text:
# Self-induced charge currents in electromagnetic materials, photon effective rest mass and some related topics†footnote ††footnote †This paper is concerned with the self-induced charge currents and some related physically interesting topics such as photon effective rest mass due to medium dispersion and its effects in torsion balance experiments. It will be submitted nowhere else for the publication, just uploaded at the e-print archives.

## I Photon effective rest mass due to self-induced charge current

In is well known that in some simple electromagnetic media such as electron plasma, superconducting media and Lorentz dispersive materials (inside which the time-harmonic electromagnetic wave is propagating), the self-induced charge current density $`𝐉`$ is proportional to the magnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$. Thus the interaction term $`\mu _0𝐉𝐀`$ in the Lagrangian density is therefore transformed into an effective mass term $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}𝐀^2`$ of electromagnetic fields, which is analogous to the rest mass term in the Londons’ electromagnetics for superconductivity, Ginzberg-Landau superconductivity theory and Higgs mechanism. Note that in these media, the magnetic permeabilityNote that here for the magnetic properties in superconductors, we adopt the current viewpoint rather than the magnetic-charge viewpoint (where the permeability can be viewed as $`\mu =0`$). $`\mu =1`$, so it is easy for us to obtain $`𝐉`$ (and hence the effective rest mass of photon) by solving the equation of motion of charged particles acted upon by electromagnetic waves. However, for some artificial composite electromagnetic metamaterials, which are described by, e.g., the two time derivative Lorentz material (2TDLM) model (in which both the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability are of frequency dependence and therefore of complicated form) and some uniaxially (or biaxially) anisotropic media with permittivity and permeability being tensors, the above formulation may be not helpful in obtaining the effective rest mass of electromagnetic fields. In these cases, however, we have shown that the following formula

$$\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}=(1n^2)\omega ^2,$$
(1)
which arises from the Einstein-de Broglie relation, can be applicable to the above problem. In the expression (1), $`n`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ denote the optical refractive index, Planck’s constant and speed of light in a vacuum, respectively.

The two time derivative Lorentz material (2TDLM) model first suggested by Ziolkowski and Auzanneau is a generalization of the standard Lorentz material model. Ziolkowski has shown that this type of 2TDLM medium can be designed so that it allows communication signals to propagate in the medium at speeds exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum without violating causality. For these artificial metamaterials, the model encompasses the permittivity and permeability material responses experimentally obtained. The x̂-directed polarization and ŷ-directed magnetization fields in such materials would have the following forms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}𝒫_x+\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}𝒫_x+\omega _0^2𝒫_x=ϵ_0\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}_x+\omega _\mathrm{p}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}_x+\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}_x\right),`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}_y+\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}_y+\omega _0^2_y=\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}_y+\omega _\mathrm{p}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}_y+\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}_y,`$ (3)
where $`\chi _\alpha ^{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}}`$, $`\chi _\beta ^{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}}`$ and $`\chi _\gamma ^{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{m}}`$ represent, respectively, the coupling of the electric (magnetic) field and its first and second time derivatives to the local electric (magnetic) dipole moments. $`\omega _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega _0`$ can be viewed as the plasma frequency, damping frequency and resonance frequency of the electric (magnetic) dipole oscillators, respectively. Thus the frequency-domain electric and magnetic susceptibilities are given

$$\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}+i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}}{\omega ^2+i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}+\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2},\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}+i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}}{\omega ^2+i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}+\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{m}\right)^2},$$
(4)
So, the refractive index squared in the 2TDLM model reads

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)=1+\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)+\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)+\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right).$$
(5)
Thus it follows from (1) that the photon effective rest mass squared in the 2TDLM model is of the form

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}{c^4}\left[\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)+\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)+\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)\right].$$
(6)
As an illustrative example, we apply Eq.(6) to the case of left-handed media, which is a kind of artificial composite metamaterials with negative refractive index in the microwave frequency region ($`10^9`$ Hz). More recently, this medium captured considerable attention in various fields such as condensed matter physics, materials science, applied electromagnetics and optics. The most characteristic features of left-handed media are: (i) both the electric permittivity $`ϵ`$ and the magnetic permeability $`\mu `$ are negative; (ii) the Poynting vector and wave vector of electromagnetic wave propagating inside it would be antiparallel, i.e., the wave vector k, the electric field E and the magnetic field H form a left-handed system; (iii) a number of peculiar electromagnetic and optical properties such as the reversal of both the Doppler shift and the Cherenkov radiation, anomalous refraction, amplification of evanescent waves, unusual photon tunneling, modified spontaneous emission rates and even reversals of radiation pressure to radiation tension arise. All these dramatically different propagation characteristics stem from the sign change of the group velocity. In what follows we calculate the photon effective rest mass squared by making use of Eq.(6) and the expressions

$$ϵ\left(\omega \right)=1\frac{\omega _\mathrm{p}^2}{\omega \left(\omega +i\gamma \right)},\mu \left(\omega \right)=1\frac{F\omega ^2}{\omega ^2\omega _0^2+i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(7)
for the effective dielectric parameter and magnetic permeability, where the plasma frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{p}`$ and the magnetic resonance frequency $`\omega _0`$ are in the GHz range (e.g., $`\omega _\mathrm{p}=10.0`$ GHz, $`\omega _0=4.0`$ GHz ); $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represent the damping parameters. The parameter $`F`$ may often be chosen $`0<F<1`$, for example, $`F=0.56`$. By using $`n^2\left(\omega \right)=ϵ\left(\omega \right)\mu \left(\omega \right)`$, we obtain

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)=1\frac{\omega _\mathrm{p}^2}{\omega ^2}\left(1+\frac{i\gamma }{\omega }\right)^1+\frac{F\omega _\mathrm{p}^2}{\omega ^2}\left(1+\frac{i\gamma }{\omega }\right)^1\left(1\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega ^2}+\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega }\right)^1F\left(1\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega ^2}+\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega }\right)^1.$$
(8)
It follows that the mass squared $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is obtained

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{c^4}\left[\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\left(1+\frac{i\gamma }{\omega }\right)^1F\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\left(1+\frac{i\gamma }{\omega }\right)^1\left(1\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega ^2}+\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega }\right)^1+F\omega ^2\left(1\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega ^2}+\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega }\right)^1\right].$$
(9)
Note that for the electron-plasma medium, where the electromagnetic parameters $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, $`F=0`$, one can arrive at the following familiar formula

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\omega _\mathrm{p}^2}{c^4}$$
(10)
with the plasma frequency squared $`\omega _\mathrm{p}^2=\frac{Ne^2}{ϵ_0m_\mathrm{e}}`$ (here $`e`$, $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`N`$ respectively denote the electron charge, mass and electron number density in this electron plasma).

It should be emphasized that there is a difference in the definition of photon effective rest mass between two types of experimental schemes of testing photon mass§§§These two types of experimental schemes are as follows: one is based on the Hamiltonian density of electrodynamics and the other based on Maxwellian equations.. In the discussion of wave dispersion and potential variations of the speed of light with frequency, which are based on the Maxwellian equations (rather than the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian density of interacting electromagnetic system), the effective rest mass squared of photons is expressed by Eq.(10). Historically, this problem has been discussed by many investigators, e.g., Feinberg who considered the possibility of the variation of the speed of light with frequency in the sharply defined optical and radio pulses from pulsars and took into account in more detail the observed variation of arrival time with frequency for the radio waves attributed to the interaction with interstellar electrons. However, for those experimental schemes of testing photon rest mass, which are based on the Hamiltonian density (rather than the Maxwellian equations), the effective rest mass of photons due to media dispersion (i.e., the interaction of wave with charged particles in environmental dilute plasma such as the secondary cosmic rays) is two times that expressed in Eq.(10). The torsion balance experiment is just this type of schemes, which will be considered in Sec.V.

However, it should be noted that in Lorentz dispersive materials, $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ in (9) depends strongly on $`\omega `$, and sometimes possesses an imaginary part (due to the damping parameter and resonance frequency) and the physical meanings of $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is therefore not very apparently seen. In what follows we will define a physically meaningful effective rest mass of photons, which is independent of the frequency $`\omega `$, and will explain a method by which the frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons in the 2TDLM media is extracted from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$. Note that the above non-physical disadvantage of frequency-dependent mass in (9) will be avoided in the frequency-independent effective rest mass.

## II Extracting frequency-independent effective mass from refractive index squared

In this framework of definition of frequency-independent effective rest mass, the photon should be regarded as acted upon by a hypothetical force field, namely, it behaves like a massive de Broglie particle moving in a force field. It is verified in the following that, for the case of de Broglie particle in a force field, one can also consider its “optical refractive index” $`n`$. According to the Einstein- de Broglie relation, the dispersion relation of the de Broglie particle with rest mass $`m_0`$ in the potential field $`V\left(𝐱\right)`$ agrees with

$$\left(\omega \varphi \right)^2=k^2c^2+\frac{m_0^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(11)
with $`\varphi =\frac{V}{\mathrm{}}`$. It follows that

$$\omega ^2\left[1\frac{m_0^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}2\frac{\varphi }{\omega }+\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^2\right]=k^2c^2,$$
(12)
which yields

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{k^2}=\frac{c^2}{1\frac{m_0^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}2\frac{\varphi }{\omega }+\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^2}.$$
(13)
Compared with the dispersion relation $`\frac{\omega ^2}{k^2}=\frac{c^2}{n^2}`$, one can arrive at

$$n^2=1\frac{m_0^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}2\frac{\varphi }{\omega }+\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^2,$$
(14)
which is the square of “optical refractive index” of the de Broglie particle in the presence of a potential field $`\varphi `$.

If a photon is permitted to possess a frequency-independent effective rest mass $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, then the expression (14) for the case of photons in media is rewritten

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)=1\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}2\frac{\varphi }{\omega }+\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^2.$$
(15)
In what follows, an approach to frequency-independent effective mass extracted from the optical refractive index squared $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$ is presented. It is assumed that $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$ can be rewritten as the following series expansions

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)=\underset{k}{}\frac{a_k}{\omega ^k},$$
(16)
then one can arrive at $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2=_k\frac{a_k}{\omega ^{k2}}`$, namely,

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2=\mathrm{}+\frac{a_3}{\omega }+a_2+a_1\omega +a_0\omega ^2+a_{+1}\omega ^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(17)
Compared (17) with (15), it is apparent that the frequency-independent effective rest mass squared $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ of the photon can be read off from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$, namely, the constant term on the right-handed side on (17) is related only to $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$, i.e.,

$$a_2=\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(18)
Generally speaking, the optical refractive index $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$ is often of complicated form, particularly for the metamaterials. So, we cannot extract frequency-independent $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ immediately from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$. In the following, this problem is resolved by calculating the limit value of $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$, where $`\omega `$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$ or zero. We first consider the large frequency behavior of $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$. It follows from (17) that $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ at high frequencies (i.e., $`\omega \mathrm{}`$) is of the form

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2a_2+a_1\omega +a_0\omega ^2+a_{+1}\omega ^3+a_{+2}\omega ^4+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
This, therefore, means that $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ at high frequencies ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$) can be split into the following two terms

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(\mathrm{constant}\mathrm{term}\right)+\left(\mathrm{divergent}\mathrm{term}\right).$$
(20)
So, we can obtain $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ from the following formula

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\left[n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(\mathrm{divergent}\mathrm{term}\right)\right]=\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(21)
Note that the constant term in $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ can also be extracted by considering the low-frequency (zero-frequency) behavior of $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$. It is certain that in this case the obtained constant term is the same as (21). Apparently $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ at low-frequencies (i.e., $`\omega 0`$) behaves like

$$n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\mathrm{}+\frac{a_5}{\omega ^3}+\frac{a_4}{\omega ^2}+\frac{a_3}{\omega }+a_2,$$
(22)
where the sum term ($`\mathrm{}+\frac{a_5}{\omega ^3}+\frac{a_4}{\omega ^2}+\frac{a_3}{\omega }`$) is divergent if $`\omega `$ approaches zero. Thus, subtraction of the divergent term from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ yields

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left[n^2\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(\mathrm{divergent}\mathrm{term}\right)\right]=\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(23)
In the next section, we will calculate the frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons in the 2TDLM model by making use of the method presented above.

## III Frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons in the 2TDLM model

According to the definition of the 2TDLM model, the frequency-domain electric and magnetic susceptibilities are expressed by Eq.(4) and the refractive index squared is given in Eq.(5)

In order to obtain the frequency-independent $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$, according to the formulation in the previous section, the high-frequency ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$) behavior of $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ should first be taken into consideration and the result is

$$\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}+\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}.$$
(24)
Note that $`i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}+\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}`$ is the divergent term of $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ at large frequencies. Subtracting the divergent term from $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$, we consider again the high-frequency behavior ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$) and obtain another divergent term $`i\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}`$, i.e.,

$$\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}+\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right)=\frac{\omega ^2\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}\omega ^2\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}+i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}i\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\omega ^2\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}}{\omega ^2+i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}+\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2}i\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}.$$
(25)
Thus, after subtracting all the divergent terms from $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$, we obtain

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}+\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right)i\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right]=\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right].$$
(26)
In the same fashion, we obtain

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2\left(i\omega \omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}+\omega ^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right)i\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right]=\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right]$$
(27)
for the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)`$. In what follows we continue to consider the term $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)`$ on the right-handed side of (5). In the similar manner, the infinite-frequency limit of $`\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ is given as follows

$`\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\chi ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega \right)\chi ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega \right)\omega ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right]`$ (28)
$``$ $`\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right].`$ (29)
Hence, insertion of (26)-(29) into (21) yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right)\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right]`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`\left(1+\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}\right)\left[\left(\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}\left(\omega _0^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}\right)^2\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}\right].`$ (31)
Thus the $`\omega `$-independent effective rest mass squared $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is extracted from $`n^2\left(\omega \right)`$. Apparently, $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ in Eq. (31) does not depend on $`\omega `$. The remainder on the right-handed side of Eq. (15) is $`n^2\left(\omega \right)1+\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}`$, which is equal to $`\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^22\frac{\varphi }{\omega }`$, where $`\varphi `$ is defined to be $`\frac{V}{\mathrm{}}`$. For simplicity, we set

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)=n^2\left(\omega \right)1+\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2},$$
(32)
and then from the equation

$$\left(\frac{\varphi }{\omega }\right)^22\frac{\varphi }{\omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right),$$
(33)
one can readily obtain the expression for the hypothetical potential field $`\varphi \left(\omega \right)`$ is $`\varphi \left(\omega \right)=\omega \left[1\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}\right]`$, or

$$V\left(\omega \right)=\mathrm{}\omega \left[1\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}\right].$$
(34)
Many metamaterials which have complicated expressions for electric and magnetic susceptibilities such as (4) are generally rarely seen in nature and often arises from the artificial manufactures. More recently, one of the artificial composite metamaterials, the left-handed medium which has a frequency band (GHz) where the electric permittivity ($`ϵ`$) and the magnetic permeability ($`\mu `$) are simultaneously negative, has focused attention of many authors both experimentally and theoretically. In the left-handed medium, most phenomena as the Doppler effect, Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation and even Snell’s law are inverted. In 1964Note that, in the literature, some authors mentioned the wrong year when Veselago suggested the left-handed media. They claimed that Veselago proposed or introduced the concept of left-handed media in 1968 or 1964. On the contrary, the true history is as follows: Veselago’s excellent paper was first published in Russian in July, 1967 \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk 92, 517-526 (1967)\]. This original paper was translated into English by W.H. Furry and published again in 1968 in the journal of Sov. Phys. Usp.. Unfortunately, Furry stated erroneously in his English translation that the original version of Veselago’ work was first published in 1964., Veselago first considered many peculiar optical and electromagnetic properties, phenomena and effects in this medium and referred to such materials as left-handed media, since in this case the propagation vector $`𝐤`$, electric field $`𝐄`$ and magnetic field $`𝐇`$ of light wave propagating inside it form a left-handed system. It follows from Maxwellian curl equations that such media having negative simultaneously negative $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ exhibit a negative index of refraction, i.e., $`n=\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$. Since negative refractive index occurs only rarely, this medium attracts attention of many physicists in various fields. In experiments, the negative $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ can be respectively realized by using a network (array) of thin (long) metal wires and a periodic arrangement of split ring resonators. A combination of the two structures yields a left-handed medium. Compared the permittivity and permeability (7) of left-handed medium with the electric and magnetic susceptibilities (4), one can arrive at

$`\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{e}=1,\omega _\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{e}=\omega _\mathrm{p},\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{e}=\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{e}=0,\omega _0^\mathrm{e}=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{e}=\gamma ,`$ (35)
$`\chi _\gamma ^\mathrm{m}=F,\chi _\alpha ^\mathrm{m}=\chi _\beta ^\mathrm{m}=0,\omega _0^\mathrm{m}=\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (36)
So, it is readily verified with the help of (31) that the $`\omega `$-independent effective rest mass of photons inside left-handed media is written as follows

$$\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}=\left(1F\right)\omega _\mathrm{p}^2+F\left(\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right).$$
(37)
It follows that Eq.(37) is a restriction on the electromagnetic parameters $`F,\omega _\mathrm{p},\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F`$ in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability (7), since $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^20`$. Insertion of the experimentally chosen values of the electromagnetic parameters in the literature into Eq. (37) shows that this restriction condition is satisfied. For instance, in Ruppin’s work, $`F,\omega _\mathrm{p},\omega _0,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F`$ were chosen $`F=0.56`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{p}=10.0\mathrm{GHz}`$, $`\omega _0=4.0\mathrm{GHz}`$, $`\gamma =0.03\omega _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.03\omega _0`$, which indicates that the inequality $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}^20`$ is satisfied.

