The following is a paper (one of many) written by
Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft:


THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

[Published in SCIENCE, Volume 94, No. 2436]


Not only electric current but also magnetic currents
flow through the universe.

I reached this conclusion by consecutive and persistent
observation of single submicroscopic particles suspended
in gases.(^1) Using this method in my small condenser,
I can measure forces of an order of magnitude down to
10^-10 dynes. Therefore, my measurement of forces is more
sensitive by the factor of 10^4 than any direct measure-
ments of forces made so far. I was able to find new facts
because methods of the highest possible sensitivity were
used.

These observations can be summed up in two sentences:

(1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED
BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS
MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE.

(Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have
therefore concluded that these particles are charged under
the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but
also magnetic charges.

(2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE
SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE
LIGHT.

I called the movement away from the light, lightpositive,
and that toward the light, lightnegative longitudinal
photophoresis.(^2) I have therefore concluded that the
light beam has potential differences along its propagation
which cause the particles on which charges are induced to
move in or against the direction of propagation. To the
well-known oscillating fields in the beam of light have to
be added these stationary electric and magnetic fields.

Before such fundamental conclusions can be drawn, one
must first see if there is no other explanation possible
in accord with existing theories. Working for decades on
the experiments and their interpretation, I was forced to
believe that only such an electromagnetic interpretation
can be in accordance with all observable facts.

Heat or mechanical effects --- so-called radiometer
forces (Crookes) --- cannot account for these phenomena
for the following reason: There is a photophoretic force
in liquids which is of the same order of magnitude as in
gases, although no radiometer forces exist in liquids.
Silver or copper particles in gases which are reflecting
strongly exhibit a tremendous lightnegative movement,
though they ought to be most heated on the side toward the
light, and one would expect a movement away from the light.
It seems impossible to explain the reversibility of the
particles with corresponding reversals of the field. The
energy of the fields alone is responsible for the
orientation of the particles and is a quadratic function
of the potentials. One therefore should not expect a
change of direction in the motion of uncharged particles
if the field is reversed.

Were the movement due to heating effects, one could not
explain why the particles move across and along the inner
part of the beam instead of going entirely out of it. It
would also seem strange that the movement of nickel
particles under the influence of the geomagnetic field, as
it was observed in my Institute in Vienna, Austria, could
be compensated by a superposed magnetic field of about 0.4
gauss.

Furthermore, the movement of the particles always
follows the lines of force, no matter from which direction
the light may come. This would be impossible if the
movement were due to heating effects. That some particles
start to move suddenly from rest, that the photophoretic
movement suddenly disappears and sometimes increases or
decreases gradually, and many other observations cannot be
explained by mechanical or heat effects.

When I came to the conclusion that there are single
magnetic poles (magnetic charges), it was therefore not
necessary to ask if this agreed with existing theories,
but rather whether there are any experimental facts that
contradict it. It can be stated here that so far there are
no experimental facts which contradict this conclusion of
the existence of single magnetic poles. A study of the
literature made with Leo Banet showed the following
situation:

It has been the predominating opinion up to the present
time that a real quantity of positive or negative
electricity can be enclosed within an arbitrarily chosen
geometric surface. But no matter how the surface is chosen,
it will always enclose the same amount of south and north
magnetism. In other words, there are true quantities of
electricity of either sign, but no true magnetic ones.
This statement has been made quite clearly by James Clerk
Maxwell in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism."
Maxwell tried to prove that there was no such thing as
true magnetism. May I remind you here that in principio
it is impossible to prove from experiments that something
is non-existent. Furthermore, the two experiments which
Maxwell quotes are not conclusive:

The first one states that a broken magnet gives two
entire magnets with equal poles. If a non-magnetic piece
of iron is broken, it can be observed that the fragments
become magnetized in various ways on the broken ends. The
effect is the same when a non-electrically charged glass
or sulphur rod is broken, and shows at the ends various
kinds of electric charges. This phenomenon is easily
explained, since each breaking creates constriction. Each
constriction, however, creates electricity and magnetism.
The breaking experiment therefore, does not prove that
true magnetism does not exist, as Maxwell stated.

The second experiment, which probably originated with
the ancient Chinese and is quoted by P. Peregrinus
(anno 1269), indicates that a magnet floating upon water
directs itself, but does not move. From this has been
concluded that the amount of north and south magnetism is
equal in each magnet. It is easy to perceive that the
mobility of such a big floating magnet is much too small
to show slight differences of charge. The particles on
which my observations were made have a mobility a million
times greater than that of the floating magnet of
Peregrinus. Such particles irradiated with light move in
a homogeneous magnetic field in the lines of force. Thus
my sensitive experiment gives evidence of the existence of
true magnetism. In other words, the Peregrini-Maxwell
experiment turns out to be positive in my small condenser,
when light is used.

My interpretation not only explains all observations
in a rather simple manner, but also makes a number of new
conclusions possible. One of these is that light
magnetizes matter. Leo Banet and I succeeded in
magnetizing small pieces of iron by means of irradiation
with ultraviolet rays. Lilly Rona has expressed the idea
that, concluding from these experiments, it should be
possible to extract electricity from the beam of light
originating from these stationary components. I believe
that she is right, and that it could be done without the
use of the photoelectric effect, that means with
deteriorating and decomposing matter itself.

Under the influence of the light, matter coagulates
more readily because of the induced poles (charges).
Sometimes the light separates amorphous and crystalline
particles, and sometimes it makes crystals grow toward it
(heliotropism of crystals).

Light causes irregularities in Brownian movement and
therefore also in diffusion because of photophoresis.

Light causes ponderomotive forces to act upon matter
apart from the effects of the light pressure. These
ponderomotive forces are produced by the stationary
components and induced charges. The latter have attracting
or repelling effects.

I determined the magnitude of the charge of the
magnetic ion and found it to be of the same order of
magnitude as the electric one.

A new phenomenon which I called the trembling effect
found a simple explanation, the frequent change of the
magnetic charge occurring predominantly in weak magnetic
fields in the beam of light.

Leo Banet has drawn important conclusions in regard to
the effects on the sun and the earth that will be
described in another paper.

Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.
We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges,
which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against
the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed
directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to
deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical
sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric
field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a
medium conducting magnetism.

I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes
or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at
the same time.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft

New York, N.Y.

(^1) F. Ehrenhaft, Annalen der Physik, 56: 81, 1918;
Philo. Mag.,11: 141,1931; Annales de Physique, (Paris) 13:
151, 1940; Phys. Rev., 57: 562 and 659, 1940; Jour.
Franklin Inst., 230, 381, 1940; Nature, 147: 25, January
4, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft and L. Banet, Nature, 147: 297,
March 8, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft, Philosophy of Science, 8,
No. 3, 1941, "The Microcoulomb Experiment" (charges
smaller than the electronic charge), see p. 36; F.
Ehrenhaft and Leo Banet, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3,
1941. The older references about photophoresis are given
in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,
1940.

(2^) I have constructed the apparatus on which the above-
mentioned phenomena could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New
York. Descriptions of the apparatus and of the experiments
are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,1940.

__________________________________________________________


FURTHER FACTS CONCERNING THE MAGNETIC CURRENT

Published in the Journal of the American Physical Society


The hypothesis of the electric current was founded
chiefly upon three facts: The existence of electric ions,
the decomposition of water (electrolysis), the circulation
of the single magnetic pole around the constant electric
current. Now those three facts have been observed in
magnetism as well: the existence of magnetic ions, the
decomposition of water through the magnet (magnetolysis),
the circulation of a single electrostatic charge around
the constant magnetic current.

In the microscope one observes that different gas
bubbles as well as solid particles move in circles around
the axis of the magnet simultaneously in opposite
directions. Each of them reverses its direction of motion
with the reversal of the magnetic field. The bodies carry
positive or negative electrostatic charges. The existing
laws of electrodynamics (Biot-Savart, H.A. Lorentz) cannot
explain the new facts because the electrostatic charges in
question are resting ones, etc. Just as the line integral
of the magnetic force defines the intensity of the
electric current (Ch. Oersted, A. M. Ampere), the line
integral of the electric force defines the intensity of
the magnetic current. Electricity and magnetism represent
an indivisible union, reaching far above the union
established by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.

The electrodynamic equations must be extended to
include the term of magnetic current. These theses will
be illustrated by microphotographs of the experiments.*

*The experiments could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc.,
New York City.

Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.


See also: Physical Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 9 and 10, May 1
and 15, 1944, page 287 for letter entitled, "The
Decomposition of Water by the So-Called Permanent Magnet
and the Measurement of the Intensity of the Magnetic
Current" by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft.

See also: "Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and
Their Importance for Science" --- Ten Lectures delivered
at the University of Vienna during the summer semester of
1947 by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, U.S. Visiting Professor

[compiled with the assistance of Professor Ehrenhaft, and
Dr. Schedling, by J. Ferber and P.K. Feyerabend].

See also: Lectures delivered in 1949 at the European Forum
Alpbach by Felix Ehrenhaft, Karl Popper, Rosenfeld, M.H.L.
Pryce, Max Hartmann, Duncan Sandys, Von Hayek, and Hans
Thirring.