Gravitation, Physics, and Technology

C. Y. Lo Applied and Pure Research Institute 7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua, NH 03060 May 2012 Abstract Gravitation is the first natural force that we encountered. The understanding of gravitation is the first step in sciences to understand nature and to develop technology that led to an industrial revolution. The discovery of electromagnetism leads to the modern world we are living today. Nuclear Physics leads to the discovery of new sources of energy and innovative usage of radiation, and etc. However, the development of General Relativity does not seem to be accompanied by new technological developments. On the contrary, due to accumulated errors in mathematics and physics, invalid claims had been popular; and they were often justified with the invalid covariance principle. Analysis together with comparisons with experiments gives the necessary rectifications. This leads to justifying the notion of photons with general relativity, and the discovery and verification of the charge-mass interaction. Thus, Einsteins unification is proven correct. As a result, a new technology with innovative usages of the new force would emerge. Key Words: Einsteins equivalence principle; Einsteins covariance principle; principle of causality; E = mc 2; dynamic solution; repulsive gravitational force; charge-mass interaction; Pioneer Anomaly; gravitation and technology.

PACS: 04.20.Cv; 04.50.-h; 04.50.Kd; 04.80.Cc Classical physics starts with the pioneer works of Galileo and Newton on gravity. Their works established: 1) The three laws in mechanics of Newton. 2) The Newtonian law of Gravity. 3) The equivalence of initial mass and gravitational mass. 4) The neutral objects, independent of the mass, are accelerated in the same way under gravity. Newton recognized that his instantaneous action of gravity at a distance has no justification other than the support of experiments. Later, it is found also that the perihelion of Mercury cannot be explained in terms of Newtonian gravity. However, the theory of classical physics works well until the discovery of electromagnetism. The electromagnetism leads to the discovery of the electromagnetic waves [1], and thus 1) The need of special relativity. 2) The photon that consists of only quantized electromagnetic energy explains the photo-electric effects. 3) The conversion of mass to energy through the formula E = mc2. (This disagrees with the calculated values of mass and energy of an electron [2-4] because the electromagnetic energy is not equivalent to mass). 4) The physical influence needs time to propagate and a proposal of the general theory of relativity [1, 5].
1

The central figure in the above is Einstein, who led those efforts also in the above order. The special relativity leads to the notion of a four-dimensional space. The notion of photon as quantized energy is verified, but the assumption of consisting of only electromagnetic energy was not examined [6]. The question of energy from gravitational waves was not considered although an electron does have a mass. This oversight results in Einsteins proof for the equivalence of photonic energy and mass is incomplete since a necessary step, to show that the photonic energy consists of electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy, was overlooked [7]. Thus, the invalid speculation that m = E/c2 was generally accepted without a proof [8]. This oversight led to a crucial error on general relativity because the invalid implicit assumption of unique coupling sign for the Einstein equation was generally accepted [9]. This is also the crucial physical assumption of the space-time singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking [10]. However, such mathematical theorems which are actually irrelevant to physics were generally accepted; and accordingly Penrose and Hawking claimed the general relativity is invalid for microscopic phenomena [10]. The fact is, however, that validity of the notion of photons needs also the justification of general relativity [7]. Historically, the singularity theorems were resisted by Lifshitz, but he also failed to see that the source of errors is in physics but not in mathematics [11]. However, such a crucial error in physics was not discovered until 1995 as a by-product in the process of proving the non-existence of dynamic solutions for the Einstein equation [9], although Gullstrand had suspected the existence of a dynamic solution as early as 1921 [12]. (Thus, it is based on the photo-electric effects, instead of general relativity, that Einstein received his Nobel Prize.) This late discovery is due to that physicists were not familiar with the non-linear equation, and also that Einsteins own invalid covariance principle
1)