## IV Some applications of frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons

In this section we consider the applications of the concept of frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons to some optical and electromagnetic phenomena and effects.

(i) As was stated above, since the frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons in electromagnetic media is related close to the coupling parameters of the electric (magnetic) fields to the electric (magnetic) dipole systems, and the damping and resonance frequency of the electric (magnetic) dipole oscillators, it contains the information on the interaction between light and materials. It is shown that in certain frequency ranges this effective rest mass governs the propagation behavior of electromagnetic wave in media, and by using this concept one can therefore consider the wave propagation somewhat conveniently. For example, in the left-handed media whose permittivity and permeability are expressed by (7), the potential field $`V(\omega )`$ approaches $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{F(\omega _0^2\omega _\mathrm{p}^2)}`$, which is constant, as the frequency tends to zero. This, therefore, means that at low frequencies the light propagation is governed mainly by the frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons.

Likewise, in the case of the potential field $`V(\omega )`$ being vanishing where the frequency squared of electromagnetic wave is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\frac{\omega _0^2\pm \sqrt{4\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\omega _0^23\omega _0^4}}{2},$$
(38)
the photon can be regarded as a “free” massive particle with the rest mass being expressed in (37). In the frequency region near $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, sine the photon is a “quasi-free” particle, the light propagation behavior and properties is rather simple compared with other frequency ranges in which $`V(\omega )`$ is nonvanishing or large. For the left-handed media, the relevant frequency parameters $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{p}`$ of which is about GHZ, the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq.(38) that leads to $`V(\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ is just in the frequency band (GHZ) where the permittivity and permeability are simultaneously negative. It follows that when the effects and phenomena associated with negative index of refraction occur in left-handed media, the wave propagation (e.g., scattering properties) and dispersion properties of the light are not as complicated as those in other frequency ranges, since in the negative-index frequency band, the optical refractive index squared simulates nearly the plasma behavior, particularly in the region near $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

(ii) Historically, possibility of a light pulse with speed greater than that ($`c`$) in a vacuum has been extensively investigated by many authors. Ziolkowski has studied the superluminal pulse propagation and consequent superluminal information exchange in the 2TDLM media, and demonstrated that they do not violate the principle of causality. He showed that in the 2TDLM model, both the phase and group velocities, i.e.,

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}v(\omega )\frac{c}{|1+\chi _\gamma |}$$
(39)
of light at high frequencies will exceed the speed ($`c`$) of light in a vacuum, so long as $`2<\chi _\gamma <0`$, where $`\chi _\gamma `$ denotes the coupling coefficients of the second time derivatives of electric (magnetic) fields to the local electric (magnetic) dipole motions.

Although in the 2TDLM model the medium will exhibit a possibility of superluminal speeds of wave propagation, the photon velocity (rather than group velocity of light) is by no means larger than $`c`$. This may be explained as follows: according to Eq.(34), the kinetic energy of a photon is $`=\mathrm{}\omega \sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )}`$. If the light frequency $`\omega `$ tends to infinity, then it follows from Eq.(32) that $`n\mathrm{}\omega `$. Since the photon momentum $`p=\frac{n\mathrm{}\omega }{c}`$, the velocity $`v`$ of the photon with a frequency-independent rest mass approaches $`c`$, i.e., the particle (photon) velocity $`v=\frac{p}{}c`$. Thus we show that in the artificial composite metamaterials such as 2TDLM media the photon velocity does not exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, no matter whether the phase (and group) velocity of light inside it is a superluminal speed or not.

(iii) The frequency-independent rest mass of photons is useful in discussing the plus and minus signs of phase shifts in light scattering inside media. The phase shifts and its signs contain the information on the scattering between wave and potentials. According to Eq.(34), if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ is positive (negative), then the interaction energy $`V(\omega )`$ between light and media is negative (positive). For this reason, it is possible for us to determine the signs (plus or minus) of phase shifts in light scattering process by calculating $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ and the frequency-independent rest mass $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Now with the development in design and fabrication of left-handed materials, the zero-index ($`ϵ0,\mu 0`$) materials receive attention in materials science and applied electromagnetism. For this kind of media with the optical refractive index $`n0`$, from Eq.(32) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}1,$$
(40)
i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ is approximately equal to $`\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}1`$ and we can determine the sign by comparing the light frequency with the photon effective rest mass $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This, therefore, means that if the frequency $`\omega `$ is larger than $`\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}c^2}{\mathrm{}}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ and consequently the phase shift of light wave due to scattering acquires a minus sign; and if the light frequency $`\omega `$ is less than $`\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}c^2}{\mathrm{}}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ and consequently the phase shift acquires a plus sign.

## V Effects of self-induced charge currents in the torsion balance experiment

In this section, we consider the potential effects of self-induced charge currents arising in the torsion balance experiments. The Lagrangian density of electrodynamics reads

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\mu _\gamma ^2A_\mu A_\mu +\mu _0J_\mu A_\mu ,$$
(41)
where $`\mu _\gamma ^2=\left(\frac{m_\gamma c}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2`$ with $`m_\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ being the photon rest mass, Planck’s constant and speed of light in a free vacuum, respectively, and $`\mu _0`$ denotes the magnetic permeability in a vacuum and the sum over the repeated indices is implied. It follows from (41) that the canonical momentum density is written

$$\pi _\mu =\frac{}{\dot{A}_\mu },\stackrel{}{\pi }(x)=𝐄(x).$$
(42)
In the electron plasma, due to the conservation law of the canonical momentum density, i.e., $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(m_\mathrm{e}𝐯+e𝐀)=0`$, we have $`𝐯=\frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}}𝐀+𝐂`$ with $`𝐂`$ being a constant velocity. By using the formula $`=𝐄\dot{𝐀}`$ and electric current density $`𝐉=Ne𝐯=\frac{Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}𝐀+Ne𝐂`$, one can arrive at (in SI)

$$=\frac{1}{2\mu _0}\left[\frac{𝐄^2}{c^2}+𝐁^2+\mu _\gamma ^2𝐀^2+2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}𝐀^2+\frac{1}{\mu _\gamma ^2c^2}\left(𝐄\frac{𝐉_0}{ϵ_0}\right)^2\right]+𝐉_0𝐀_0Ne𝐂𝐀,$$
(43)
where $`𝐉_0=\rho `$ and $`𝐀_0=\varphi `$ are respectively the electric charge density and electric scalar potential, and $`ϵ_0`$ represents the electric permittivity in a vacuum and $`c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ_0\mu _0}}`$. Note that here $`\frac{1}{\mu _\gamma ^2c^2}\left(𝐄\frac{𝐉_0}{ϵ_0}\right)^2`$ results from both the mass term $`\frac{\mu _\gamma ^2}{c^2}𝐀_0^2`$ and the Gauss’s law $`𝐄=\mu _\gamma ^2𝐀_0+\frac{𝐉_0}{ϵ_0}`$.

