% plain TeX created via PCTeX for Windows
\magnification=1200
\hsize=12.5truecm
\vsize=47truepc
\voffset=1.82truecm
\hoffset=2.25truecm
\tolerance 9999
\def\name{\hbox{Evans}}
\nopagenumbers
\footline {\vbox {\vskip2.5truepc
                   \hskip13.0truecm\tenrm\folio\break
                   \vskip-1.0truepc
                   \hskip26truepc\hbox{\name}}}
\pageno=1
\overfullrule=0pt
\def\vone{\vskip12truept}
\def\vtwo{\vskip24truept}
% 
% This next stuff sets up the new family "bi" to allow
% for bold math
%

\font\cmmi=cmmi10
\font\tenbi=cmbxti10
\newfam\bifam \def\bi{\fam\bifam\tenbi} \textfont\bifam=\tenbi
\font\cmsy=cmsy10
\font\tensi=cmsy10
\newfam\sifam \def\ss{\fam\sifam\tensi} \textfont\sifam=\tensi
\font\squinttenbi=cmbxti10 at 9pt
\scriptfont\bifam=\squinttenbi
\def\inch{{\rm \char'175}}
\font\tenbg=cmmib10 at 10pt
\font\tenbgi=cmsy10 at 10pt

\def\veca{{\bi{a}}}
\def\vecb{{\bi{b}}}
\def\vecc{{\bi{c}}}
\def\vecd{{\bi{d}}}
\def\vece{{\bi{e}}}
\def\vecf{{\bi{f}}}
\def\vecg{{\bi{g}}}
\def\vech{{\bi{h}}}
\def\veci{{\bi{i}}}
\def\vecj{{\bi{j}}}
\def\veck{{\bi{k}}}
\def\vecl{{\bi{l}}}
\def\vecm{{\bi{m}}}
\def\vecn{{\bi{n}}}
\def\veco{{\bi{o}}}
\def\vecp{{\bi{p}}}
\def\vecq{{\bi{q}}}
\def\vecr{{\bi{r}}}
\def\vecs{{\bi{s}}}
\def\vect{{\bi{t}}}
\def\vecu{{\bi{u}}}
\def\vecv{{\bi{v}}}
%\def\boldv{{v\hskip-5.5pt v \hskip-5.5pt v}}
\def\boldv{{v\hskip-9.6pt v \hskip-9.6pt v}}
\def\sboldv{{v\hskip-4.7pt v \hskip-4.7pt v}}
\def\vecw{{\bi{w}}}
\def\vecx{{\bi{x}}}
%\def\boldx{{x\hskip-11.5pt x \hskip-11.5pt x}}
\def\boldx{{x\hskip-10.5pt x \hskip-10.5pt x}}
\def\sboldx{{x\hskip-4.8pt x \hskip-4.8pt x}}
\def\vecy{{\bi{y}}}
\def\vecz{{\bi{z}}}
\def\vecA{{\bi{A}}}
\def\boldA{{A\hskip-7.8pt A \hskip-7.8pt A}}
\def\sboldA{{A\hskip-6.3pt A \hskip-6.3pt A}}
\def\vecB{{\bi{B}}}
\def\vecC{{\bi{C}}}
\def\vecD{{\bi{D}}}
\def\vecE{{\bi{E}}}
\def\vecF{{\bi{F}}}
\def\boldF{{F\hskip-14.0pt F \hskip-14.0pt F }}
\def\vecG{{\bi{G}}}
\def\vecH{{\bi{H}}}
\def\vecI{{\bi{I}}}
\def\vecJ{{\bi{J}}}
\def\vecK{{\bi{K}}}
\def\vecL{{\bi{L}}}
\def\vecM{{\bi{M}}}
\def\vecN{{\bi{N}}}
\def\vecO{{\bi{O}}}
\def\vecP{{\bi{P}}}
\def\vecQ{{\bi{Q}}}
\def\vecR{{\bi{R}}}
\def\vecS{{\bi{S}}}
\def\vecT{{\bi{T}}}
\def\vecU{{\bi{U}}}
\def\vecV{{\bi{V}}}
\def\vecW{{\bi{W}}}
\def\vecX{{\bi{X}}}
\def\vecY{{\bi{Y}}}
\def\vecZ{{\bi{Z}}}
\def\vec0{0 \hskip-5.5truept\lower.1truept\hbox{$0$} \hskip-5.3truept 0 \ }
\def\veccalS{{\cal S}\hskip-7.5truept {\cal S}\hskip-7.5truept{\cal S}  }
\def\veccalL{{\cal L}\hskip-7.5truept {\cal L}\hskip-7.5truept{\cal L}  }
\def\veccalK{{\cal K}\hskip-8.6truept {\cal K}\hskip-8.6truept{\cal K}  }
\def\veccalH{{\cal H}\hskip-9.75truept {\cal H}\hskip-9.75truept{\cal H}  }
\def\veccalB{{\cal B}\hskip-7.5truept {\cal B}\hskip-7.5truept{\cal B}  }
\def\veccalk{{\cal k}\hskip-7.5truept {\cal k}\hskip-7.5truept{\cal k}  }