together with

misinterpretations of Einstein equivalence principle created great confusions in understanding the physics and the principle of causality [6]. Fortunately, the Wheeler School [13] and the Royal Society [14] provides examples at the undergraduate level to illustrate such errors [15, 16]. These free us from relying on the so-called experts. In summary, Einstein is the major architect or foundation builder of three great theories of modern physics, namely: the special relativity, the quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, he is also the source of oversight in each theory [6]. In special relativity, he failed to see that E = mc2 is only conditionally valid. In quantum theory, he failed to recognize that the photons must include non-electromagnetic energy [7]. In general relativity, his principle of covariance and theory of measurement are invalid [17, 18]. However, related criticisms of Whitehead [19] 2) and Zhou [20] 3) were ignored. The lack of examples to illustrate his equivalence principle makes it possible to have popular misinterpretations and confusions in physics [21]. The inadequacy in mathematics of Einstein and deficiency in physics of mathematicians lead to the failure in recognizing the non-existence of the dynamic solution for the Einstein equation [9, 22]. Consequently, later theorists
2

failed to see that the space-time singularity theorems are actually based on an implicit assumption that violates the principle of causality.4) Thus, his oversights and errors are the causes of difficulties for theoretical developments, and thus are necessary to be rectified [6]. A crucial error is the failure to see that m = E/c 2 is actually conditionally valid [8] although it should have been clear from the 1916 Reissner metric [23, 24]. The demand to find a proof for the non-equivalence between electromagnetic energy and mass that does not depend on the accuracy of electromagnetism, leads to the discovery of the repulsive static charge-mass interaction from general relativity [8]. For a point charge q and a point mass m separated by a distance r, such a repulsive force is,
F= q 2m . r3 (1)

This formula would mean that such a repulsive force becomes weaker much faster than gravity at long distance. Moreover, this force is proportional to q2, and thus is independent of the charge sign. Such characteristics would imply that the force is not subjected to electromagnetic screening and requires a new coupling to the square of charge. The existence of such a force was inadvertently verified by the experiments of Tsipenyuk & Andreev [25] on weighing a charged metal ball. For a metal ball with a charge Q and a point mass m, the repulsive force [26] is F= Q 2m , R3 (1)

where R is the distance from the center of the ball to mass m. Thus, this force (1) can be tested. This new force clearly supports Einsteins conjecture on the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism in terms of our earlier five-dimensional theory developed at Tufts University in 1983 [27]. Thus, it is conjectured that the static repulsive charge-mass interaction would act on a charged capacitor [28]. The weight reduction of a charged capacitor was soon verified with common rolled up capacitors by Liu [29, 30]; 5) and such a reduction is supported by much earlier experiments done by Musha [30-32] in the Naval Laboratory. Moreover, the data of Musha manifest that the weight reduction curves of a charged capacitors depending on the charged voltages V are parabolas although Mushas theory implies a linear relation. This clearly supports the factor of charge square in equation (1) (see Appendix) since the charge Q of a capacitor C is Q = VC. Apparently, Musha and his colleagues have mistaken that their experiments are unrelated to general relativity [33]. It should be noted that the weight reduction experiments of rolled up capacitors have proved that Mushas theory is not valid for the static case (see Appendix). Also, if the investigation of electric energy leads to a chargemass repulsive force, the magnetic energy would similarly generate a current-mass force. According to the effect of a magnetic field in general relativity [11, p. 263], it is expected that the current-mass force would be an attractive force. Moreover, such an attractive force has been verified by the experiments of Tajmar and Matos [34] from the European