It follows from (43) that the total effective rest mass squared of electromagnetic fields in electron plasma is given as follows

$$\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2=\mu _\gamma ^2+2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}.$$
(44)
It is worthwhile to point out that according to the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{}{t}𝐄+\mu _0𝐉\mu _\gamma ^2𝐀`$ and the consequent $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{}{t}𝐄[\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}]𝐀+\mu _0Ne𝐂`$, the $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2`$ should be $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2=\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$ rather than that in (44). This minor difference between these two $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2`$ results from the derivative procedure applied to the Lagrangian density by using the Euler-Lagrange equation. Although it seems from the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation that $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2=\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$, the factor-$`2`$ in (44) cannot be ignored in calculating the torque acting on the torsion balance due to the photon effective rest mass, which will be confirmed in what follows. In the classical electromagnetics, the following familiar formulae are given

$$\times 𝐁=\mu _0𝐉,m_d=\pi r^2I,I=𝐉𝐒,\stackrel{}{\tau }=𝐦_d\times 𝐁$$
(45)
and

$$\times 𝐀=𝐁,a_d=\pi r^2\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mu _0},\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐁𝐒,$$
(46)
where $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0𝐉`$ holds when the electric field strength $`𝐄`$, electric current density $`𝐉`$ are vanishing in the Ampère-Maxwell equation. In Eq.(45), $`m_d=\pi r^2I`$ means that a current loop of radius $`r`$ carrying current $`I`$ gives rise to a magnetic dipole moment $`m_d`$; $`𝐒`$ in $`I=𝐉𝐒`$ denotes the area vector through which the electric current density vector $`𝐉`$ penetrates; $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=𝐦_d\times 𝐁`$ means that an electric-current loop with a magnetic dipole moment $`𝐦_d`$, immersed in a magnetic field $`𝐁`$, experiences a torque $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=𝐦_d\times 𝐁`$. Eqs.(46) means in the torsion balance experiment, a toroid coil contains a loop of magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which acts as a dipole source $`a_d`$ of magnetic vector potential via $`\times 𝐀=𝐁`$ with the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ within the toroid as the source term.

It follows from (43) that in the Hamiltonian density $``$ of electromagnetic system, there are $`\frac{1}{2}𝐁^2`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu _\gamma ^2+2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}\right)𝐀^2`$ (i.e., $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)^2`$), which provide us with some useful insights into calculating the torque produced by the interaction of magnetic dipole vector potential moment $`𝐚_d`$ with the ambient cosmic magnetic vector potential acting upon the toroid in the torsion balance experiment. For convenience, the Equations (46) may be rewritten as follows

$$\times (\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀)=\mu _0\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐁}{\mu _0}\right),\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}a_d=\pi r^2\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mu _0}\right),\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mu _0}=\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐁}{\mu _0}\right)𝐒.$$
(47)
In order to calculate the torque acting on the torsion balance, we compare the equations and expressions in (47) with those in (45) as follows:

|  |  | the familiar case | the case due to photon mass |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | in $``$ | $`\frac{1}{2}𝐁^2`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)^2`$ |
|  | Equations | $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0𝐉`$ | $`\times (\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀)=\mu _0\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐁}{\mu _0}\right)`$ |
|  | dipole moment | $`m_d=\pi r^2I`$ | $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}a_d=\pi r^2\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mu _0}\right)`$ |
|  | flux | $`I=𝐉𝐒`$ | $`\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mu _0}=\left(\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐁}{\mu _0}\right)𝐒`$ |
|  | torque | $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=𝐦_d\times 𝐁`$ | $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\mathrm{?}`$ |
| \*Table 1 | | | |

Thus it follows from the analogies in the above table that, $`\mathrm{?}=(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐚_d)\times (\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀)`$, i.e., the torque $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2𝐚_d\times 𝐀`$. Here the torque $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ arising from the interaction between the dipole field of magnetic potentials (resulting from the electric current $`I`$ in the toroid windings) with the ambient vector potential $`𝐀`$ acts on the torsion balance. It should be noted again that here $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2=\mu _\gamma ^2+2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$ rather than $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}^2=\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$.

Note that there exists a term $`\mu _0Ne𝐂`$ in the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{}{t}𝐄[\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}]𝐀+\mu _0Ne𝐂`$. Does this term has influences on the torsion balance? In what follows we will discuss this problem.

In the similar fashion, we consider the familiar Hamiltonian density $`𝐌𝐁`$, which describes the interaction of the magnetic moments with the magnetic field $`𝐁`$. According to the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation with $`\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{}{t}𝐄`$ and $`\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}𝐀`$ being ignored, we have $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0Ne𝐂`$, which can be rewritten as $`\times 𝐁=\left(\mu _0\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\right)\left(\frac{Ne𝐂}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)`$. In the meanwhile, $`=Ne𝐂𝐀`$ can also be rewritten as $`=\left(\frac{Ne𝐂}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)\left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)`$.

It is known that in the sufficiently large space filled with homogeneous magnetic moments with volume density (magnetization) being $`𝐌`$, the interior magnetic field strength $`𝐁`$ produced by homogeneously distributed magnetic moments is just $`\mu _0𝐌`$This may be considered in two ways: (i) if the direction of $`𝐌`$ is assumed to be parallel to the third component of Cartesian coordinate system, then the potentially non-vanishing components of $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐇`$ are also the third ones. It follows from the Ampère’s law $`\times 𝐇=𝐉_{\mathrm{free}}`$ with $`𝐉_{\mathrm{free}}=0`$ that $`H_3`$ is constant, and $`H_3`$ can be viewed as zero. So, according to the expression $`𝐁=\mu _0(𝐇+𝐌)`$, we obtain $`𝐁=\mu _0𝐌`$; (ii) In accordance with Ampère’s circuital law, the magnetic induction $`B`$ inside a long solenoid with $`N`$ circular loops carrying a current $`I`$ in the region remote from the ends is axial, uniform and equal to $`\mu _0`$ times the number of Ampère-turns per meter $`nI`$, i.e., $`B=\mu _0nI`$, where $`n=\frac{N}{l}`$ with $`l`$ being the solenoid length. Let $`S`$ denote the cross-section area of this long solenoid. The volume density of magnetic moments $`IS`$ resulting from the carried current $`I`$ is $`M=\frac{(IS)nl}{V}`$ with the solenoid volume $`V=Sl`$. This, therefore, means that the volume density of magnetic moments just equals the number of Ampère-turns per meter $`nI`$, i.e., $`M=nI`$. So, we have $`B=\mu _0M`$., i.e., $`\times 𝐀=\mu _0𝐌`$ or $`\times \left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)=\left(\mu _0\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\right)𝐌`$.

Thus the comparisons between “the familiar case” and the case due to the constant $`𝐂`$ are illustrated in the following table,

|  |  | the familiar case | the case due to constant $`𝐂`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | in $``$ | $`\frac{1}{2}𝐁^2`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)^2`$ |
|  | interaction Hamiltonian density | $`=𝐌𝐁`$ | $`=\left(\frac{Ne𝐂}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)\left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)`$ |
|  | Equations | $`\times \left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)=\left(\mu _0\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\right)𝐌`$ | $`\times 𝐁=\left(\mu _0\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}\right)\left(\frac{Ne𝐂}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)`$ |
|  | torque | $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=𝐌\times 𝐁`$ | $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\mathrm{?}`$ |
| \*Table 2 | | | |

It follows that $`\mathrm{?}=\left(\frac{Ne𝐂}{\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)\times \left(\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}𝐀\right)`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=Ne𝐂\times 𝐀`$, which dose not act on the toroid in the torsion balance experiment.

Since we have discussed the related preliminary preparation for the effects of self-induced charge currents, we think the order of magnitude of its effects in experiments (e.g., the extra torque due to the photon effective mass acting on the toroid in the torsion balance experiment) deserves evaluation. It is shown by our evaluation that the muons and alpha-particles in secondary cosmic rays will contribute an effective rest mass about $`10^{54}`$ Kg to the photon, which is compared to the newly obtained upper limit on photon rest mass in Luo’s rotating torsion balance experiment.

## VI Discussion and remarks: self-induced charge currents in dilute plasma

Here we discuss the effective rest mass of photon resulting from the self-induced charge currents in the torsion balance experiments. The self-induced charge current arises mainly from the two sources around us: (i) muon ($`\mu `$) component and alpha-particles in cosmic rays; (ii) decay daughter (alpha-particles) of radioactive radon gas ($`{}_{86}{}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}`$, $`{}_{86}{}^{220}\mathrm{Rn}`$) in room environment.

It is known that at the sea level, the current density of muon component in secondary cosmic rays is about $`1\times 10^2\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Assuming that the muon velocity approaches speed of light, the volume density of muon can be derived and the result is $`N_\mu =0.3\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{m}^3`$. So, according to Eq.(44) (i.e., $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{c}\sqrt{\frac{2N_\mu e^2}{ϵ_0m_\mu c^2}}`$), electromagnetic wave with wavelength\**\**\**Since the mean distance of two muons in secondary cosmic rays at sea level is about 100 m, Lorentz’s mean-field formulation (Lorentz’s dispersion theory, Lorentz’s electron theory, 1895) is not applicable to the electromagnetic wave with wavelength $`\lambda 100`$ m. So, the above effective mass formula is no longer valid for this case (i.e., $`\lambda 100`$ m). In fact, the electromagnetic wave with wavelength $`\lambda 100`$ m dose not acquire this effective rest mass. But the ambient cosmic magnetic vector potentials (interstellar magnetic fields) with low (or zero) frequencies will truly acquire this effective rest mass. $`\lambda 100`$ m at the sea level acquires an effective rest mass about $`0.3\times 10^{53}`$ Kg.