% 
% Definitions for bold greek
%

\def \vecGamma {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'000}}}
\def \vecDelta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'001}}}
\def \vecTheta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'002}}}
\def \vecLambda {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'003}}}
\def \vecXi {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'004}}}
\def \vecPi {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'005}}}
\def \vecSigma {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'006}}}
\def \vecUpsilon {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'007}}}
\def \vecPhi {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'010}}}
\def \vecPsi {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'011}}}
\def \vecOmega {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'012}}}
\def \vecalpha {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'013}}}
\def \vecbeta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'014}}}
\def \vecgamma {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'015}}}
\def \vecdelta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'016}}}
\def \vecepsilon {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'017}}}
\def \veczeta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'020}}}
\def \veceta {{\hbox {\tenbg\char'021}}}
\def \vectheta{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'022}}} 
\def \veciota{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'023}}} 
\def \veckappa{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'024}}} 
\def \veclambda{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'025}}} 
\def \vecmu{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'026}}} 
\def \vecnu{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'027}}} 
\def \vecxi{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'030}}} 
\def \vecpi{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'031}}} 
\def \vecrho{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'032}}} 
\def \vecsigma{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'033}}} 
\def \vectau{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'034}}} 
\def \vecupsilon{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'035}}} 
\def \vecphi{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'036}}} 
\def \vecchi{{\hbox{\tenbg\char'037}}} 
\def \vecpsi {{\hbox{\tenbg\char'040}}}
\def \vecomega {{\hbox{\tenbg\char'041}}}
\def \vecvarepsion {{\hbox{\tenbg\char'042}}}
\def\vecnabla{\nabla \hskip-9.9truept \lower.6truept\hbox{$\nabla$}\hskip-9.5truept\nabla\  }
% END macros from Jackie
%  START Evans definitions
\def\b3{{\bf B^{(3)}}}
\def\AxAast{ {\bf A} \times {\bf A^{\ast}   }    } 
\def\slashp{p \hskip -5truept /}
\def\slashA{A \hskip -5.5truept /}
%   END Evans  definitions
\parskip=0pt
\parindent=3em

% START Title section
\topinsert
\vskip2.0truepc
\endinsert
    
{\baselineskip=15truept
\parindent=0pt
{\bf RADIATIVELY INDUCED FERMION RESONANCE}
}
\vskip32truept
% END Title section
    
% START.author.affiliation
{\parindent=.8truein
{\bf M. W. Evans$^{1,2}$}
\vskip 12truept
    
{\it
$^{1}$Alpha Foundation and Laboratories
    
   Institute of Physics
    
    Budapest, Hungary
    
\vskip 12truept
    
    $^{2}$J.R.F., 1975
    
    Wolfson College
    
    Oxford, Great Britain
    
}
\vone

    Received Spring, 1998
}
% END.author.affiliation
%\baselineskip=24truept    
\vtwo

\noindent
Several equations of motion are solved to give the ground state spin-spin coupling between a fermion (or classical electron or proton) and a classical, circularly polarized, electromagnetic field. On the simplest level this phenomenon can be understood as the $\b3$ to     fermion spin spin coupling, and under the right conditions, $ESR$ and $NMR$ can be radiatively  induced at visible frequencies, with unprecedented resolving power. The effect is illustrated briefly in the free electron, and in the H and Na atoms. 
\vone

\noindent
Key words:  Radiatively induced fermion resonance, $\b3$ field; $ESR$, $NMR$. 
\vtwo

\noindent
{\bf 1.~INTRODUCTION}
\vone
    
\noindent
The Dirac equation was first solved to show the existence of radiatively induced fermion resonance ($RFR$) as reported in Ref. [1]. The term responsible for the  effect was isolated to be the novel interaction energy, the real valued, and therefore physical, expectation  value,
$$
En = i { e \hbar \over 2m} \vecsigma \cdot     {\AxAast} ,
\eqno(1)
$$
where $e/m$ is the charge to mass ratio of a fermion (electron or proton) and $i {\AxAast} $ the real valued conjugate product of complex vector potentials in a circularly polarized electromagnetic field, considered to be classical in the manner first proposed by Dirac [2]. In Eq. (1), $\vecsigma$  is the $Z$ component of the Pauli matrix [3-6]. The interaction    energy can be expressed in terms of the $\b3$ field of the radiation as [1]
$$
En = - {e \hbar \over 2m} \vecsigma \cdot {\b3} ,
\eqno(2)
$$
and this is an $ESR$ or $NMR$  equation with the static magnetic field replaced by $\b3$. All known $ESR$ and $NMR$ effects can therefore be induced by radiation rather than by a static magnetic field. The technique produces  unprecedented resolving power because the resonance frequencies are  proportional [1] to $I / \omega^{2}$, where $I$ is the beam power density (or intensity in watts $m^{-2}$   ) and $\omega$  the beam angular frequency. With moderate  microwave pumping, fermion resonance can be induced in theory in the visible, and picked up  with an ordinary Fourier transform infra red /  visible spectrometer acting as probe. This produces  in theory a resolving power about one thousand to ten thousand {\it times} that available with magnet based $ESR$ or $NMR$ of any kind (including multi dimensional $ESR$ and $NMR$) because   the visible range is that much higher in frequency than the microwave (or gigahertz) range in   which the current instruments operate.
    
In natural philosophy this result indicates the existence (and usefulness) of the $\b3$  field and is    the fundamental spin spin coupling between the photomagneton [7]  (the photon's $\b3$  field)    and the fermion's half integral spin proposed by Pauli [8] and Dirac [9]. Indications    of the existence of  $\b3$  open the road to non Abelian electrodynamics and non local and    superluminal interpretations [10] unknown in the traditional view [11].
    
In this Letter the above result is reproduced with several equations of motion,    beginning with the Newton equation of a classical charged particle in a classical    electromagnetic field; and ending with the quantum  relativistic van der Waerden equation [12]     for a two component spinor. The complete hierarchy of known equations of motion in physics    produces the same $RFR$ term, Eq. (1). It is a real, non-zero, and physical ground state term in     Rayleigh Schr\"{o}dinger perturbation theory [13]. The same type of coupling appears to have      been recognized in principle by Pershan  {\it et al.} [14] in 1966, during their establishment of the    inverse Faraday effect, but these authors used higher order perturbation theory near optical    resonance as did Li  {\it et al.} [15] and others [16--20] in recent papers confirming the original     proposal of $RFR$ [21]. The key  $\vecsigma \cdot   \AxAast $ coupling in higher order    perturbation theory is clearly presented in Ref. [14],  Eq. (8.6), and was confirmed by them {\it    empirically} in paramagnetic, rare earth doped, glass samples. These authors did not appear to    realize however that the ground state term (1) is non-zero. This is the fundamental $\b3$  term    discussed in this Letter and occurs independently of any optical resonance, as in ordinary     magnet based $ESR$ and $NMR$. The great beauty of the new theory therefore is that one     merely replaces $\vecB$ of the magnet by $\b3$ of the electromagnetic field [1]. One can then   proceed to understand the gallery of consequences as in the highly developed theory of $ESR$    and $NMR$, but with a potential resolving power up to ten thousand times greater. In analogy, successful development would be the metaphorical equivalent of replacing the optical with the  scanning tunnelling electron microscope. 
\vtwo

\noindent
{\bf 2.~CLASSICAL, NON-RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS}\hfil
\vone

\noindent   
In order to derive Eq. (1) in Newtonian physics write the kinetic energy in $SU(2)$    topology through use of the Pauli matrix $\vecsigma$    [8] and describe the field to particle   interaction with the minimal prescription applied to a complex valued $\vecA$, representing the      magnetic vector   potential of the electromagnetic field [11]. Finally use ordinary complex 
algebra to extract the real-valued and physically meaningful interaction kinetic energy      corresponding to equation (1). The newtonian kinetic   energy of a classical charged particle   interacting with the classical electromagnetic field in $SU(2)$ topology is therefore the real part of
$$
H_{KE} 
= {1 \over 2m}  \vecsigma \cdot ( \vecp - e \vecA )
\vecsigma \cdot 
(\vecp - e \vecA^{\ast})
$$
$$
= {e^{2} \over 2m } 
(\vecA \cdot \vecA^{\ast} + i \vecsigma \cdot \vecA
\times \vecA^{\ast})
$$
$$
-{e \over 2m}   (Re (\vecA \cdot \vecp) 
+ Re (\vecp \cdot \vecA^{\ast})
\eqno(3)
$$
$$
+ {1 \over 2m}  \vecp \cdot \vecp, 
$$
and contains term (1) in addition to the familiar and observable $O(3)$ terms as found in a text     such as that by Pike and Sarkav [22]. This is a term which relies for its existence on topology     rather than quantum mechanics. It is well known [22] that $SU(2)$ is homomorphic with O(3),     the usual rotation group of three dimensional space in Newtonian physics. However, the
Clifford algebra underlying $SU(2)$ gives more information, as advocated by Bearden {\it et al.}     [24].  Our Newtonian result is consistent with the fact that Eq. (1) was obtained in the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation as a real expectation value [1]. 
\vfil

