Andre
- 4,310
- 73
It's not my terrain but I have read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10182 .
It is published here.
some quotes:
I guess the experiments are testable and the results should be consistent. So what say?
It is published here.
some quotes:
OBSERVATION OF A SECOND KIND OF LIGHT
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne
kuehne70@gmx.de
We performed experiments at the University of Vienna/Austria and at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Our result is that (visible) light consists of two kinds. The second kind ("magnetic photon rays") is able to penetrate metal foils. Our discovery means a multi-dimensional revolution in physics.
...
Quantum electrodynamics 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.
By contrast, any theory which includes magnetic monopoles requires and explains the quantization of electric charge.
A theory of electric and magnetic phenomena which includes magnetic monopoles can be formulated in a manifestly covariant and symmetrical way if two four-potentials are used. Within the framework of a quantum field theory one four-potential corresponds to Einstein's electric photon and the other four-potential corresponds to Salam's magnetic photon.
We formulated a generalization of quantum electrodynamics [1, 2], where the Lorentz force between an electric charge and a magnetic charge is generated as follows. 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. 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 our theory [1, 2], 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 diurnal 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. More precisely, these values are correct only for interactions of free electric charges with photons. However, in metals we do not have free electric charges nor free photons, therefore these values have to be corrected.
The easiest test to verify/falsify the second kind of light is to illuminate a metal foil of thickness 1,...,100 micrometers 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%.
2. Experiment at Vienna
On February 22, 2002 between 15:30 and 16:30 local time of Vienna/Austria, we tried an experiment to verify the predicted magnetic photon rays [1, 2]. Our light source was a He-Ne laser of 1 mW at 632 nm. We coupled the light in a multi mode optical fibre with coupling efficiency of 70%. The light came out at the other end. After 3 cm we coupled the light in a second multi mode glass fibre, also with coupling efficiency of 70%. In front of the second optical fibre we placed an aluminium foil to shield the electric photon light. Behind the second optical fibre we placed an avalanche diode with 30% efficiency for electric photon light of 632 nm wavelength.
We did four sets of runs.
...
The mean background count rates were:
set 1: 33.65 counts/s
set 2: 33.63 counts/s
set 4: 33.85 counts/s
mean: 33.71 counts/s
The mean foreground count rate was (set 3): 34.87 counts/s. 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:
foreground: (34.87 +/- 0.17) counts/s
background: (33.71 +/- 0.09) counts/s
excess rate: (1.16 +/- 0.19) counts/s
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 of 1.16 counts/s observed in our experiment in Vienna 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) Any effects of stray light should have increased the count rate of set 1. Since the count rate of set 1 is compatible with background, we conclude that effects of stray light were undetectably small. The two optical lenses used in set 3 were used to focus the laser beam, so they should have further decreased effects of stray light. It is therefore unlikely that the excess of set 3 is due to stray light.
(5) The penetration depth of electric photon light of 632 nm in aluminium is only 3.68 nm. 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.
We conclude that the excessive counts resulted from the magnetic photon part of the laser beam. This is a confirmation of the theory presented in [1, 2].
3. Experiment at Madison
In June 2002 at Madison/Wisconsin we tried an experiment to verify the predicted magnetic photon rays [1, 2]. Our light source was a diode pumped YAG laser at 532 nm with 80 mW of power. The detector was a photomultiplier tube 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 mm. An aluminium foil was placed directly in front of the detector.
We 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. For this reason, it is unlikely that the excess resulted from a variability of the detector or from noise of equipment either inside or outside the laboratory.
(3) The penetration depth of electric photon light of 532 nm in aluminium is only 3.38 nm. 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.
4. Conclusion
To conclude, three experiments confirm the magnetic photon rays predicted in [1]:
(1) The experiment of August Kundt in 1885 [3, 4] which we [2] interpreted as a possible observation of the second kind of light.
(2) Our experiment in Vienna/Austria in February 2002.
(3) Our experiment in Madison/Wisconsin in June 2002.
The discovery of magnetic photon rays means a revolution in physics.
I guess the experiments are testable and the results should be consistent. So what say?
Last edited by a moderator:
