \Gamma^{k}_{ij} \frac{dx^{i}}{ds}
\frac{dx^{j}}{ds} =0,
\end{equation}
where the infinitesimal interval $ds$ between $x^k$ and $x^k +dx^k$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = g_{ij}(x) dx^{i}dx^{j}.
\end{equation}
Quite remarkably, only the symmetric part of the metric tensor contributes
to the square of the infinitesimal interval.

Readers who would like to learn more about the formalism of torsion
are invited to read the excellent reviews, Ref. \cite{4}.

\section{Why Do We Need Torsion?}

The energy-momentum tensor $\Sigma^{ij}$ of a Dirac field $\Psi$
(spin 1/2 field \cite{5}) is anti-symmetric \cite{6},
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^{ij} = - \frac{\hbar c}{2} [ ( \nabla^{i} \bar\Psi )
\gamma^{j} \Psi - \bar\Psi \gamma^{j} \nabla^{i} \Psi ] ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{i}= \partial_{i} +ieA_{i}
\end{equation}
is the covariant derivative. By contrast, the energy-momentum tensor
of general relativity \cite{1} is symmetric. In order to couple a
spinor field (Dirac field) to a gravitational field, one has to use an
energy-momentum tensor which includes anti-symmetric parts. Therefore
general relativity has to be generalized by the introduction of
Cartan's torsion \cite{3}.

I have shown that the duality between mass and spin is analogous to the
duality between electric charge and magnetic charge \cite{7}. The
electric-magnetic duality is,
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{i} & = & \partial_{j} F^{ji} \\
j^{i} & = & \partial_{j} f^{ji} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $J^{i}$ is the electric four-current, $j^{i}$ is the magnetic
four-current, and the field strength tensors are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{ji} & = & \partial^{j}A^{i} - \partial^{i}A^{j} \\
f^{ji} & = & \partial^{j}a^{i} - \partial^{i}a^{j} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A^{j}$ is the electric four-potential which corresponds to
Einstein's electric photon \cite{8}, and $a^{j}$ is the magnetic
four-potential which corresponds to Salam's magnetic photon \cite{9}.

Comparison of Eqs. (11) and (12) with Eqs. (4) and (6) demonstrates the
analogy between the electric-magnetic duality and the mass-spin duality.

The electric-magnetic duality is required to explain the quantization of
electric charge \cite{10}. Quantum field theoretical models which include
the magnetic photon can be found in Ref. \cite{11}. I argued \cite{12}
that magnetic photon radiation may have already been observed by
August Kundt in 1885 \cite{13}.

It is probably interesting to note that a Maxwell field $A^{i}$ which is
coupled to a gravitational field which includes both Cartan's torsion
\cite{2} and Weyl's non-metricity \cite{14}, requires the appearence of the
second four-potential $a^{i}$ \cite{15}.

Furthermore, Cartan's torsion tensor can be built from two
independent vector fields which appear to obey the modified Maxwell
equations of the two-photon theory \cite{15a}.

\section{Is There Observational \\ Evidence for Torsion?}

The rotation axes of the galaxies of the Perseus-Pisces supercluster are
aligned. This alignment exists over a distance of at least 40 Mpc
(130 million light years) \cite{16}. Such a large alignment cannot be
explained within the framework of conventional models of
galaxy-formation. Therefore I suggested \cite{17} that this alignment
is either a topological defect (torsion wall \cite{18}) or a remnant of the
original aligned distribution of galactic rotation axes generated by a
rotating universe \cite{19}. My interpretation of this structure as a
torsion
wall \cite{20} or as an effect of a rotating universe \cite{21} is
now generally accepted.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{1}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 49}, 769 (1916).
\bibitem{2}
E. Cartan, {\it Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 174}, 593 (1922).
\bibitem{3}
T. W. B. Kibble, {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 2}, 212 (1961). \\
D. W. Sciama, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 36}, 463 (1964).
\bibitem{4}
F. W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester,
{\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 48}, 393 (1976). \\
F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne'eman,
{\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 258}, 1 (1995). \\
I. L. Shapiro, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 357}, 113 (2001).
\bibitem{5}
P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Proc. Roy. Soc. A} {\bf 117}, 610 (1928).
\bibitem{6}
O. Costa de Beauregard, {\it C. R. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 214}, 904 (1942). \\
O. Costa de Beauregard, {\it J. Math. Pures Appl.} {\bf 22}, 85 (1943).
\bibitem{7}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. A} {\bf 14}, 2531 (1999).
\bibitem{8}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 132 (1905).
\bibitem{9}
A. Salam, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}, 683 (1966).
\bibitem{10}
P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Proc. R. Soc. A} {\bf 133}, 60 (1931).
\bibitem{11}
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 Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 3153 (1997). \\
S. Carneiro, {\it J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 9807}, 022 (1998).
\bibitem{12}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Electromagnetic Phenomena}, {\bf 3} (9), 86
(2003) (= hep-ph/0205229). \\
R. W. K\"uhne, Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical
Electrodynamics?, eds. A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, R. Smirnov-Rueda,
and A. Espinoza (Rinton Press, New York, to be published).
\bibitem{13}
A. Kundt, {\it S.-B. Preu{\ss}. Acad. Wiss.} (1885) p. 1055. \\
A. Kundt, {\it Wied. Ann. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 27}, 191 (1886).
\bibitem{14}
H. Weyl, {\it Ann. Physik} {\bf 59}, 101 (1919).
\bibitem{15}
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). \\
M. Israelit, The Weyl-Dirac Theory and Our Universe (Nova Science
Publishers, New York, 1999).
\bibitem{15a}
R. T. Hammond, {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 23}, 973 (1991).
\bibitem{16}
S. A. Gregory, L. A. Thompson, and W. G. Tifft, {\it Astrophys. J.}
{\bf 243}, 411 (1981).
\bibitem{17}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 2473 (1997).
\bibitem{18}
L. C. Garcia de Andrade, {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 39}, 372 (1998). \\
L. C. Garcia de Andrade, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 13}, 1179 (1998). \\
L. C. Garcia de Andrade, {\it Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 256}, 291 (1999).
\bibitem{19}
K. G\"odel, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 21}, 447 (1949). \\
A. Raychaudhuri, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 98}, 1123 (1955).
\bibitem{20}
S. Capozziello, G. Iovane, G. Lambiase, and C. Stornaiolo,
{\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 46}, 710 (1999). \\
S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and C. Stornaiolo, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)}
{\bf 10}, 713 (2001).
\bibitem{21}
A. I. Arbab, {\it Spacetime \& Substance} {\bf 2} (7), 55 (2001). \\
S. Carneiro and G. A. Mena Marug\'an, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 64},
083502 (2001). \\
C. M. Chen, T. Harko, and M. K. Mak, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 63} ,
104013 (2001). \\
C. M. Chen, T. Harko, W. F. Kao, and M. K. Mak, {\it Nucl. Phys. B}
{\bf 636}, 159 (2002).

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

\begin{center}
{\bf Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Rainer K\"uhne~~~~~~~~~~}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Personal Data:} & \\
Name: & Rainer Walter K\"uhne \\
Address: & Vorm Holz 4 \\
& 42119 Wuppertal, Germany \\
Phone: & (0049) 0160--93074899 \\
E-Mail: & kuehne70@gmx.de \\
Born: & May 23, 1970 in Braunschweig, Germany \\
Marital Status: & single \\
Nationality: & German \\
Denomination: & Protestant \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Education:} & \\
08/1976 -- 07/1980: & Grundschule in Braunschweig \\
08/1980 -- 07/1982: & Orientierungsstufe in Braunschweig \\
08/1982 -- 05/1989: & Gymnasium Martino-Katherineum in Braunschweig \\
& Examination: Abitur (maturity) \\
06/1989 -- 08/1990: & Military Service in Celle and Wesendorf \\
10/1990 -- 10/1995: & Studies of physics at Bonn University \\
& Examination: Diploma in Physics \\
04/1996 -- 03/2000: & Studies of physics at Wuppertal University \\
04/2000 -- 07/2001: & Studies of physics at Dortmund University \\
& Examination: PhD in Physics (Dr. rer. nat.) \\
04/2002 -- 03/2003: & SAP R/3 Application-Development, Release 4.6B \\
& Dekra-Akademie Wuppertal \\
& Examination: Sun-Certificate Java 2 Platform 1.2 \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Special Abilitites:} & \\
Languages: & German, English, French \\
Informatics: & Fortran, C, Java, Latex, Unix, SAP R/3, \\
& Abap/4, Microsoft-Products \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