\eject
\noindent
{\bf 3.~CLASSICAL, RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS}\hfil
\vone
         
\noindent
It is a straightforward matter to repeat this simple exercise for classical, relativistic     physics because one can use the same minimal prescription in the Einstein equation written in     $SU(2)$ topology. For a free classical particle, the latter is 
$$
    \gamma^{\mu}  p_{\mu} \gamma^{\mu} p_{\mu} =
    m^{2} c^{2}
    \eqno(4)
$$
where $\gamma^{\mu}$     is the Dirac matrix, $p_{\mu}$   the energy momentum four-vector,     and $c$ the speed of light in vacuo. The interaction of the classical electromagnetic field with the     classical, relativistic particle is described therefore by the equation of motion,
$$
    \gamma^{\mu} (p_{\mu} - e A_{\mu}) \gamma^{\mu}
    (p_{\mu} - eA_{\mu}^{\ast}) = m^{2}c^{2} ,
    \eqno(5)
$$
which in Feynman's slash notation [1] becomes
$$
    (\slashp - e \slashA)    (\slashp - e \slashA^{\ast})   = m^{2}c^{2}.
    \eqno(6)
$$
The $RFR$ term is [1] the real valued interaction energy,
$$
    En := {e^{2} \over m}
    \slashA \slashA^{\ast},
    \eqno(7)
$$
which includes term (1) of this paper as part of a fully relativistic treatment,
$$
    \slashA \slashA^{\ast} = A_{0} A_{0}^{\ast} - (\vecsigma \cdot \vecA)
    (\vecsigma \cdot  \vecA^{\ast}) 
    = A_{0} A_{0}^{\ast} -
    \vecA \cdot \vecA^{\ast} - i \vecsigma \cdot {\AxAast} .
    \eqno(8)
$$
\vtwo

\noindent
{\bf 4.~NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS}\hfil
\vone
    
\noindent
We can consider the Schr\"{o}dinger Pauli equation [8],
$$
    \hat H \psi = En \psi ,
    \eqno(9)
$$
in which the classical kinetic energy becomes an operator on a wavefunction which is a two     component spinor in $SU(2)$ topology. The usual operator replacements are used as follows: 
$$
\matrix {
p^{\mu} \rightarrow i \hbar \partial^{\mu}, \qquad 
&p_{\mu} \rightarrow i \hbar \partial_{\mu},\cr\cr
En \rightarrow i\hbar {\partial \over {\partial t} }, \qquad 
&\vecp \rightarrow - i \hbar \vecnabla,\cr\cr
p^{\mu} := ( {En \over c}, \vecp), \qquad 
&p_{\mu} := ({En \over c}, -\vecp),\cr\cr
\partial^{\mu} := ({1 \over c} {\partial \over \partial t}, - \vecnabla),\qquad
&\partial_{\mu} := ({1 \over c} {\partial \over {\partial t}},  \vecnabla). }
\eqno(10) 
$$
It is interesting to note that for a real valued $\vecA$ (static magnetic field problem of ordinary $ESR$ and $NMR$ [13]), the Schr\"{o}dinger-Pauli equation produces the famous real     expectation value, 
$$
    En = - {{e \hbar} \over {2m}} \vecsigma \cdot \vecB, \qquad 
\vecB = \vecnabla \times \vecA,
\eqno(11)
$$             
where $\hbar$   is the Dirac constant. This is the fundamental $ESR$ or $NMR$ term obtained     in the non relativistic quantum limit and has no classical equivalent because it depends for its     existence on the operator rules (10). The Hamiltonian operator that produces result (11) is,
\eject

$$
    \hat H = {1 \over 2m} \vecsigma \cdot (\hat \vecp- e \vecA) \vecsigma \cdot
    (\hat \vecp - e \vecA) + V;
$$
$$
    \hat \vecp = - i \hbar  \hat \vecnabla,
\eqno(12)
$$
where $V$is a potential energy. 
    
In order to obtain the new $RFR$ term (1) this operator becomes,
$$
   {\hat H} = {1 \over 2m} \vecsigma \cdot (\hat \vecp - e \vecA) \sigma \cdot
    (\hat \vecp - e \vecA^{\ast})  + V,
\eqno(13)
$$
and leads to the {\it classical}, real valued term 
$$
    {\hat H}_{RFR} \psi := i {e^{2}\over {2m}} \vecsigma
    \cdot {\AxAast} \psi ,
    \eqno(14)
$$
which obviously has the same expectation value, Eq. (1). Therefore, unlike ordinary $ESR$ and $NMR$, $RFR$ depends on a term which {\it does } have a classical equivalent if we treat the     field classically as did Dirac [2]. 
\vtwo



\noindent 
{\bf 5.~RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS}\hfil
\vone
    
\noindent
The most straightforward route to relativistic quantum mechanics is through the    replacement of $p_{\mu}$    in the Einstein equation (4) by its operator equivalent to give the van     der Waerden equation of motion as detailed by Sakurai [8] for example,
$$
    \bigl( i \gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \bigr) \bigl( i \gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \bigr) \psi
    = {m^{2} c^{2} \over \hbar^{2}} \psi .
\eqno(15)
$$
Here  $\psi$   is a two component spinor and the equation is well known to be equivalent to the     much better known Dirac equation involving a four component spinor. The $RFR$ term emerges     from the van der Waerden equation in the form,
$$
    \gamma^{\mu} \bigl(  i \partial_{\mu}  - e A_{\mu}\bigr) \gamma^{\mu}
    \bigl( i \partial_{\mu} - e A_{\mu}^{\ast}  \bigr) \psi = {m^{2} c^{2} \over \hbar^{2}} \psi  .
\eqno(16)
$$
The real and classical   $e^{2} \slashA   \slashA^{\ast}$      is a simple multiplicative operator on the     two component spinor, with the same, real expectation value. This is also the case for the Dirac     equation as given in ref. (1), and in general for all $SU(2)$ topology quantum mechanical     equations.            
\vtwo
    
\noindent    
{\bf 6.~RAYLEIGH SCHR\"{O}DINGER PERTURBATION \hfil\break
THEORY}\hfil
\vone

\noindent    
In perturbation theory [13] the $RFR$ term is a non-zero ground state term,
$$
    En = i {e^2 \over 2m} \bigl< 0   | \vecsigma \cdot {\AxAast}  | 0 \bigr> +{\rm  second\; order\; terms} .
\eqno(17)
$$
As shown recently by Li {\it et al.} [15], and by others [16--20] small second order $RFR$ shifts     also occur in second order corrections in perturbation theory, but term (17) is of far greater     practical interest, because as shown in Ref. 1, it produces fermion resonances in the visible. 
Second order perturbation theory was also used by Pershan {\it et al.} [14] to produce the     paramagnetic inverse Faraday effect, which they confirmed experimentally. 
\vfil
\eject

\noindent
{\bf  7.~DISCUSSION}\hfil
\vone
    
\noindent
In free space, the novel $\b3$ field of $O(3)$ symmetry electrodynamics is defined for one     photon by
$$
    \b3  := - i {e \over \hbar} \AxAast  ,
\eqno(18)
$$
where $e$ is the elementary charge [1]. Substituting this definition into Eq. (17) we find that     the $RFR$ term takes the same form precisely as the spin Zeeman effect produced by a static     magnetic field,
$$
    En_{(RFR)} = - {e\hbar \over 2m} \bigl< 0 | \vecsigma \cdot \b3 | 0 \bigr> .
\eqno(19)
$$
We need only replace $\vecB $ by $\b3$  as defined in Eq. (18). Equation (19) is the    fundamental spin spin interaction between one photon and one fermion. For a free electron, the     resonance frequency is straightforwardly calculated [1] from Eq. (19) to be, 
$$
    \omega_{res} = \bigl(   { e^{2} \mu_{0} c \over \hbar m}\bigr) {I \over \omega^{2}} =
    1.007 \times 10^{28} {I \over \omega^{2}} ,
\eqno(20)
$$
where $I$ is the pump beam power density in watts $m^{-2}$ ($10,000\;watts$ $m^{-2} = 1.0\; watt$     $cm^{-2}$  ),    $\mu_{0}$ the free space  permeability in $SI$ units. For the $H $ atom the     Hamiltonian operator is well known to be
$$
    \hat H_{(H~atom)} = - {\hbar^{2} \over 2\mu} \nabla^{2} + V ,
\eqno(21)
$$
where $V $ denotes the classical Coulomb interaction between electron and proton and  $\mu$       is the reduced mass,
$$
    \mu = {m_{e}m_{p} \over m_{e} + m_{p} } \sim m_{e},
\eqno(22)
$$
where $m_{e} $ and $m_{p}$  are respectively the electron and proton masses. The resonance     frequency in atomic $H $  from Eq. (20) is therefore slightly shifted away from the free electron     resonance frequency because the reduced mass is slightly different from the electron mass. The     Hamiltonian operator (21) for a monovalent alkali metal atom such as sodium ($Na$) must     take account of the fact the there are several protons, neutrons and electrons arranged in orbitals     according to the Pauli Exclusion Principle [13]. This atomic structure gives rise to the     possibility of spin orbit coupling, spin spin coupling between electrons, Fermi contact splitting     and hyperfine splitting as in $ESR$ or $NMR$ [13]. However, as a rule of thumb estimate, the     outer or valence electron can be considered as superimposed on closed shells of inner electrons     and a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons of a given reduced mass. To a first approximation the Hamiltonian (21) can be used in which the sodium atom's reduced mass is     slightly different from the free electron mass. This means that the main $RFR$ resonance     frequency in sodium is well estimated by Eq. (20) and so sodium vapor can be used in the     experiment to detect $RFR$.
    
