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 “outstandingly 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, since 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 about my 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 without 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 the 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


%d bloggers like this: