Archive for July, 2013

FOR POSTING: Essay 86 on the New ECE Theory

This essay summarizes the new type of ECE theory introduced in UFT245.

ESSAY 86.docx

Advertisements

FOR POSTIING: ESSAY 85 on The Photon Mass

This essay summarizes the major advances made in UFT244 and UFT245, in which the ninety year old photon mass theory was subjected to due scrutiny. It was found that we know far less than we think we do about photon mass. We may summarize standard physics in the words of Oscar Wilde: “Illusion is the first of all pleasures”.

ESSAY 85.docx

The B(3) Field in Vacuo and in Material Matter

This is what Crowell thought too, and as you see he describes them as “egregious”. I looked up this Latin word and one source states that it can mean “outsandingly good” or “outstandingly bad”, meaning “anything you like”. This is obviously a very poor translation of the Latin, which means “out of the ruled region”. Crowell may have used this adjective because he confused the free space B(3) with the M(3) in any material matter, where B(3) = mu0 M(3), mu0 being the vacuum permeability in S. I. units. The magnetization of the inverse Faraday effect is very small, but measurable. Have a look at OO353 and OO355 to see the semiclassical theory of the inverse Faraday effect and inverse magnetochiral birefringence. These were two papers from the University of Zurich by George Wagniere, Stanislaw Wozniak and myself, published in “Molecular Physics”. Then the Munich group will be able to see the semi-classical structure of the hyperpolarizability tensors that mediate both effects. The first observation of IFE was made in the group of the Nobel Laureate Nicholas Bloembergen at Harvard, reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. in about 1964 by van der Ziel, Malmstrom and Pershan. van der Ziel was scathingly critical of Yassin Rajah at UNCC, and told me that he had done the experiment almost alone, sice Malmstrom never turned up for work, and Pershan was a theoretician. Jan van der Ziel became a full professor in Texas I think. He is probably retired by now, but if still living could also help. he is the experimental pioneer of IFE. By now there have been great improvements in apparatus. It still requires great skill however to see the IFE. RFR is simply the IFE detected by resonance. It is not possible for IFE to exist and RFR not to exist. Similarly it is not possible for ordinary magnetization to exist and NMR or ESR not to exist. These conclusions are the same in ECE theory and the standard model, but as you know there are foundational philosophical differences between ECE and standard physics. The University of Zurich and ETH may become interested in looking for RFR. The Nobel Laureate Ernst was encouraging anout mu ideas about ONMR back in 1991, and in fact ONMR has been a great success. RFR has lagged many years behind due to non scientific reasons. The rewards of developing RFR will be very great: FTNMR without magnets, ultra high resolution FTNMR, a new chemical shift pattern, MRI wthout magnets, FTESR without magnets, both at very high resolution. Warren at Princeton more or less told me that I would share a Nobel Prize if I could develop ONMR with him. He accurately predicted the Nobel Prize to Ernst in 1991. The first predictions of RFR were made in “The Enigmatic Photon” volume three, also on the OO, in the world renowned van der Merwe series. So teh Munich group would share in a Nobel Prize if it developed RFR, perhaps jointly with Zurich and ETH. This will not be easy, but significant advances are never easy.

In a message dated 30/07/2013 23:19:32 GMT Daylight Time, :

With these formulas the situation looks quite different. for a frequency of

omega = 2 pi * 1 MHz

one obtains

These B(3) fields are quite strong and should give huge effects.
Horst

Am 30.07.2013 18:28, schrieb EMyrone

Thanks for this, the correct formula to use for B(3) is given in eq. (6.3.44) of the book by Crowell and myself on the Omnia Opera:

B(3) = (e mu0 c/ h bar) I / omega squared = 5.723 ten power 17 I / omega squared

in free space. However teh important formula is eq. (1.10.103) of the book by Crowell and myself, writeen in 2001. At autoresonance:

omega sub res = 1.532 ten power 25 I / omega squared

I Am not sure what formula you have used for B(3).

In a message dated 30/07/2013 16:16:22 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck writes:

Currently we discuss RFR in our Munich group. we made a table by the formulas given in paper 84. Assuming a resonance frequency of 100 MHz we obtain (for several power densities I) a range of input frequencies of circularly polarized light beginning at 200 MHz. We are concerned that the B(3) field strength, given by B(0), is very small. Have you any experience on a minimum B(0) value above which any effect is observable? Maybe a value below the magnetic field of the earth will only be detected as noise.

Horst

Required parameter range for RFR

OK agreed.

In a message dated 30/07/2013 19:40:23 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck@aol.com writes:

The formulas that were used are taken from paper 84. I think these are the free space descriptions:

We will look into the book.