In order to detect $RFR$ experimentally adjust conditions in the first instance so that
$$
    \omega_{res} =\omega,
    \eqno(23)
$$
which is {\it the autoresonance condition} in which the pump beam is absorbed at resonance     because the pump frequency matches the resonance frequency precisely.  Equation  (20)     simplifies to
$$
    \omega_{res}^{3} = 1.007 \times 10^{28} I .
\eqno(24)
$$
Therefore we can either tune $\omega_{res}$  for a given $I$ or vice versa.  Since     autoresonance must appear in the $GHz$ if the pump frequency is in the $GHz$ it is convenient     to slightly modify the set up used by Deschamps {\it et al.} [25] in their detection of the inverse     Faraday effect in plasma.  They used a pulsed microwave signal at $3.0\;GHz$ from a klystron     delivering megawatts of power over $12\;\mu s $  with a repetition rate of $10\; Hz$.  The     $TE_{11}$  mode was circularly polarized with a polarizer placed inside a circular waveguide of $7.5\; cm$ diameter.  The plasma sample was created by a very intense microwave pulse and held     in a pyrex tube inserted coaxially in the waveguide of  $6.5\; cm$ diameter and $20\; cm$ long.  The     section of the waveguide surrounding the tube was made of nylon internally coated with a  $20 \; \mu  m$   layer of copper.  The inverse Faraday effect was then picked up with Faraday     induction [25].
    
To detect $RFR$ change the sample to sodium vapor, which is easily prepared and     held in the sample tube.  Equation  (24) predicts that resonance occurs at $3.0\;GHz$ if $ I$ is tuned to $0.0665$ $watts\; cm^{-2}$. For a circular waveguide of  $7.5\;cm$ diameter this requires only $2.94$ $watts$ of $CW$ power from the klystron at  $3.0\;GHz $.  In deriving Eq.  (20) it has     been assumed that [1,26]
$$
    I = {c \over \mu_{0}} B^{(0)2} .
\eqno(25)
$$
This is a simple theoretical estimate and it is strongly advisable that I can be tuned for a     considerable range around  $2.94\;watts$ to allow for unforeseen discrepancies between Eq.  (25)     and the actual experimental beam intensity generated by the apparatus.  Once the main     resonance is detected, however, further refinements can follow, making full use of     contemporary electronics.  To repeat the experiment with $ H$or with the free electron is likely     to be more difficult purely because of sample handling problems.  The experiment should be     repeated after autoresonance is detected to demonstrate the major advantage of $RFR$ by     pulsing the pump beam for increased power density at the same frequency and by using Eq.      (24) to estimate the resonance frequency.  A sample of expected results is given in Table 1.  As     can be seen it is possible in theory to produce $ESR$ (and $NMR$) in the visible range, with a     four order of magnitude increase in resolving power over current magnet based techniques. 
\vfil
\eject
{\centerline 
\bf Table 1. $RFR$ Frequencies for a $3.0\>GHz$ Pump for given $I$}
\vone

\noindent
{\hsize = 12.5truecm \settabs 3 \columns
\+Pump Intensity &Resonance&\cr
\+$ I\; watts/cm^{2}$&Frequency &\cr
\+\cr
\+$\>\>\>\>\>\>\;\;\;10$      & $451.1\>GHz =$    & Far infra red \cr
\+ & $\>\>\>\>\>\;\;\;\;15.04\>cm^{-1}$ \cr
\+$\>\>\>\>\;\;\;100$    & $150.4\>cm^{-1}$               & Far infra red \cr
\+$\>\>\>\;1,000$    & $1504\>cm^{-1}$                & Infra red  \cr
\+$\>\>10,000$  & $15,040\>cm^{-1}$              & Visible    \cr
\+$100,000$ & $150,040\>cm^{-1}$             & Ultra violet / X ray \cr}
\vtwo

\noindent    
For a $3.0\; GHz$ circularly polarized pump pulse of $10,000$ $W\; cm^{-2}$ the $RFR$ frequency is at $15,040\; cm^{-1}$ in the visible, and can be detected with a Fourier transform infra red/visible spectrometer such as a fully computerized Bruker $IFS 113v$.  The detector of the  spectrometer must be fast enough to record an interferogram during the microsecond  interval of the microwave pulse.  Therefore pulse repetition and computer based refinement is needed for  good quality data.  The pump should be kept as 
noise free and homogeneous as possible, but   because of the  $I/\omega^{2}$ dependence of $RFR$, simple Maxwell Boltzmann theory [1] shows that conditions can be adjusted to produce a much larger population 
difference between  up and down fermion spins than in magnet based $ESR$ or $NMR$.  Therefore this alleviates  the well known problem of magnet homogeneity in magnet based $ESR$ and $NMR$, a problem    which is due to a 
small (one part in a million) population difference.  In $RFR$ the latter can easily exceed  $20\%$ [1] at a conservative estimate for moderate pump power of ten watts order  of magnitude.  The complete $ESR$ spectrum of sodium vapor can therefore be taken, in   theory, in the infra red or visible.  This is  {\it terra incognita} to magnet based technology, which   is reaching its design limit.  The whole process can then be repeated for $NMR$ and $MRI$. 