Space Agency. They found that a spinning ring of superconducting material that should produce a weak magnetic field increases its weight much more than expected. Thus, it is clear that the charge-mass interaction and the current-mass interaction would cancel each other. This is further supported by the weight reduction experiments on heated up metals [35] as predicted by the charge-mass

interaction [8] although Fan et al. [35] did not recognize that this effect as due to a new force. These experiments prove that Einsteins prediction [36] that a heated up metal would become heavier is incorrect. Thus, it is crucial to verify the factor 1/r3 in eq. (1); and this can be done with experiments of a charged metal ball [25, 26]. The discovery of the Pioneer anomaly by NASA, gives strong supports to the 1/r3 factor in eq. (1). The chargemass interaction is a long-range one, and thus should have some consequences in astrophysics. An example would be NASAs Space-Probe Pioneer Anomaly [37-39]. Based on that the charge-mass repulsive force can act on a capacitor, it is conjectured that the anomaly would be due to an effective charge-mass repulsive force from the sun [39], Fps = Ps m p R3 , (2)

where Ps is a parameter due to the sun, mp is the mass of the Space-Probe, and R is the distance from the sun.
However, the charge term is not clear since for the sun we do not know what should correspond to the term q2. Nevertheless, since such forces act essentially in the same direction, we could use a parameter Ps to represent the collective effect of the charges. Since the neutral sun has many locally charged particles, and thus Ps is not negligible. If the data fits well with an appropriate parameter Ps , then this is another confirmation of the charge-mass interaction. Since this force is much smaller than the gravitational force from the sun, in practice the existence of such a repulsive force would result in a very slightly smaller mass M s for the sun, i.e. F= and M smp R02 Psmp R03 = M ssmp
2 R0

M smp R
2

Psmp R3

(3a)

(3b)

for R0 , which is the distance of the earth from the sun. Then, we have F= M smp R
2

Psmp 1 1 ( ). R2 R0 R

(3c)

Thus, there is an additional attractive force for R > R0 . This would explain the unsolved puzzle of more than 15 years. Moreover, such a force is not noticeable from a closed orbit since the variation of the distance from the sun is small. However, for open orbits of the pioneers, there are great variations. When the distance is 4

very large, the repulsive force becomes negligible, and thus an additional attractive force would appear as the anomaly. Such a force would appear as a constant over a not too long distance. Thus, the repulsive fifth force (2) satisfies the overall requirements. Currently, the repulsive force (2) Fps is the only candidate that can give a qualitative explanation of the data [39-41].

Therefore, there are two forces acting on a planet, one attractive and another repulsive with different strengths and distance dependences. It is possible that these forces would have an effect on the spins of the planets. Another speculation is that such a coupling would supply the energy that heats up planets internally. Current explanation for that such heat as due to radiation decay is not satisfactory since there is no radioactive material discovered from the volcano.

Thus, a new area for experimental and theoretical development for the charge-mass interaction and higher dimensional unification are opened for physicists to explore. Now, fundamental physics is more alive again. Since an increase of energy in a neutral object may not increase the attractive force, the basic assumption of the theory of black holes [11] may be invalid. The charge-mass interaction implies that neutral objects can have different accelerations under gravity. Besides, this interaction can be transferred to new technology with opportunities for patents. Although a number of patents have been registered in the earlier research in anti-gravity, there may still be opportunities in related areas because previous theoretical errors had misled them. The study of Newtonian gravity leads to the classical mechanics, the foundation of the industrial revolution. The discovery of electromagnetism leads to the modern technology today because the creation and detection of electromagnetic phenomena can be controlled, and etc. However, Einsteins general relativity seems to have little influence on modern life because his theory does not provide improved means for the creation and the detection of phenomena related to gravity. This will be changed with the discovery of the charge-mass interaction. This fifth force is related to the local concentration of charges Q; and thus the sensitivity of its detection can be artificially manipulated with a charged capacitor because the force is related to Q2. Moreover, since this force cannot be screened, it would be a powerful tool for the detection of structures of massive and less massive objects in the industry such as mining. Other applications would be the prediction of volcano activities and space explorations. This new gravity is distinct from Newtonian gravity because it is repulsive and has a very different dependence to the distance. Thus, it would also be a very useful additional tool for passive detections.

Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to Dr. T. Musha for stimulating discussions and providing experimental results of crucial importance. Special thanks are to Sharon Holcombe for valuable comments and suggestions. This work is supported in part by Innotec Design, Inc., U. S. A.

Appendix: On the Weight Reduction of a Charged Capacitor and the Biefeld-Brown Effect
Currently, the phenomenon of weight reduction of a charged capacitor is often misidentified as due to the BiefeldBrown (B-B) effect [33], which is related to the process of electromagnetic polarization that produces a thrust toward the positively charged end; and would be saturated even if the electric potential is still connected. However, the weight reduction continues as the capacitor remains charged even when the potential is disconnected [32]. The current unconventional theory of Musha [32] was influenced by such a misidentification. A 1. MUSHAS THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION To explain the effect of weight reduction, T. Musha [32] proposed two hypothesizes as follows: (l) Charged particle under strong electric field generates a new gravitational field A around itself. (2) Additional equivalent mass due to the electric field is canceled by negative mass generated by A . From Hypothesis (l), which is due to the misidentification as a B-B effect, the new gravitational field satisfies g ij x j A = q i0 F m (A1)

which is derived from the relativistic equation of a moving charged particle, where F' = (0,-El,-E 2 ,-E3) (E i : component of the electric field), q is charge of the particle , m is its mass and gij is a metric tensor of space. Then the new gravitational field A generated at the center of the charged particle becomes x
j

A =

q E, m

(A2)

where E is the electric field. Comparing q/m values of an electron, A is generated by an electron. Let be a length of the domain where A is generated, the acceleration of the atom induced by electric field E would be

= 2

e 1 1 + E , me ( a 0 + ) 2 ( a 0 ) 2

(A3)

where is a displacement of charge with the field E and a0 is an orbital radius of the electron around the nucleus. From Hypothesis (2), we obtain = 8.12X10 21m, which is much smaller than the size of the nucleus. Then is

( 1) 0 E
0

(A4) is permittivity of free space and is charge

where is specific inductive capacity of the dielectric material,

density inside the dielectric material. From these equations, it is seen in figure 1 (where m is that mass of the capacitor) that induced acceleration by a high potential electric field exhibits a non-liner characteristic. However, when the electric field is small, the acceleration of the dielectric material can be approximated as

2e E = --0.42 X10-8 E (m/s2) . 2 me a 0

(A5)

Fig.1 Acceleration generated by high potential electric field A 2. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF MUSHA Experiment 1. The capacitor for the experiment shown in Fig.2 was a plastic disk with thin copper films on both sides, the size of which was t=0.2mm, d=65mm, weight=4.2kg and K = 2.3. The experiment was conducted by applying high voltage 0 ~1200 volt to the capacitor placed inside the plastic casing to reduce the influence of electric wind as shown in Fig.3. Such a set-up allows the application of a large electric potential difference. Weight reduction of the capacitor measured by the electric balance with the precision of 0.1mg is shown in Table. 1. Voltage Weight reduction of the capacitor
(mg)

300V -1.0 -0.9 -0.6 -0.8

600V -3.7 -3.2 -4.0 -3.1 -3.5

900V -7.8 -7.4 -8.3 -7.7 -8.8 -8.2 -7.9

1200V -10.3 -10.0 -11.1 -12.0 -11.1

Fig.4 shows the compared result between the experimental result and the theoretical value calculated by Eq.(5). From which, Musha [32] claimed that it is seen that the experiment coincides well with the theoretical calculation. Experiment 2. The successive experiment was conducted for a large size capacitor with thickness=2mm, diameter=10cm and weight=26g. Impressed voltage to the capacitor ranged 0 ~ 12000v. To estimate the influence of high voltage applied to the electric balance, the shift of the scale was measured in advance by suspending the capacitor not to contact the electric scale with supports as shown in Fig.5(A). We compared the shift of the scale with the successive measurement results as shown in Fig.5(B), it was seen that the influence of the high voltage electric field of the capacitor to the

electric scale was negligibly small. Weight reduction of the measurement results is plotted in the figure below. At the experiment, maximum weight reduction observed was about 200mg, which is 0.8% of its own weight of the capacitor. A 3. COMMENTS However, Musha [32] seems to overlook the need to check the case when the potential difference is reversed. 1) The weight reduction is not related to the direction of the E field. This has been clearly demonstrated by weighing the rolling-up capacitors [29, 30]. Thus, both Hypothesis (l) and eq. (A1) are proven invalid. 2) From the data in figures 4 and 5, it is clear that they fit better to the parabola curves. Thus, the data actually support the charge-mass interaction as remarked. Thus, it is concluded that the experiments of Musha [32] actually further confirm that the weight reduction of a charged capacitor is due to the charge-mass interaction acting on a charged capacitor. Since the B-B effect is often pretty dominating [33], understandably a cautious step of checking the revised potential was overlooked. On the other hand, for a rolled-up capacitor, the thrust of a B-B effect would usually be not observable. Hence, Musha [32] and his colleagues [33], who deal with the complicated dynamic case, overlooked that this weight reduction of charged capacitors is due to another force. It is interesting that numerous experiments for the existence of the charge-mass interaction were actually done so much earlier than theoretical developments [23].

Endnotes
1) Many believed in the invalid Einsteins covariance principle because it can be related to the notion of gauge invariance. The gauge invariance has a long history starting from electrodynamics. The notion of gauge invariance has been developed to non-Abelian gauge theories such as the Yang-Mills-Shaw theory [42, 43] in 1954. They naively extended the invariance of the Abelian gauge to the cases of the Non-Abelian gauges in terms of mathematics. However, subsequently as shown by Aharonov & Bohm [44] in1959, the electromagnetic potentials actually are physically effective; and, as shown by Weinberg [45], all the physical non-Abelian gauge theories are not gauge invariant such that masses can be generated. These facts support the view that gauge invariance of the whole theory would be a manifestation that there are some deficiencies [27, 46]. 2) Einsteins principle of covariance has no theoretical basis or observational support beyond allowed by the principle of general relativity [47]. To start with, the covariance principle was proposed as a remedy for the deficiency of Einsteins adaptation of the notion of distance in a Riemannian space. Such an adaptation has been pointed out by Whitehead [19] as invalid in physics. It is found also that Einsteins adaptation not only leads to disagreement with observation but also his justifications are due to invalid applications of special relativity [6]. 3) If one assumes that both Einstein and Eddington understand general relativity, the third person would be Zhou PeiYuan [20], who was born in 1902. Zhou is probably the first theorist who correctly accepted Einsteins equivalence principle but accordingly rejected his covariance principle [17]. Unfortunately, misunderstandings on general relativity and errors continued as shown in the press release of 1993 Nobel Committee in Physics [48]. In fact, there are at least a dozen of Nobel Laureates who made errors in general relativity [6].
9

4) Because of these errors, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the prizes in physics to Hulse & Taylor in 1993 and to Perlmutter, Riess, & Schmidt in 2011 with errors in the announcements; and the Shaw Prize Committee gives a prize in physics to Perlmutter, Riess, & Schmidt with similar errors in the announcement in 2006, and a half prize in mathematics to Christodoulou in 2011 for his errors against the honorable Gullstrand. 5) Experimentalist W. Q. Liu (http://www.cqfyl.com) performed the weighting of rolled-up capacitors in a Chinese Laboratory of the Academy of Science, and got certified results of lighter capacitors after charged although previously he got both lighter and heavier weights after a capacitor has been charged because the situations were not stable. He also observed the delay of weight recovery of a discharged capacitor, as the theory predicted.

References: 1. A. Einstein, H, A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1923). 2. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 2, Chap. 28, (AddisonWesley, New York, 1964). 3. Fermi, Enrico (1922), "Concerning a Contradiction between the Electrodynamic and Relativistic Theory of
Electromagnetic Mass", Physikalische Zeitschrift 23: 340344.