\vspace{1.0cm}

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

\end{document}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large {\bf Review of Quantum Electromagnetodynamics}} \\

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

\vspace{1cm}

\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. Here I will review the ideas which led to my
model of magnetic monopoles including my prediction of the second kind
of electromagnetic radiation. I will present also the mathematical formalism.
Moreover I will suggest an experiment to verify the second kind
of electromagnetic radiation and point out a possible observation of this
radiation by August Kundt in 1885. Finally, I will list the many and
far-reaching consequences, if this radiation will be confirmed by
future experiments.}

\vspace{1cm}

\section{Introduction}
\noindent
The discovery of a second kind of light would
be a multi-dimensional scientific revolution. It would shake the foundations
of modern physics in many ways. It would be experimental
evidence of physics beyond the standard theory of particle physics.
The standard theory includes the Weinberg-Salam theory from 1967/1968
\cite{WS}
and quantum chromodynamics from 1973 \cite{QCD}. The observation would
require not only that the theory of quantum electrodynamics formulated
in 1948/1949 \cite{QED} has to be extended. It would challenge also the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated in
1927/1928 \cite{HB}. Furthermore, the new kind of light would violate
the relativity
principle of special relativity from 1905 \cite{SR} and would require a
symmetrization
of Maxwell's equations from 1873 \cite{Maxwell}.

In the second section, I will review the ideas which led to my
model of magnetic monopoles. The third section suggests an experiment
to verify the second kind
of electromagnetic radiation. In the fourth section, I will present
the mathematical formalism. The fifth section deals with a possible
observation of the second kind of electromagnetic radiation by August
Kundt in 1885 \cite{Kundt}. In the sixth section, I will list the many and
far-reaching consequences, if this radiation will be confirmed by
future experiments.

\section{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 [10 -- 15].
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 daily 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.

\section{How to Verify the Magnetic Photon Rays}

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 $f\sim 10^{-12}$.
Two experiments have been tried to confirm this prediction.
The first one was tried in Vienna/Austria in February 2002.
The second one was done in Madison/Wisconsin in March 2002.
Both experiments yielded the value $f\sim 10^{-15}$.
The result is not yet conclusive as background effects such as stray light
cannot yet be excluded with certainty.
If the result turns out to be correct, then it has to be explained why
it is roughly 1000 times smaller than my prediction.

One possibility is that the prediction $f\sim 10^{-12}$ is strictly valid
only for free charges. However, in condensed matter we have interactions
of light with the electromagnetic field instead of interactions with
free particles. In particle physics, too, we often do not have free
charges. For example, the emission of synchrotron radiation occurs
when the charged particles are within an external field. This means that
the particles are off the mass shell. Here, too, the velocity coupling
does not refer to the velocity of a charged particle. This is because
the velocity of a particle which is not on the mass shell is not defined.
The velocity coupling rather describes the velocity of the entire system,
i.e. the centre of mass velocity of the particle and the field.
Usually, this velocity is non-relativistic.

Another possibility is that the magnetic photon model
has to be modified. Other versions of the magnetic photon model were
suggested by Singleton \cite{Singleton} (where the magnetic photon
has nonzero rest mass) and Carneiro \cite{Carneiro} (where all
interactions occur via vector coupling and where the photon propagator
is more complicated).

\section{Formalism}
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}
The Lagrangian for a spin 1/2 fermion field
$\Psi $ of rest mass $m_{0}$, electric charge
$Q$, and magnetic charge $q$ within an electromagnetic field can be
constructed as follows.
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 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}
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.

\section{Possible Observation of Magnetic Photon Rays}

\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 can hardly be explained with 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.

\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) The experiment would confirm the existence of a new vector gauge boson,
Salam's magnetic photon from 1966 \cite{Salam}. It has the same
quantum numbers as
Einstein's electric photon \cite{photon}, i.e. spin of one, negative
parity, zero rest mass, and zero charge. The vanishing rest mass for
both the electric and the magnetic photon is required to satisfy the
Dirac quantization condition of electric and magnetic charge.

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

(4) The experiment would provide indirect evidence of Dirac's magnetic
monopoles from 1931 and the explanation of the quantization of electric
charge \cite{Dirac}. This quantization is known since Rutherford's
discovery of the proton in 1919 \cite{Rutherford}.