It is believed that the air molecules in the vacuum chamber of torsion balance experiment cannot be ionized by the alpha-particles of cosmic rays, because the mean free path of alpha-particle moving at about $`10^7\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the dilute air with the pressure being only $`10^2`$ Pa is too large (more than $`10^6`$ m)††††††According to some handbooks, the free paths of alpha-particles in air (with pressure $`10^5`$ Pa) are 2.5, 3.5, 4.6, 5.9, 7.4, 8.9, 10.6 cm, corresponding respectively to the energy 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 Mev. So, in the vacuum chamber with pressure $`10^2`$ Pa in Luo’s experiment, the free path of alpha-particles (with energy much more than 10 Mev, even perhaps more than 100 Mev) in secondary cosmic rays is more than $`10^7`$ times several cm, which means that the air molecules in the low-pressure vacuum chamber cannot be easily ionized by the alpha-particles of cosmic rays.. So, the air medium has nothing to contribute to the effective rest mass of photons.

Radon ($`{}_{86}{}^{}\mathrm{Rn}`$) possesses the $`\alpha `$-radioactivity. Generally speaking, the Rn density in room environment is $`10^8\mathrm{m}^3`$ or so, which may be the same order of magnitude as particle density in secondary cosmic rays‡‡‡‡‡‡The effective doses of cosmic rays and Rn humans suffer are respectively $`0.4`$ mSv (typical range: 0.3-1.0 mSv) and $`1.2`$ mSv (typical range: 0.2-10 mSv)., and the decay daughter (alpha-particles) will therefore give rise to a photon effective mass of about $`10^{54}`$ Kg.

Thus the effective rest mass induced by muons and alpha-particles in secondary cosmic rays and radon gas can be compared to the new upper limit ($`1.2\times 10^{54}`$ Kg) obtained by Luo et al. in their recent rotating torsion balance experiment. So, as far as the contribution of ions of cosmic rays to the photon rest mass is concerned, this upper limit ($`1.2\times 10^{54}`$ Kg) becomes just a critical value. We think Luo’s experimentally obtained upper limit is of much interest and therefore deserves further experimental investigation to get a more precise upper limit on photon mass.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper,

i) it is verified that the expression $`\frac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c^4}{\mathrm{}^2}=(1n^2)\omega ^2`$ can be applied to calculating the effective rest mass of photons in the artificial composite electromagnetic metamaterials with complicated permittivity and permeability.

ii) we suggest an approach to obtaining the frequency-independent effective rest mass of photons in certain artificial composite metamaterials such as 2TDLM media which possess the complicated electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.

iii) it is shown that the extra torque $`2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m}𝐚_d\times 𝐀`$ by the self-induced charge currents will also acts upon the toroid in the torsion balance experiment whose apparatus is immersed in the dilute plasma such as the cosmic rays and radon gas. Here the photon effective rest mass squared is $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$ rather than $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$.

The following difference between these two $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ should be pointed out: the theoretical mechanism of torsion balance experiment lies in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian (43) of interacting electromagnetic system, so, the effective rest mass squared of electromagnetic fields is $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$. However, for those experimental schemes of photon rest mass stemming from the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{}{t}𝐄[\mu _\gamma ^2+\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}]𝐀+\mu _0Ne𝐂`$, the effective rest mass squared of electromagnetic fields is $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$ rather than $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=2\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$. The so-called experimental realizations stemming from the Ampère-Maxwell-Proca equation are as follows: pulsar test of a variation of the speed of light with frequency; geomagnetic limit on photon mass based on the analysis of satellite measurements of the Earth’s field; experimental test of Ampère’s law at low temperature, etc.. In all these experimental schemes, the effective mass squared is $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{\mu _0Ne^2}{m_\mathrm{e}}`$.

iv) the self-induced charge currents in dilute plasma presented above (i.e., muons and alpha-particles in secondary cosmic rays and radon gas) will give arise to an effective rest mass of about $`10^{54}`$ Kg, which can be compared to the new upper limit on photon rest mass obtained in Luo’s rotating torsion balance experiment.

Acknowledgements This project is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No. $`90101024`$.


format: text

text:
# Stochastic Background Search Correlating ALLEGRO with LIGO Engineering Data

## 1 Introduction

One of the gravitational wave (GW) sources targeted by the current generation of ground-based interferometric and resonant detectors is a stochastic background of gravitational waves (SBGW), produced by an unresolved superposition of signals of astrophysical or cosmological origin. Direct observational limits can be set on a SBGW by looking for correlations in the outputs of a pair of GW detectors. This has been done using two resonant-bar detectors , two “prototype” interferometers , and is currently being done with the two kilometer-scale LIGO interferometers (IFOs). In this paper we describe the first known effort to set a limit on a SBGW with correlations between an IFO and a bar. This pair of detectors–the LIGO Livingston Observatory (LLO) in Livingston, LA and the ALLEGRO resonant bar detector in Baton Rouge, LA–is separated by only 40 km, the closest pair among the ten modern ground-based GW detector sites.  This makes it an attractive pair for probing the stochastic GW spectrum around 900 Hz. In addition, the ALLEGRO bar can be rotated, changing the response of the correlated data streams to stochastic GWs and thus providing a means to distinguish correlations due to a SBGW from those due to correlated environmental noise.

In Sec. 2 we review the standard measure of stochastic background strength and the cross-correlation technique used to search for a SBGW. In Sec. 3 we describe the previous limits set on a SBGW with ground-based GW detectors. In Sec. 4 we describe the key features of the LLO-ALLEGRO correlation experiment in general. Section 5 describes the data taken during LIGO’s E7 engineering run and the analysis currently underway using those data. Finally, Sec. 6 describes the prospects for future correlation experiments using ALLEGRO and LIGO science data.

## 2 Stochastic Background Measurements

A SBGW is assumed for simplicity to be isotropic, unpolarized, Gaussian, and stationary. Subject to these assumptions, the stochastic GW background is completely described by its power spectrum. It is conventional to express this spectrum in terms of the GW contribution to the cosmological parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _{\text{crit}}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)=\frac{1}{\rho _{\text{crit}}}\frac{d\rho _{\text{GW}}}{d\mathrm{ln}f}=\frac{f}{\rho _{\text{crit}}}\frac{d\rho _{\text{GW}}}{df}.$$
(1)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)`$ has been constructed to be dimensionless, and represents the contribution to the overall $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}`$ per *logarithmic* frequency interval. In particular, it is *not* equivalent to $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}/df`$. Note also that since the critical density $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$, which is used in the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)`$, is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ , it is convenient to work with $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)`$, which is independent of the observationally determined value of $`h_{100}=\frac{H_0}{100\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}}`$.

The standard method to search for such a background is to cross-correlate the outputs of two gravitational wave detectors . If the noise in the two detectors is uncorrelated, the only non-zero contribution to the average cross-correlation will come from the stochastic GW background. In the optimally-filtered cross-correlation method (described in more detail in ), one calculates a cross-correlation statistic

$$Y=𝑑t_1𝑑t_2h_1(t_1)Q(t_1t_2)h_2(t_2)=𝑑f\stackrel{~}{h}_1^{}(f)\stackrel{~}{Q}(f)\stackrel{~}{h}_2(f)$$
(2)
where $`h_{1,2}(t)`$ are the data streams from the two detectors, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{1,2}(f)`$ are their Fourier transforms, and $`Q(t_1t_2)`$ (with Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(f)`$) is a suitably-chosen optimal filter. It is sensitive to backgrounds on the order of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{UL}}\left(T𝑑f\frac{\gamma _{12}^2(f)}{f^6P_1(f)P_2(f)}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(3)
This sensitivity improves with time and is limited by the power spectral densities $`P_{1,2}(f)`$ of the noise in the two detectors. The factor