4. Dirac, Paul (1938), "Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 167
(929): 148169.

5. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press 1954). 6. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 23 (2), 258-267 (2010). 7. C. Y. Lo, Completing Einsteins Proof of E = mc2, Progress in Phys., Vol. 4, 14-18 (2006d) MR2316645. 8. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 25 (1), 49-56 (2012). 9. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 455: 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995); Editor Chandrasekhar suggests the Appendix therein. 10. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984). 11. K. S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton, New York, 1994), p. 105. 12. A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982). 13. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). 14. H. Bondi, F. A. E. Pirani, & I. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533 (1959). 15. C. Y. Lo, Linearization of the Einstein Equation and the 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics, 18 th
Annual Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, July 6-9, 2011, College Park, MD (2011).

16. C. Y. Lo, International Meeting on Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory, Imperial College, London, Sept. 1215, 2008; Bull. of Pure and App. Sci., 29D (2), 81-104 (2010).
10

17. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 23 (3), 491-499 (Sept. 2010). 18. C. Y. Lo, On Criticisms of Einsteins Equivalence Principle, Phys. Essays 16 (1), 84-100 (March 2003). 19. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1962).
20. P. Y. Zhou, Proc. of the Internat. Symposium on Experimental Gravitational Physics, Guang Zhou, China (1987).

21. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (2), 73-88 (2007). 22. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 13 (1), 109-120 (March 2000). 23. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 477, 700-704 (March 10, 1997). 24. H. Reissner, Ann. Phys. (Germany) 50, 106-120 (1916). 25. D. Yu. Tsipenyuk, V. A. Andreev, Physical Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity Conference, Bauman Moscow
State Technical University, 4 7 July 2005. e-mailandrvlad@yandex.ru.

26. C. Y. Lo & C. Wong, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 25D (2), 109-117 (2006). 27. C. Y. Lo, G. R. Goldstein, & A. Napier, Hadronic J. 12, 75 (1989). 28. C. Y. Lo, The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism, Mass-Charge Repulsive Effects, and the Five Dimensional Theory, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (1), 29 - 42 (2007). 29. W. Q. Liu, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China (personal communication, 2007). 30. C. Y. Lo, Limitations of Einsteins Equivalence Principle and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Force, Phys. Essays 21 (1), 44-51 (March 2008). 31. T. Musha, Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Aerospace Propulsion, JSASS, 1997, pp. 342349. 32. Takaaki Musha, Theoretical explanation of the Biefeld-Brown Effect, 3-11-7-601 Namiki, Kanazawa-ku,
Yokohama 236-0005 Japan, E-mail: musha@jda-trdi.go.jp.

33. T. Valone, Electro Gravitics II (Integrity Research Institute, Washington DC, 2008). 34. http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
2006.

35. Fan Liangzao, Feng Jinsong, Liu Wu Qing, An experiment discovery about gravitational force changes in materials due to temperature variation, Engineer Sciences vol. 8, No. 2, 9-11 (2010). 36. A. Einstein, E = MC2 (1946), Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York, 1982). 37. Robert Lee Hotz, Newton, Einstein Lost in Space?, Wall Street Journal (May 16, 2008), PA7. 38. Charles Q. Choi, NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes, SPACE.com, 3 March 2008. 39. C. Y. Lo, The Mass-Charge Repulsive Force and Space-Probes Pioneer Anomaly, Physical Interpretation of
Relativity Theory: Proceedings of International Meeting, BMSTU, Moscow, 6 9 July 2009.

40. S. G. Turgshev, V. Toth, L. R. Kellogy, E. L. Lau, and K. J. Lee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15(1), 1-55 (2006).
11

41. Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Space Science Reviews, 148, No. 1-4, 149-167 (December, 2009). 42. C. N. Yang & R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954). 43. Ron Shaw, Ph. D. thesis, Cambridge University (1955). 44. Y. Aharonov & D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). 45. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). 46. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 5 (1), 10-18 (1992). 47. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 18 (1), 112-124 (March, 2005). 48. The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm,
1993).

12