The characteristic and key $I / \omega^{2}$ coefficient of our theory [1] appears also in  the second order perturbation theory of Harris and Tinoco [17], their p. 9291, second     column, premultiplied by a factor.  These authors miss the first order or ground state term (1)  and in consequence 
their theory falls short of some empirical indications by Warren {\it et al.} [27] by eight orders of magnitude.  Straightforward estimates [1] based on Eq.  (1) applied to  $NMR$ fall in the order of magnitude of the data obtained by Warren {\it et al.}  by visible  frequency irradiation of molecular liquids with various circularly polarized lasers, including an  argon ion laser at  $528.7\; nm$ ,  $488 \;nm$, and $ 476.5\; nm$.  Accounting simply for the     different g factors of the proton and electron, Eq. (1) applied to $NMR$ [1] produces very tiny     shifts of $0.12$, $0.10$ and 
$0.098\; Hz$ respectively for the three argon ion frequencies quoted  above and for an intensity of ten watts per square centimetre, approaching the highest $ CW$ intensity used by Warren {\it et al.} [27] in important and pioneering experiments at Princeton  following our early theory [28], which also missed the key term (1) introduced finally in ref. [1].      Equation  (1) shows now why Warren {\it et al.} [27] were not able to obtain more than indications    of $RFR$ shifts, both in proton and  $^{13}C$ Fourier transform and two dimensional $NMR$.  In      $^{13} C$ $NMR$ the mass of the  $^{13} C$ nucleus is an order of magnitude heavier than in      $^{1}H$  $NMR$, and the shifts from Eq.  (1), all other factors being equal, are in consequence     an order of magnitude smaller, in the $ 0.01\; Hz$ range, and too small to be detected as found     experimentally [27]. The remedy is also given by Eq.  (1), which is to replace the lasers with     pulsed or $CW$  microwave generators for about the same $I$. Their effort [27] nevertheless     remains as a landmark in the field, metaphorically akin to Shackleton's attempt at the Pole, just     short of reaching the goal.  
     
Finally, Li {\it et al.} [15] have shown that even in second order perturbation theory of     the type used by Harris and Tinoco [16,17] or Buckingham {\it et al.} [18,19], large $RFR$ shifts     of up to $10 \; MHz$ are possible using pump lasers tuned near to optical resonance.  Systematic     development of $RFR$, first proposed by the present author in Ref. 21 and several     consequent papers [28], is clearly going to be highly beneficial to chemical physics and     medicine unless all the equations of physics are misleading or unless some unforeseen technical     difficulty occurs.  With contemporary technology it is unlikely that such a difficulty, if it     occurred, could not be overcome.  Philosophically, the whole process can be thought of as     stemming from the $\b3$ (Evans Vigier) field of $O(3)$ electrodynamics [1], which for one     photon, is the fundamental photomagneton [29].
\vtwo

\noindent    
{\bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}\hfil
\vone
    
The Alpha Foundation is thanked for a Presidum membership and a professorship
honoris causa, and many colleagues worldwide for interesting internet discussions, in     particular Mr. Alexander Labounsky, a Chief Engineer and Scientist at the Boeing Company in     California for very useful technical and scientific advice.  
\vtwo


\noindent
{\bf REFERENCES}\hfil
\vone

\frenchspacing
\item{[1]} M. W. Evans, J.-P.  Vigier, S. Roy, and S. Jeffers, {\it The Enigmatic Photon, Volume Three, Theory and Practice of the $\b3$   Field} Chaps. 1 and 2,. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996).

\item{[2]} P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Quantum Mechanics} 4th edn. revised, (Oxford University Press,    Oxford, 1974).

\item{[3]} L. H. Ryder, {\it Quantum Field Theory} 2nd edn., (Cambridge University Press,     Cambridge,1987).

\item{[4]} J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, {\it Relativistic Quantum Mechanics} (McGraw Hill, New     York, 1964).

\item{[5]} C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, {\it Quantum Field Theory} (McGraw Hill, New York,     1980).

\item{[6]} R. R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun, {\it Principles of Nuclear Magnetic     Resonance in One and Two Dimensions} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).          