$$\gamma _{12}(f)=d_{1ab}d_2^{cd}\frac{5}{4\pi }_{S^2}d^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}e^{i2\pi f\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{x}/c}P_{cd}^{ab}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})$$
(4)
in the numerator of the integral is the *overlap reduction function* , which describes the observing geometry. Here $`P_{cd}^{ab}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ is a projector onto symmetric traceless tensors transverse to a direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`d_{1,2}^{ab}`$ are the detector response tensors for the two detectors. These are the tensors with which the metric perturbation $`h_{ab}`$ at the detector should be contracted to obtain the gravitational wave strain $`h=d^{ab}h_{ab}`$. If $`u_a`$ and $`v_a`$ are unit vectors pointing in the directions of an IFO’s two arms, its response tensor is

$$d_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(u_au_bv_av_b)$$
(5)
while the response tensor for a resonant bar whose long axis is parallel to the unit vector $`w_a`$ is

$$d_{ab}=w_aw_b.$$
(6)
The overlap reduction function is equal to unity for the case of a pair of IFOs (or an IFO and a bar) at the same location with their arms aligned, and is suppressed as the detectors are rotated out of alignment or separated from one another. The frequency dependence comes about for the following reason: if the wavelength is comparable to or smaller than the separation between two detectors, the detectors will see different phases of the wave at the same time, and this phase difference will depend on the direction of propagation of the wave. Since the stochastic GW background is assumed to be isotropic, averaging over different propagation directions suppresses the sensitivity of a pair of detectors to high-frequency waves. For example, a wave whose wavelength is twice the distance between the two detectors will drive them $`180^{}`$ out of phase if it travels along the line separating them, but *in* phase if its direction of propagation is perpendicular to this line. Figure 1 shows the overlap reduction functions for several detector pairs of interest.

## 3 Previous Results

The current best upper limit on a SBGW from direct observation with GW detectors is $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(900\mathrm{Hz})60`$ , set by correlating the resonant bar detectors Explorer (in Geneva, Switzerland) and Nautilus (near Rome, Italy).111The same group had previously set a limit of $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(900\mathrm{Hz})100`$ using a single bar detector. A broad-band limit of $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)3\times 10^5`$ was set using a pair of “prototype interferometers” , and more recently an analysis of E7 engineering data from the LLO and LHO sites  set a limit of $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(40\text{}215\mathrm{Hz})7.7\times 10^4`$. Analysis  of LLO and LHO data from LIGO’s first science run (S1) is expected to improve substantially upon this limit.

More stringent upper limits can be set on astrophysical grounds. They are detailed elsewhere , but we mention the bound from big-bang nucleosynthesis, which states that a cosmological SBGW is limited by

$$_{10^8\mathrm{Hz}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{df}{f}h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)10^5.$$
(7)
This broad-band limit tells us that any cosmologically interesting SBGW almost certainly lies several orders of magnitude below the existing limits.

## 4 ALLEGRO-LLO Correlations

Due to the 3000 km distance between the two LIGO detectors, the overlap reduction function (see Fig. 1) limits the range of frequencies at which they are sensitive to a stochastic background. The separation distance is half of a GW wavelength at a frequency of 50 Hz, so the upper end of the frequency range is a few times this. (The lower end of the frequency range is set by the seismic noise in the two detectors.) The ALLEGRO bar detector is far closer to the LIGO Livingston site than the LIGO Hanford site is, with only about 40 km separating the two and a “half-wavelength” frequency of 3750 Hz. Thus the observing geometry for ALLEGRO-LLO allows for observations of correlations out to much higher frequencies. On the other hand, the sensitivity of ALLEGRO (see Fig. 2) is concentrated in two narrow frequency bands in the vicinity of 900 Hz, so correlations between ALLEGRO and LIGO Livingston probe a different part of the frequency domain than correlations between the two LIGO detectors. The major challenge in detecting a SBGW is accounting for the effects of noise which may be correlated between the two detectors. Even in widely separated detectors such as LLO and LHO there may exist correlations (the most obvious example being the due to the power line frequency and its harmonics) which could mimic or mask a real SBGW. With detectors in much closer proximity, such as ALLEGRO and LLO, the problem could potentially be more severe. A method proposed by Lazzarini and Finn  is to rotate the ALLEGRO bar about a vertical axis and measure the cross-correlation for different alignments of the ALLEGRO-LLO pair. Changing the alignment of the bar from one of the interferometer arms to the other changes the sign of the expected correlation due to a SBGW. Thus any correlated noise which is independent of alignment can be removed. Another possibility is to record data with the bar aligned at $`45^{}`$ from the arms where no correlation due to a SBGW is expected. This “off source” measurement gives an uncontaminated estimate of the cross-correlated noise.

### 4.1 LLO-ALLEGRO Coïncidence Operation

The ALLEGRO detector took data during LIGO “E7” Engineering Run that took place from December 2001 to January 2002. In the following section we discuss the initial investigations underway. Following the the E7 run ALLEGRO went off-line for a major upgrade. Beginning in the summer of 2002 a new transducer  was installed which should substantially improve the sensitive bandwidth of the bar detector. Figure 2 shows the projected improvement in bandwidth and sensitivity. The installation was ongoing during the time of the LIGO S1 science run in August-September 2002. Following the installation, a series of cool-down attempts were made. A succession of repairs were done on the vacuum system and a successful cool-down was finally made starting in February 2003. This allowed data to be taken with ALLEGRO during approximately the second half of the LIGO S2 run.

## 5 Investigations with LIGO Engineering Data

From December 28, 2001 to January 14, 2002, LIGO held its seventh Engineering Run (E7), the last engineering run before the start of scientific operation in August 2002. The ALLEGRO detector was in operation for the end of that run. Table 1 summarizes the ALLEGRO data which overlap with science-quality LLO data.

If no excess correlations are found, and we assume that all of the ALLEGRO data have a level of noise given by the solid curve in Fig. 2, and all of the LLO data are of a quality described by , (3) tells us to expect to set an upper limit of around $`1.2\times 10^4`$.222This would actually be better than the limit of $`7.7\times 10^4`$ set in , which is understandable because it involves only one engineering-quality LIGO data stream, while the LLO-LHO analysis involves two. The sensitivity of at both LIGO sites improved markedly between E7 and the science runs.

Analysis of the data described in Table 1 is currently in progress. In the remainder of this section, we outline some of the technical challenges involved in this analysis.

First, the nature of the data recorded is different: LIGO data consists of a real time series $`h_L(t)`$, sampled at 16384 Hz, which is related by a linear transfer function to the gravitational wave strain in the detector. The Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L(f)`$ of this data stream contains frequencies from $`8912`$ Hz to $`8912`$ Hz, although the negative frequency components are all determined by the positive frequency ones. Because the ALLEGRO detector’s sensitivity is confined to a band with $`\mathrm{\Delta }f<f`$, its data stream $`h_A(t)`$ is heterodyned (mixed with an oscillating signal at frequency $`f_H=907`$ Hz) and low-pass filtered (before it is digitized) and then sampled at the reduced rate of 250 Hz. The result is to produce a complex signal $`h_A^H(t)=e^{i2\pi (f_Ht+\varphi _A)}h_A(t)`$ whose Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{h}_A^H(f)\stackrel{~}{h}_A(f_H+f)e^{i2\pi \varphi _A}`$ contains completely independent data at frequencies $`125\mathrm{Hz}<f<125\mathrm{Hz}`$, which are approximations of the Fourier transforms of the data in the original time series between $`(907125)`$ Hz and $`(907+125)`$ Hz.

The initial approach we are taking to correlating these data streams with different sampling frequencies is to heterodyne and resample the LIGO data in software (producing an $`h_L^H(t)=e^{i2\pi (f_Ht+\varphi _L)}h_L(t)`$ whose Fourier transform is $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L^H(f)\stackrel{~}{h}_L(f_H+f)e^{i2\pi \varphi _L}`$) and then correlate it with the ALLEGRO data as though they were any two heterodyned data streams. This requires a certain amount of care, because the phase $`\varphi _L`$ at the start of a stretch of data of the reference oscillator for the LIGO heterodyning is specified (because it’s done in software), while the phase $`\varphi _A`$ of the ALLEGRO reference oscillator is only known if it is experimentally determined. In principle, it is not difficult to keep track of this, but it is also possible to post-process the cross-correlation statistics to account for ignorance of the phase difference $`\varphi _A\varphi _L`$ between the two oscillators.

Additional technical challenges include converting ALLEGRO data into the frame format used by LIGO so that it can be processed by the LIGO Data Analysis System. Fortunately, the LIGO stochastic search codes have been designed with an eye to working on both heterodyned and non-heterodyned data, and the data structures describing site geometry333LAL Software Documentation, version 2.0, Section 9.2; available from  allow for either interferometric or resonant bar detector geometries.