(5) 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.

(6) Dirac noticed in 1931 that the coupling constant of magnetic
monopoles is much greater than unity \cite{Dirac}. This raises new questions
concerning the perturbation theory, the renormalizability, and the
unitarity of quantum field theories.

(7) 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.

(8) 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.

(9) When in 1925 Heisenberg introduced quantum mechanics, he argued
that motion does not exist in this theory \cite{Heisenberg}. This view is
taken also
in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated in
1927/1928 by Heisenberg and Bohr \cite{HB}. The appearance of a velocity
operator in my model challenges this Copenhagen interpretation.
Mathematically, the introduction of a velocity (and force) operator
means that quantum mechanics has to be described not only by partial but
also by ordinary differential equations.

(10) 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.

(11) Finally, the other interactions may show similar dualities.
The new dual partners of the known gauge bosons would be the
magnetic photon, the isomagnetic W- and Z-boson, and the
chromomagnetic gluons. In 1999 I argued that the dual
partner of the graviton would be the tordion \cite{2}. This boson has a spin
of three and is required by Cartan's torsion theory from 1922 \cite{Cartan}
which
is an extension of Einstein's general relativity from 1915 \cite{GR}.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{WS}
S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 19}, 1264 (1967). \\
A. Salam, Elementary Particle Physics, ed. N. Svartholm (Almqvist, Stockholm,
1968), p. 367.
\bibitem{QCD}
D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 30}, 1343 (1973). \\
H. D. Politzer, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 30}, 1346 (1973). \\
S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 31}, 494 (1973). \\
S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 8}, 4482 (1973). \\
H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 47},
365 (1973).
\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{HB}
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{SR}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 891 (1905).
\bibitem{Maxwell}
J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1873).
\bibitem{Kundt}
A. Kundt, {\it S.-B. Preu{\ss}. Acad. Wiss.} (1885) p. 1055;
reprinted in:
A. Kundt, {\it Wied. Ann. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 27}, 191 (1886).
\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). \\
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). \\
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).
\bibitem{Salam}
A. Salam, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}, 683 (1966).
\bibitem{Singleton}
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).
\bibitem{1}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 3153 (1997).
\bibitem{Carneiro}
S. Carneiro, {\it J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 9807}, 022 (1998).
\bibitem{2}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. A} {\bf 14}, 2531 (1999)
\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{Rutherford}
E. Rutherford, {\it Phil. Mag.} {\bf 37}, 581 (1919).
\bibitem{Heisenberg}
W. Heisenberg, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 33}, 879 (1925).
\bibitem{Cartan}
E. Cartan, {\it Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 174}, 593 (1922).
\bibitem{GR}
A. Einstein, {\it S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.}, p. 844 (1915). \\
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 49}, 769 (1916).
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large {\bf General Relativity Requires Absolute Space and Time}} \\

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

\vspace{0.8cm}

\noindent
{\bf We examine two far-reaching and somewhat heretic
consequences of General Relativity. (i) It requires a cosmology which
includes a preferred rest frame, absolute space and time.
(ii) A rotating universe and time travel are strict solutions of General
Relativity.}

\vspace{0.8cm}

\section{Space and Time Before General Relativity}
\noindent
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.

\section{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{MMM}.

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.

I suggested that this aether drift can give rise to local physical effects.
I introduced the theory of quantum electromagnetodynamics \cite{MMM}.
It is a generalization of quantum electrodynamics \cite{QED} which
includes Dirac's magnetic monopoles \cite{Dirac} and two kinds of photons,
Einstein's electric photon \cite{photon} and Salam's magnetic photon
\cite{Salam}. I predicted that every light source which emits electric
photons does emit also magnetic photons. The ratio between the interaction
cross-sections of the magnetic photon and the electric photon shall
depend on the aether drift of the laboratory. The results of recent
experiments to test my theory may be interpreted as preliminary
evidence for these magnetic photon rays. These experiments were
performed in Vienna/Austria by Alipasha Vaziri in February 2002 and
in Madison/Wisconsin by Roderic Lakes in March and June 2002.

\section{General Relativity: Rotating Universe and Time Travel}

\noindent
It is well-known that planets, stars, and galaxies rotate. So Lanczos
and Gamow speculated that the entire universe may rotate and that the
rotating universe might have generated the rotation of the galaxies
\cite{Gamow}.