\item{[7]} M. W. Evans, {\it Physica B} {\bf 182}, 227, 237 (1992); {\bf 183}, 103 (1993); {\bf 190},     310 (1993); {\it Physica A} {\bf 215}, 605 (1995). 

\item{[8]} J. J. Sakurai, {\it Advanced Quantum Mechanics} eleventh printing, Chap 3 (Addison     Wesley, New York, 1967). 

\item{[9]} V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevski, {\it Relativistic Quantum Theory}     (Pergamon, Oxford, 1971).

\item{[10]} M. W. Evans, J.-P.  Vigier and M. Meszaros, eds., {\it The Enigmatic Photon, Volume     Five}, part 2, selected papers of Erasmo Recami, in preparation  (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999). 

\item{[11]} J. D. Jackson, {\it Classical Electrodynamics} 1st edn. (Wiley, New York, 1962). 

\item{[12]} B. L. van der Waerden, {\it Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics} (Springer Verlag,     Berlin, 1974). 

\item{[13]} P. W. Atkins, {\it Molecular Quantum Mechanics}  2nd edn., (Oxford University Press,     Oxford, 1983), pp. 383 ff. 

\item{[14]} P. S. Pershan, J. van der Ziel, and L. D. Malmstrom, {\it Phys.  Rev.}  {\bf 143}, 574     (1966).

\item{[15]} L. Li, T. He, X. Wang, and F.-C.  Liu, {\it Chem.  Phys.  Lett.} {\bf 268}, 549 (1997).  

\item{[16]} R. A. Harris and I. Tinoco, {\it Science} {\bf 259,} 835 (1993). 

\item{[17]} R. A. Harris and I. Tinoco, {\it J. Chem.  Phys.} {\bf 101}, 9289 (1994).

\item{[18]} A.~D.~Buckingham and L.~C.~Parlett, {\it Chem.  Phys.  Lett.} {\bf 243}, 15 (1995).

\item{[19]} A.~D.~Buckingham and L.~C.~Parlett, {\it Science}  {\bf 264}, 1748 (1994). 

\item{[20]} M. W. Evans, {\it Found. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 8}, 563 (1995).

\item{[21]} M. W. Evans, {\it J. Mol. Spect.}  {\bf 143}, 327 (1990);{\it Chem. Phys.} {\bf 157}, 1     (1991); {\it J. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 95}, 2256 (1991); {\it J. Mol. Liq.}  {\bf 49}, 77 (1991); {\it Int.  J.     Mod.  Phys.  B } {\bf 5}, 1963, invited rev., (1991); {\it J. Mol.  Spect.} {\bf 146}, 143 (1991); {\it     Physica B} {\bf 168}, 9 (1991); {\it  Adv.  Chem. Phys.} {\bf 51} , 361--702 , invited rev. (1992);      M. W. Evans, S. Wozniak, and G. Wagniere, {\it Physica B}  {\bf 173}, 357 (1991); {\bf 175}, 416     (1991).

\item{[22]} E. R. Pike and S. Sarkav, {\it The Quantum Theory of Radiation}, Example 3.4,     (Oxford University  Press, Oxford, 1995).

\item{[23]} T.~W.~Barrett and D.~M.~Grimes, eds., {\it Advanced Electromagnetism, Foundations,     Theory and Applications} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).

\item{[24]} T.~W.~Bearden, www.europa.com/$\sim$ rsc/physics, 1997 to present.

\item{[25]} J. Deschamps, M. Fitaire, and M. Lagoutte, {\it Phys.  Rev. Lett.} {\bf 25}, 1330     (1970).

\item{[26]} L. D. Barron, {\it Molecular Light Scattering and Optical Activity}, Eq. (2.2.16)     (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982).

\item{[27]} W. S. Warren, S. Mayr, D. Goswami, and A. P. West., Jr., {\it Science} {\bf 255},    1683 (1992); {\bf 259}, 836 (1993). 

\item{[28]} M. W. Evans and S. Kielich, eds., {\it Modern Nonlinear Optics}, part 2 (Wiley, New     York,    1992, 1993, and 1997 (paperback printing)), pp.  51 ff.; also M. W. Evans, {\it Physica     B} {\bf 182}, 118 (1992); {\bf 176}, 254 (1992); {\bf 179}, 157 (1992); S. Wozniak, M. W. Evans
and G. Wagniere, {\it Mol. Phys.} {\bf 75}, 81, 99 (1992).                                                
\item{[29]} M. W. Evans and A. A. Hasanein, {\it The Photomagneton in Quantum Field Theory} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994); M. W. Evans and J.-P.  Vigier, {\it Classical    Electrodynamics and the $\b3$   Field}, in preparation  (World Scientific, 1999,). 
                                            
\bye
    