## 6 Future Outlook

The upper limit we expect to set from E7 data is several orders of magnitude above the current direct observational limit at the frequencies in question. But the practical application of the LLO-ALLEGRO cross-correlation method to engineering data will pave the way for future such observations, whose sensitivity is expected to improve for several reasons:

1. Most substantially, the sensitivity of the LLO IFO has already improved markedly and will continue to improve as the instrument approaches its design sensitivity.
2. ALLEGRO’s new transducer will increase the bandwidth of the bar detector (see the dashed curve in Fig. 2).
3. Future observing runs will provide more coïncident data than the 80 hours or so taken during E7.

Assuming a full year of coïncident data in optimal alignment, with LLO operating at design sensitivity and ALLEGRO operating at the sensitivity given by the dashed curve in Fig. 2, we estimate using (3) that an upper limit could be set in the range $`890<f<930`$ of $`h_{100}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{GW}}(f)10^2`$.

We would like to thank everyone at the LIGO and ALLEGRO projects and especially the LSC’s stochastic sources upper limits group. JTW and ISH gratefully acknowledge the University of Texas at Brownsville and Louisiana State University, respectively, where this project was begun. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-9981795 (UTB) and PHY-9970742 (LSU), and by NASA contract JPL1219731 (UTB). Figure 1 was made using the LALApps program library, based on the LAL software library.

## References


text:
# An Unusual Eclipse of a Pre-Main Sequence Star in IC 348

## 1 Introduction

The importance of eclipses in astronomy is well known and includes the opportunity for accurate determination of fundamental stellar parameters, such as masses and radii, as well as the chance to study stellar features (e.g. spots) or circumstellar structures (e.g. gas streams) with high spatial resolution. Unfortunately, very few pre-main sequence (PMS) stars are known to undergo eclipses, perhaps because the requisite edge-on geometry usually results in their being obscured by a circumbinary disk. Exceptions include a few binary stars that are not very close to the birth line, EK Cep (Popper, 1987), TY CrA (Casey et al., 1998) and RXJ 0529.4+0041 (Covino et al., 2000) as well as the unusual, weak-lined T Tauri star (WTTS) KH 15D (Hamilton et al., 2001; Herbst et al., 2002), which is periodically eclipsed by circumstellar matter. Stassun et al. (2002) have very recently discovered one or more additional interesting eclipsing systems in Orion. Some authors argue that the characteristic irregular variability of a class of PMS objects known as UX Orionis stars is also indicative of episodic eclipse events (Grinin, Rostopchina, & Shakhovskoi, 1998), although other interpretations are possible (Herbst & Shevchenko, 1999). Finally, it has recently been proposed that the largely irregular variations of the classical T Tauri star (CTTS) AA Tau may be understood as a result of eclipses by circumstellar matter (Bouvier et al., 1999).

Part of the difficulty in finding, or recognizing, eclipses among PMS systems is that almost all such stars are variable on time scales of hours to days due to the rotation and evolution of their spotted surfaces. Cool spots on WTTS and CTTS, analogous to sunspots but much larger, and hot spots or zones on CTTS due to magnetically channeled accretion are thought to be the principal causes of surface structure (Herbst et al., 1994). Photometric monitoring of PMS stars in nearby young clusters has been carried out at Van Vleck Observatory, on the campus of Wesleyan University, since the mid-1980 s in an effort to elucidate these phenomena and to study stellar rotation. For the past five years, the well-known young cluster IC 348 (Trullols & Jordi, 1997; Herbig, 1998; Luhman et al., 1998, 2003) has been among the targets. Results from the first year of that monitoring effort were presented by Herbst, Maley & Williams (2000) and discussion of the full data set is in preparation (Cohen, Herbst & Williams, 2003). Here we report on one remarkable star.

Analysis of the data during the last four years has revealed a star, TJ 108 = H 187 = LRLL 35 = HMW 15, whose light curve has unique and surprising properties. It appears to be an eclipse, but the duration of the event, about 3.5 years, greatly exceeds that of any known eclipsing system. (The current record for eclipse duration of $``$2 yr is held by $`ϵ`$ Aur, a supergiant that Lissauer et al. (1996) model as being eclipsed by a circumstellar disk surrounding its binary companion.) Because of the unusual nature of this event and its possible importance for studies of star and planet formation, we describe its characteristics in this Letter. Although the current eclipse has ended, it is likely that additional ones will be seen in this star or others similar to it. Such events may be our best current method for finding and characterizing small scale structure in the circumstellar disks of solar-like PMS stars.

## 2 Observations and Results

The photometric monitoring was carried out mostly by undergraduates using a CCD camera attached to the 0.6m Perkin telescope of the Van Vleck Observatory on the campus of Wesleyan University. Typically, we obtained five 1-minute exposures of each field through a Cousins I filter; these were combined into a single image, and flat-fielded with twilight flats. Differential aperture photometry was done with respect to comparison stars on the same frames. Details of these observations and their reduction will be presented by Cohen, Herbst & Williams (2003). Here we note that the differential magnitudes have a precision of $``$0.01 or better. We have transformed the instrumental magnitudes to the standard Cousins system using the procedure outlined by Herbst, Maley & Williams (2000). The adopted transformation between instrumental (i) and standard (I) magnitude was,

$$I=i+0.099(RI)+12.074$$

A data table will be included in the second paper (Cohen, Herbst & Williams, 2003).

The light curve for HMW 15 over five seasons is shown in Fig. 1. It has the general shape exhibited by an eclipsing binary. In particular, one sees a relatively stable star in the first season, which then fades steadily towards minimum light during the second season, shows a flat bottom to the eclipse in the third season, recovers steadily on approximately the same slope in season four and levels off close to its pre-eclipse brightness during the fifth season. A light curve like this would be unremarkable for an eclipsing binary, except that the time scale is astoundingly long — much longer than has ever been seen in any such system.

Available information on HMW 15 from the literature is summarized in Table 1. It appears to be an ordinary late-G or early-K PMS member of IC 348, which has an age of $``$2 Myr (Luhman et al., 2003). Previously published photometry placed it at I=13.02, but Herbig (1998) noted the star as a variable and he and C. Jordi kindly revisited their photometry for us. Herbig measured the star on 22 Nov 1993, 29 Nov 1994 and 21 Oct 1996, to be I = 12.97,13.07 and 13.57, respectively, while Trullols & Jordi measured it on 24 Oct 92 and 9 - 11 Dec. 94 to be I = 13.36 and 12.94, respectively. The 1993 and 1994 measurements are consistent with our out-of-eclipse data, especially considering that at least a small amount of variability is expected for a PMS star of this type due to the usual spottedness of weak-lined T Tauri stars. The Oct 1992 and Oct 1996 data, on the other hand, suggest that the eclipse could be recurrent with a period as short as four years, or that there are additional occultation events (unrelated to the eclipse) affecting the light of this star. One I-band measurement taken during ingress is reported in the literature (Luhman et al. 2003); they find I=13.21, which is roughly consistent with our light curve at that phase (see Fig. 2).

Mean colors from Trullols & Jordi (1997) and Herbig (1998) are given in Table 1 and were based on data obtained in 1993 and 1994, i.e. at maximum light; the out-of-eclipse star has an R-I value of 1.40. We normally observe only in I at VVO, but purely by accident obtained measurements in the R filter on many nights at the end of the third season, while the star was at minimum light. We found a color at minimum light for the star of R-I = 1.57 mag, significantly redder than at maximum. Herbig (private communication) also measured the star to be redder in both B-V (by 0.06 mag) and V-I (by 0.16 mag) during its faint excursion in 1996. It seems clear, therefore, that the star does get redder as it fades, although not as rapidly as one would expect based on an interstellar extinction law (see below).

A range of spectral types (from G8 to K3-K6) has been reported for the star, as summarized in Table 1. Whether this is simply observational scatter or not is unclear. There are other stars in IC 348 with similarly large ranges in spectral type (Luhman et al., 2003) and this may simply reflect the uncertainties of the procedure, especially since different wavelength regions are used by different investigators. Hydrogen lines are in absorption and infrared data (Lada & Lada, 1995) show no evidence for a circumstellar disk around the star. An active optics search for close binary companions by Duchene, Bouvier & Simon (1999) revealed no evidence for a companion within $``$0.25″, corresponding to about 80 AU at the distance of IC 348. Except for its unique light curve, HMW 15 appears to be an ordinary, solar-like PMS member of this extremely young cluster (Luhman et al., 2003).