G\"odel was the first to show that a rotating universe is a strict
solution of Einstein's field equations for a homogeneous and
anisotropic universe. He considered a non-expanding universe and has
shown that it allows closed time-like curves, i.e. time-travel.
He predicted that the original order of the rotation axes of galaxies was
parallel to the universal rotation axis \cite{Godel}.

Raychaudhuri presented a model for an expanding and rotating universe
which is a generalization of both the Friedmann-Lema\^itre universe
and the G\"odel universe. This cosmology, too, includes closed
time-like curves \cite{Raychaudhuri}.

Possibly, the Raychaudhuri universe did not start from a singularity
(big bang), but from a closed time-like curve, i.e. from a time-machine.

Gregory, Thompson, and Tifft discovered that the distribution of the
rotation axes for both the spiral and ellipsoid galaxies of the
filament-like Perseus-Pisces supercluster is bimodal. One of the peaks
is roughly aligned with the major axis of the supercluster while the
second peak is roughly $90^{\circ}$ from the first \cite{Gregory}.
This anisotropic distribution cannot be explained by conventional
models of galaxy-formation. Therefore I suggested that this might be a
remnant of the original aligned distribution of galactic rotation axes
generated by a rotating universe \cite{axis}.

A rotating universe with both vorticity and shear would generate an
anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Collins and
Hawking were able to set tight bounds on this effect \cite{Hawking}.
However, Korotky and Obukhov showed that the generation of this anisotropy
is an effect of shear and not of vorticity alone. So the observed isotropy
of the cosmic microwave background radiation does not contradict the idea
of a rotating universe, where the rotation period could be as high as
the Hubble age of the universe \cite{Obukhov}.

There is some discussion whether General Relativity could allow local
time-machines. Carter has shown that the Kerr metric \cite{Kerr} of
rotating spherical bodies can generate closed time-like curves
\cite{Carter}. This inspired Tipler to investigate a rapidly rotating
cylinder with 100 km length, 15 km radius, $10^{14}$g/cm$^{3}$ density,
and a rotational speed of 70\% of the speed of light. This object yielded
closed time-like curves \cite{Tipler}. However, until now it has not been
proved that an observer outside the gravitational field would also see
time-travel.

To conclude, General Relativity requires a cosmology which includes a
preferred frame, absolute space and time and which may include a
rotating universe and time-travel. Such a universe may have originated
not from a singularity (big bang), but from a closed time-like curve
(time-machine).

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\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{MMM}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 3153 (1997).
\bibitem{Penzias}
A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 142}, 419 (1965).
\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{Smoot}
G. F. Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and R. A. Muller,
{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 39}, 898 (1977).
\bibitem{Peebles}
P. J. E. Peebles, Physical Cosmology (Princeton, University Press, 1971).
\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{photon}
A. Einstein, {\it Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)} {\bf 17}, 132 (1905).
\bibitem{Salam}
A. Salam, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 22}, 683 (1966).
\bibitem{Gamow}
C. Lanczos, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf 21}, 73 (1924). \\
G. Gamow, {\it Nature} {\bf 158}, 549 (1946).
\bibitem{Raychaudhuri}
A. Raychaudhuri, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 98}, 1123 (1955).
\bibitem{Gregory}
S. A. Gregory, L. A. Thompson, and W. G. Tifft, {\it Astrophys. J.}
{\bf 243}, 411 (1981).
\bibitem{axis}
R. W. K\"uhne, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 12}, 2473 (1997).
\bibitem{Hawking}
S. W. Hawking, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 142}, 129 (1969). \\
C. B. Collins and S. W. Hawking, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}
{\bf 162}, 307 (1973).
\bibitem{Obukhov}
V. A. Korotky and Yu. N. Obukhov, {\it Sov. Phys. JETP} {\bf 72}, 11
(1991). \\
Yu. N. Obukhov, {\it Gen. Relativ. Grav.} {\bf 24}, 121 (1992). \\
S. Carneiro and G. A. Mena Marug\'an, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 64},
083502 (2001).
\bibitem{Kerr}
R. P. Kerr, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 11}, 237 (1963).
\bibitem{Carter}
B. Carter, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 174}, 1559 (1968).
\bibitem{Tipler}
F. J. Tipler, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 9}, 2203 (1974).