Horst

Am 30.07.2013 18:28, schrieb EMyrone

Thanks for this, the correct formula to use for B(3) is given in eq. (6.3.44) of the book by Crowell and myself on the Omnia Opera:

B(3) = (e mu0 c/ h bar) I / omega squared = 5.723 ten power 17 I / omega squared

in free space. However teh important formula is eq. (1.10.103) of the book by Crowell and myself, writeen in 2001. At autoresonance:

omega sub res = 1.532 ten power 25 I / omega squared

I Am not sure what formula you have used for B(3).

In a message dated 30/07/2013 16:16:22 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck writes:

Currently we discuss RFR in our Munich group. we made a table by the formulas given in paper 84. Assuming a resonance frequency of 100 MHz we obtain (for several power densities I) a range of input frequencies of circularly polarized light beginning at 200 MHz. We are concerned that the B(3) field strength, given by B(0), is very small. Have you any experience on a minimum B(0) value above which any effect is observable? Maybe a value below the magnetic field of the earth will only be detected as noise.

Horst

Suggestion to Working Group

Pleasure, both Georges Wagniere and Richard Ernst are now retired, but they might help. Wagniere was Dean or Dekan in the University of Zurich and as you know, Ernst won a Nobel Prize in 1991 for optical NMR. Ernst was enthusiastic about RFR and optical NMR when I lectured at ETH in 1991 to the Ernst group. ONMR has been highly developed by now, notably at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D. C. RFR has been a somewhat perplexing experience for me, but many other good things have happened so I do not wish to pressurize anyone into doing it if they don’t want to. The book by Crowell and myself is in the OO as you know, and it derives RFR from semi classical level to quantum electrodynamics.

In a message dated 30/07/2013 19:35:20 GMT Daylight Time writes:

Thanks for these hints, we will try to contact the Wagniere group in Zurich.

Horst

Am 30.07.2013 19:17, schrieb EMyrone

I suggest that you get in touch with the University of Zurich and ETH to find whether Wagniere and Ernst can be consulted on the inverse Faraday effect and on optical NMR. Wagniere and his group detected an effect called inverse magnetochiral birefringence that is orders of magnitude smaller than the IFE, so there should be no problem these days in detecting IFE. I am rather perplexed at the failure of groups to observe IFE. In the Irchel campus of the University of Zurich there may still be IFE apparatus, and they may invite you to work on it. At ETH there may still be FT NMR spectrometers of Ernst’s group, which he showed me, and they may allow you to use those. Simon Clifford just started to claim that the IFE does not exist. That is a disaster and a rerun of Jelinek and Raja, so I had to stop communicating with him. Imagine if he went to Zurich and told the Wagniere group that the IFE does not exist. I had to cope with this kind of thing in UNCC as you know, and I do not want to have to cope with it all over again. The easiest way to understand B(3) is that it is

B(3) = mu0 M(3)

where M(3) ha sbeen observed many times in the inverse Faraday effect. Simon Clifford also complained bitterly about the chaotic lack of organization by Kerry Pendergast at Aberystwyth. I do not know what Kerry was trying to do, maybe trying to take over AIAS. I had to rescue the conference here. The meetings down here were very successful and cordial except for one sharp, unpleasant argument between Clifford and myself. No scientist is going to tolerate being told that the Faraday effect for example does not exist. Similarly no one is going to tolerate being told that the IFE does not exist. The B(3) is IFE and vice versa. So I just thanked Simon for his views and gave up on him. If I had told my Ph. D. supervisor that the far infra red absorption does not exist I would have been out on my ears and subjected to verbal abuse. I was as polite as possible with Simon. The power house behind AIAS theory is Horst Eckardt, Doug Lindstrom and myself, with key input from Robert Cheshire, Alex Hill, Stephen Crothers and others.

Daily Report 30/7/13

There were 2090 hits from 501 distinct visits, 46.3% spiders mainly from baidu, google, MSN, yandex and sistrix. Auto1 483; Auto2 69; CEFE 93; Code Archive 29; Englynion 21; Blog Archive 11; Auto Archive 10; Second Book of Poetry 11; Auto Sonnets 10. University of Hannover Medical School UFT25; Pat-foun_112_101 University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) UNCC Saga 4; University of Utah UFT243; Physics Yale University 2D; School of Civil Engineering Technical University of Madrid UFT166 (Sp); Paul Sabatier University Toulouse Collisions and Aggregate Reactivity Laboratory Optics Department UFT56; United States Naval Marine Command Norfolk Virginia ECE Devices, News, AIAS Staff, Civil List Pension, List of British Civil List Pensioners, Invitation to Buckingham Palace; United States National Archives general; Silesian Data Center Poland general; Completed usage file attached for July 2013. Intense interest all sectors.

Typo in UFT 245

OK thanks! It should be Eq. (1).

In a message dated 30/07/2013 16:59:33 GMT Daylight Time, alex.hill@yahoo.com writes:

Just before equation 61 there is an equation number missing in the text. Which number should this be?

Regards,