## 3 Discussion

We consider three possible scenarios to account for the unusual light curve: 1) an ordinary eclipsing binary composed of two PMS stars, 2) a single PMS star eclipsed by a circumstellar or intracluster dust cloud, or feature in a circumstellar disk and 3) a binary system in which one of the stars is eclipsed by an optically thick circumstellar, circumbinary or interstellar cloud or disk feature. While it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion with the evidence currently available our analysis does lead us to favor the third hypothesis and we propose an observational test.

### 3.1 An eclipsing binary model

It is possible to model the observed light curve with a standard eclipsing binary code as included, for example, in the program Binary Maker 2.0 (Bradstreet, 1992). A sophisticated approach is not needed here because effects such as reflection and distortion are negligible. In Fig. 2, we show the best fitting model light curve that could be found, by trial and error; properties of this model are given in Table 1. We have been able to fit rather precisely not only the basic light curve shape, but also the color change at minimum light. Despite its success in explaining the light curve, there is actually little chance that this binary star model could be correct, for the following reason. The orbital velocity required to explain such a long duration for the eclipse in this scenario would need to be extremely small, namely $``$0.05 km/s. Taking the masses of the components to be $``$1 M this in turn would indicate a period for the orbit of about 200 Myr and a separation of $``$350,000 AU. Only one observer in $``$1012 would be in the proper location to ever see an eclipse of this model system and it would only be seen during one part in 108 of each cycle. Roughly speaking, we would have had to monitor $``$1017 more stars than we did to have a reasonable chance of seeing such an eclipse.

### 3.2 Eclipse of a single star by a circumstellar or intracluster cloud

It seems clear that, in this case, the eclipsing object must be much more extended than a star. It must be a circumstellar or circumbinary cloud or disk feature, or an interstellar cloud, possibly itself within the cluster. This would naturally account for the fact that a discovery like this is made in a star forming region, where such clouds are known to be ubiquitous. Since there is no evidence that HMW 15 is a binary star, we consider first that its fading is caused by a cloud or disk feature crossing our line of sight to a single star. Since the star does not completely disappear, we can conclude immediately that the occulting matter is either optically thin or covers only a portion of the star. The fact that the system reddens as it fades allows us to eliminate a purely optical thick model, which would predict little, if any, color change.

In the optically thin model, the reddening observed during eclipse must be caused by selective extinction, which is what one would naturally expect from dust. We can compare the color change during eclipse to expectation based on an interstellar reddening law. Our data indicate

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(RI)}{\mathrm{\Delta }I}=\frac{0.17}{0.66}=0.26\pm 0.04$$

for the ratio of the color to magnitude change during eclipse. This may be compared with expectation based on a normal interstellar extinction law, E(R-I)/AI= 0.39. At about the 3$`\sigma `$ level, we find that the color change observed is smaller than would be expected if the eclipse were caused by dust with a normal extinction law. This may mean that the dust grains are typically larger than those in the interstellar medium (perhaps implying grain growth in a circumstellar disk) or that the model of eclipse of a single star by an optically thin dust concentration is incorrect. It is interesting to note that Herbig’s (private communication) single observation of the star in a faint state also yields a much smaller color change than would be expected if one were observing the effects of a passing cloud of normal interstellar dust. He found $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V/ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(B-V) = 11.7, rather than the usual 3.1. The flat bottom and symmetry of the light curve also argue against a partially transparent cloud model and lead us to propose an alternative, which is something of a hybrid.

### 3.3 Eclipse of one component of a binary star by an optically thick cloud

Suppose that HMW 15 is indeed a binary star and that one component is eclipsed, not by its companion star, but by an essentially opaque circumstellar, circumbinary or interstellar cloud or disk feature. In this case, we would expect to see a light curve nearly identical to that modeled in Fig. 2 and a color change consistent with our observations. We propose this scenario as, perhaps, the most attractive way to understand all of the currently available data. While the precise shape of the edge of the cloud or disk feature and its opacity structure would define the light curve in detail, it will approximately follow the curve defined by the binary model assuming that the feature is quite large and rather sharp-edged. As Fig. 2 shows, this is an excellent fit to our I photometry and the color change during eclipse is explained by the disappearance of light from the bluer component.

The basic geometry of this class of models is similar to what has been proposed for KH 15D by Herbst et al. (2002). A sharp-edged, opaque cloud gradually occults a star due to their relative motions. From the light curve, we can measure tin, the time for the cloud to completely cover the star, which is $``$300 days in the case of HMW 15. Coupled with the inferred radius of the star (from its luminosity and effective temperature), we find that the occulting edge crosses the star at the remarkably slow speed of only 50 m s-1. This, of course, is the component of the velocity of the cloud that is perpendicular to the (assumed straight) edge that it defines on the star’s photosphere. (See Fig. 4 of Herbst et al. (2002) for a sketch of how this might appear to an observer.)

As illustrations of the concept, we consider two specific models of this class, one in which the occulting edge is a circumbinary disk and one in which it is a circumstellar disk. In both cases we assume that the components are a G8 and K4 star with properties based on the eclipsing binary model and that the more massive (bluer) star is eclipsed. We adopt masses of 1 M and 0.5 M, respectively. For the first example, we assume an orbital period of 4 years (since there is some evidence that the eclipses might recur on that time scale) and a circumbinary disk which may extend to hundreds of AU. To see an eclipse, we must assume that this system is viewed nearly edge-on and that the occulting cloud (the edge of the circumbinary disk, in this scenario) crosses a portion of the orbit of one star. This is easily accomplished if there is a slight angle between the plane of the binary orbit and the top edge of the opaque disk. The required angle of inclination (i) is given by

$$tan(i)=\frac{2R}{vt_{in}}=\frac{0.05}{v(kms^1)}$$

where R is the stellar radius, v is the orbital speed of the eclipsed star and tin is the ingress time. For the model under discussion, v is $``$7.5 km s-1 so i is $``$0.4$`\mathrm{°}`$. This small angle could easily arise as an inclination of the binary plane to the disk plane.

Another possible scenario involves eclipse of one component of a binary by the circumstellar disk around its companion. For definiteness, we again consider a 1 M and a 0.5 M star, this time separated by 100 AU and having individual circumstellar disks. In this case, the orbital speed of the more massive star is $``$1 km s-1, so the required inclination angle is $``$3$`\mathrm{°}`$. Again, this seems quite reasonable dynamically and is not in conflict with observational evidence (Jensen, Donar & Mathieu, 2000). In this model one would not expect the eclipses to be periodic on any short time scale, but there could be other occultation events, assuming the edge of the disk is not perfectly straight or homogenous.

We emphasize that these two particular examples do not exhaust the possibilities. All that is required is a foreground, sharp-edged cloud which is properly oriented with respect to the orbit of the bluer star. Many scenarios are possible to account for the existence of such a cloud. Before exploring this issue in detail, it is imperative to test the basic idea by determining whether HMW 15 is, indeed, a binary star. Fortunately, it should be rather easy to determine that, since it would need to have components of comparable brightness (out of eclipse). The color and spectral data suggest a G8 + K4 system. High resolution spectroscopy should be able to reveal whether this star is, indeed, a binary system, since the spectrum should appear composite near maximum light. There may also be detectable radial velocity differences between the components, depending on their separation and the phase of the orbit. The experiment should be carried out as soon as possible, while the star is near maximum light, since it is possible that it will begin to fade again almost immediately.

To summarize, we have detected an apparent eclipse of the G8-K6 PMS star HMW 15 in IC 348 which lasts about 3.5 years, much longer than any other known eclipse. Analysis of the light curve and other data indicates that there is essentially no chance that this is a normal, eclipsing binary star with two PMS components. If the star is single, then it was eclipsed by an optically thin circumstellar or interstellar dust cloud or disk feature. In this case it is hard to understand the flat bottom to the light curve and the color changes, which do not match a normal interstellar reddening law. A currently more attractive hypothesis is that the star is a binary system in which the bluer component was eclipsed by a circumstellar or circumbinary cloud or disk feature. This can be tested by high resolution spectroscopy of the system while it is in its bright state. Along with KH 15D, this object may be a member of small, but important, class of PMS stars whose variability results from eclipses by matter within their circumstellar (or circumbinary) disks.

We thank G. Herbig and C. Jordi for kindly providing us with details of their photometry of IC 348, some of it a decade old. We also thank K. Luhman for examining his WFPC images of the field, on which the star is unfortunately saturated. Finally, we thank the many Wesleyan students who contributed to this project by obtaining the data. This research was supported by NASA through its Origins of Solar Systems program.