\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large Erinnerungen an unsere Kindheit}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

Dein Leben begann bereits einige Monate vor deiner Geburt. \\
In dieser Zeit mu{\ss}te ich mich mit unseren Eltern einigen, \\
welchen {\bf Namen} du bekommen solltest. \\
W\"arst du ein {\bf M\"adchen} geworden, \\
so h\"attest du wohl nie einen Namen bekommen. \\
S\"amtliche Namen, die ich vorschlug, \\
kommentierten Mutti und Papi mit: \\
``den Namen gibt es schon'' oder \\
``ach nee, der klingt nicht so gut.'' \\
Beim {\bf Jungennamen} waren wir uns aber schnell einig; \\
mein Vorschlag {\bf ``Torsten''} wurde einstimmig angenommen.

Schlie{\ss}lich wurdest du am 2. August um 12:25 Uhr geboren. \\
In den ersten Wochen feierten wir jeden Tag diese Uhrzeit mit den Worten: \\
``jetzt ist der Torsten genau soundsoviel Tage alt.''

Nur vier Tage nach deiner Geburt wurde ich eingeschult. \\
Mutti lag damals noch im Krankenhaus. \\
Einige meiner neuen Mitsch\"uler hatten gar nicht mitbekommen, \\
da{\ss} Mutti gar nicht bei meiner Einschulung anwesend war. -- \\
Sie hielten Tante Helga f\"ur meine Mutti.

Meine {\bf Schult\"ute} hast du in Ehren gehalten. \\
Bei {\bf deiner} Einschulung wurde sie deine {\bf zweite} Schult\"ute.

In den ersten Jahren konnte ich dir noch zeigen, \\
wie toll man spielen kann, \\
Baukl\"otze aufeinander stapeln und so. \\
Als du gr\"o{\ss}er wurdest, ging das nicht mehr, \\
im Slotter habe ich {\bf jedesmal} -- ohne Ausnahme -- gegen dich verloren.

Nat\"urlich wurden wir von unseren Eltern pazifistisch erzogen. \\
Wir hatten zahlreiche Spielzeug- und Wasserpistolen. \\
So erfand ich eines Tages das Spiel {\bf ``Grenzverschiebung''}, \\
das wir mit Spielzeugpanzern und -raketen spielten. \\
{\bf Jahre sp\"ater} $\ldots $ kam dir die Erleuchtung und du
fragtest mich: \\
``was war denn das f\"ur ein Kriegsspiel?''

\newpage
.
\newpage

Auch wenn du jetzt ein Heide bist; \\
sicher erinnerst du dich noch, \\
da{\ss} wir auch einmal christlich erzogen worden sind. \\
So sei nun erz\"ahlt, wie die Madonna bei uns erschien. \\
Als der \"altere von uns beiden, bestimmte ich den Musikgeschmack. \\
Etwa Slade: ``Merry Xmas Everybody'' oder \\
Kiss: ``God Gave Rock'n Roll''. \\
Also das ganze Heavy Metal von A bis Z. \\
Eines Tages waren wir mit Mutti beim Einkaufen. \\
Ich suchte mir die Madonna-LP ``True Blue'' aus. \\
Pl\"otzlich liefst du weg. \\
Was war los? \\
Mutti erkl\"arte mir, auch du st\"andest auf Madonna, \\
f\"urchtetest aber meine Kritik. \\
Im Vergleich zu Heavy Metal ist Madonna nun wirklich zu soft. \\
Du hast dann aber die bessere Madonna-Platte ausgesucht. \\
Das sei hiermit zugegeben.

Von {\bf meiner} Einschulung war schon die Rede. \\
Sieben Jahre sp\"ater kamst du auf meine Schule \\
und wir hatten einige gemeinsame Lehrer. \\
Etwa unsere Mathe-Lehrerin Elsa, \\
die bei der Abi-Fete den Preis f\"ur die beste Freizeit-Besch\"aftigung
erhielt, \\
also {\bf Hausaufgaben en masse}.

Von unserem Erdkunde-Lehrer Brauleke haben wir die f\"unf Erdteile gelernt: \\
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~das Eintracht-Stadion, \\
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Obersickte, \\
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~der Baikal-See, \\
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~die Angara \\
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~und der Mars. \\
Das ganze {\bf ma{\ss}stabsgetreu} eingezeichnet auf einem {\bf perfekten}
Tafelbild.

