Problems of the rotating-torsion-balance limit on the photon mass

We discuss the problems (and the promise) of the ingenious method introduced by Lakes, and recently improved on by Luo, to detect a possible small photon mass $\mu$ by measuring the ambient magnetic vector potential from large scale magnetic fields. We also point out how an improved ``indirect'' limit can be obtained using modern measurements of astrophysical magnetic fields and plasmas and that a good ``direct'' limit exists using properties of the solar wind.Comment: 4 pages, revised title and content

Local Casimir Energy For Solitons

Direct calculation of the one-loop contributions to the energy density of bosonic and supersymmetric phi-to-the-fourth kinks exhibits: (1) Local mode regularization. Requiring the mode density in the kink and the trivial sectors to be equal at each point in space yields the anomalous part of the energy density. (2) Phase space factorization. A striking position-momentum factorization for reflectionless potentials gives the non-anomalous energy density a simple relation to that for the bound state. For the supersymmetric kink, our expression for the energy density (both the anomalous and non-anomalous parts) agrees with the published central charge density, whose anomalous part we also compute directly by point-splitting regularization. Finally we show that, for a scalar field with arbitrary scalar background potential in one space dimension, point-splitting regularization implies local mode regularization of the Casimir energy density.Comment: 18 pages. Numerous new clarifications and additions, of which the most important may be the direct derivation of local mode regularization from point-splitting regularization for the bosonic kink in 1+1 dimension

Diversity of Decline-Rate-Corrected Type Ia Supernova Rise Times: One Mode or Two?

B-band light-curve rise times for eight unusually well-observed nearby Type Ia supernovae (SNe) are fitted by a newly developed template-building algorithm, using light-curve functions that are smooth, flexible, and free of potential bias from externally derived templates and other prior assumptions. From the available literature, photometric BVRI data collected over many months, including the earliest points, are reconciled, combined, and fitted to a unique time of explosion for each SN. On average, after they are corrected for light-curve decline rate, three SNe rise in 18.81 +- 0.36 days, while five SNe rise in 16.64 +- 0.21 days. If all eight SNe are sampled from a single parent population (a hypothesis not favored by statistical tests), the rms intrinsic scatter of the decline-rate-corrected SN rise time is 0.96 +0.52 -0.25 days -- a first measurement of this dispersion. The corresponding global mean rise time is 17.44 +- 0.39 days, where the uncertainty is dominated by intrinsic variance. This value is ~2 days shorter than two published averages that nominally are twice as precise, though also based on small samples. When comparing high-z to low-z SN luminosities for determining cosmological parameters, bias can be introduced by use of a light-curve template with an unrealistic rise time. If the period over which light curves are sampled depends on z in a manner typical of current search and measurement strategies, a two-day discrepancy in template rise time can bias the luminosity comparison by ~0.03 magnitudes.Comment: As accepted by The Astrophysical Journal; 15 pages, 6 figures, 2 tables. Explanatory material rearranged and enhanced; Fig. 4 reformatte

A Preliminary Indication of Evolution of Type Ia Supernovae from their Risetimes

We have compared the risetime for samples of nearby and high-redshift type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). The fiducial risetime of the nearby SNe Ia is 2.5+/-0.4 days longer than the proemial risetime determined by Goldhaber (1998a,b) for high-redshift SNe Ia from the Supernova Cosmology Project. The statistical likelihood that the two samples have different fiducial risetimes is high (5.8 sigma) and indicates possible evolution between the samples of SNe Ia. We consider the likely effects of several sources of systematic error, but none of these resolves the difference in the risetimes. Currently, we cannot directly determine the impact of the apparent evolution on previous determinations of cosmological parameters.Comment: Accepted by the Astronomical Journal, 11 pages, 5 figure