Nicht zu vergessen, unser {\bf \"ah} Geschichts-Lehrer {\bf Silberlocke}, \\
bei dessem {\bf \"ah} hochinteressanten Unterricht ich regelm\"a{\ss}ig \\
schon nach einer Minute einschlief.

\newpage
.
\newpage

In den sieben Jahren hat sich an unserer \\
bereits {\bf 1415} gegr\"undeten Schule einiges ver\"andert. \\
Mein Lehrer {\bf Frankenstein} verwandelte sich im Laufe der Jahre \\
in {\bf deinen} Lehrer {\bf Mumie}. \\
Sein richtiger Name sei hier nicht genannt, \\
der Leitspruch unserer Schule ist nun mal: \\
``virtuti humanitati pietati''.

In eurer Sch\"uler-Zeitung befand sich ein Cartoon mit einem Frosch in der
Hand \\
und dazu das Wort {\bf ``Jrrrk!''} \\
Als Erkl\"arung bemerkte die Zeitung, \\
der Witz sei nur einer \"alteren Generation, also {\bf meiner},
verst\"andlich. \\
Wie wahr! Es handelt sich um einen Witz, \\
den mein Chemie-Lehrer {\bf J\"org} Hagen erz\"ahlte, \\
damit wir uns seinen Vornamen merken. \\
Dieser Witz sei hier nicht erz\"ahlt, auch hier gilt: \\
``virtuti humanitati pietati''.

Aber genug mit der Schule, \\
es gibt auch wirklich wichtiges im Leben -- z.B. Frauen. \\
Eines Tages maltest du ein Herzchen an die Fensterscheibe unseres
Wohnzimmers \\
und schriebst dazu den Namen ``Inka''. \\
Als Mutti und Papi dies Stunden sp\"ater sahen, \\
fragten sie dich, wer denn Inka sei. \\
Etwa eine Freundin deines Bruders? \\
Du stelltest dich unwissend. \\
War es dir wirklich peinlich, \\
dich in ein M\"adchen verliebt zu haben?

Nun, heute hast du die richtige Frau geheiratet. \\
{\bf Herzlichen Gl\"uckwunsch!}

\end{document}

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

\vspace{2.5cm}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Pers\"onliche Daten:} & \\
Name: & Rainer Walter K\"uhne \\
Adresse: & Vorm Holz 4\\
& 42119 Wuppertal \\
Telefon: & 0160--93074899 \\
E-Mail: & kuehne70@gmx.de \\
Geboren: & 23. Mai 1970 in Braunschweig~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \\
Familienstand: & ledig \\
Staatsangeh\"origkeit: & deutsch \\
Konfession: & evangelisch \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Ausbildung:} & \\
08/1976 -- 07/1980: & Grundschule in Braunschweig \\
08/1980 -- 07/1982: & Orientierungsstufe in Braunschweig \\
08/1982 -- 05/1989: & Gymnasium Martino-Katherineum in Braunschweig \\
& Abschlu{\ss}: Abitur \\
06/1989 -- 08/1990: & Grundwehrdienst in Celle und Wesendorf \\
10/1990 -- 10/1995: & Physik-Studium an der Universit\"at Bonn \\
& Abschlu{\ss}: Diplom in Physik \\
04/1996 -- 03/2000: & Aufbaustudium in Physik, Gesamthochschule Wuppertal \\
04/2000 -- 07/2001: & Aufbaustudium in Physik, Universit\"at Dortmund \\
& Abschlu{\ss}: Promotion in Physik \\
04/2002 -- 03/2003: & SAP R/3 Anwendungsentwicklung, Release 4.6B \\
& Dekra-Akademie Wuppertal \\
& Abschlu{\ss}: Sun-Zertifikat Java 2 Plattform 1.2 \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

%\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\bf Besondere F\"ahigkeiten:} & \\
Fremdsprachen: & englisch, franz\"osisch \\
Informatik: & Fortran, C, Java, Latex, Unix, SAP R/3, \\
& Abap/4, Microsoft-Produkte \\
Publikationen: & 12 Abhandlungen in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften \\
\end{tabular}
%\end{center}

\vspace{1.0cm}

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

\end{document}