A norm based on the eigenvalues of 3D complex and circular numbers.

Ah, finally it is finished. This work grew longer than expected but with a bit of hindsight that is also logical: for example I spell out in detail once more how to find the eigenvalue functions for a arbitrary number X. After all that is an important detail so it is worth repeating. But I skipped the proces of diagonalization because we do not need it in this post.
Yet if you teach math and the time has come to do the complex number stuff, you could show the students how to diagonalize the complex multiplication for numbers from the complex plane. Most of the time students only diagonalize just one matrix with some numbers in it and that’s all, they never diagonalize an entire family of matrices. So that is why that would be useful, on the other hand the eigenvalues for a number z from the complex plane is z itself and it’s conjugate… And say for yourself: diagonalizing a number z so that later you must multiply the eigenvalues (also z) is very useless, as a matter of fact it is hard to find anything that is more useless… And once you have explained that diag stuff is usefull and utterly un-usefull at the same time, you can point to the live of the average math professor: also utterly useless…

Of course in higher dimensions the proces of diagonalization is very handy because it gives you for example a way of calculating the logarithm of higher dimensional numbers. And that way can be used in any dimension while all other methods for finding a logarithm get more and more difficult (as far as I know).

In this post I also worked out in detail what the eigenvalues of non-invertible numbers are; the non zero numbers with a determinant of zero have at least one eigenvalue being zero. I calcualted the eigenvalues for the numbers tau and alpha for both the complex and circular 3D multiplication.

This is post number 150 so all in all on average I write just about 30 posts a year. That is a cost of about 2ÔéČ per post… ­čśë Luckily this hobby of 3D complex numbers is a rather cheap hobby while at the same time it keeps the mind sharp. A disadvantage is that if it takes me just 5 or 10 minutes to do some calculations with pencil and paper, it often takes 5 to 10 hours before it is turned into a post that is more or less readable for other people… And that is something I value highly; so often you come across sloppy explanations that are not carfully thought through. I don’t like that.

Originally I prepared 10 pictures to write the post on but I had so much text that I started expanding those pictures and in the end I made an 11-th picture to get it all on. So I just expanded those pictures to make the text fit more or less precise of most of them have weird sizes. May be it is better to just stick to the size of 550×775 pixels and just make more of them if needed and not this chaotic expansion on the fly.
Ok, here we go:

I expect that when you made it this far, you already know what the Cauchy/Schwarz inequality is. But in case you never heard of it, please try to understand that beautiful but very simple inequality. Here is a wiki: Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality. Link used: https://brilliant.org/wiki/cauchy-schwarz-inequality/

Ok, this is more or less what I had to say on the subject of crafting a norm from eigenvalues. Don┬┤t forget in the complex plane the square of the norm is also the product of the eigenvalues of a complex number z. So for centuries the math professors are already doing this although I do not think they are aware that they use a product of eigenvalues. For them likely it is just some stuff that is ┬┤Just like Pythagoras┬┤.

End of this post.

TU Delft guy claiming the electron pair is in a super position…

I am working in the kitchen cutting the vegetables, cleaning them etc etc. It is a beautiful Spring day. In the living room the smart television stands on Youtube and it jumps to the next video on auto play. And oh no, it is that Delft weirdo again and he thinks that all kinds of things can be in a super position without offfering the tiniest experimental evidence. And why not, he always comes away with it. His name is Leo Kouwenhoven and he is a physics professor at the Delft university.
A tiny piece of my freshly cut vegetables falls to the floor, is that a sign of God? What to do my dear God? Select another video or listen to that crap again? I decide to listen to that crap again and why not make a new post of it? After all the way I view electron spin is just so different from what the Leo’s of this world make of it. In my view the electron pair in chemistry (and super conductivity) exists because electrons are magnetic monopoles and that is why they like to pair up. People like Leo think electrons pair up because they are in a super position.
So as a reader you have something to choose; it just cannot be more different as this…

Let me write a parody on this super position nonsense, here we go:

Atomic hydrogen consists of two particles that, when measured, have an electric charge. Here I have an apparatus that can measure the electric charge of one of those particles that make up atomic hydrogen. Fifty percent of the time it measures a positive electric charge and fifty percent of the time on average it says the measurement is a negative electric charge. So the probability of measuring a positive or negative electric charge is 50%. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, before a measurement is done those two particles are always in a super position. Only when you measure one of them, the electric charge of the other becomes instantly clear. If I separate the two particles in atomic hydrogen and bring one particle to another galaxy and I measure the particle that was left behind, say it is negative, in that case the other particle instantly becomes positive. That is quantum teleportation.

So far for this simple parody. Do you think the electron and the proton are in a super position or are it the so called Coulomb forces that held them together? Anyway, below you will find the video that right now is over four years old. Of course at present day in 2020 the Delft guys still have nothing to show when it comes to quantum computing and in my view that is not much of a miracle…

Leo is also known as the man of 40 million because Microsoft has invested 40 million US$ into the Delft way of making quantum computers (that is with Majorana fermions, these fermions are made of electrons and holes and supposedly they are their own anti-particle). I don’t think it will ever work but later it will be a good joke: Remeber the time Microsoft invested 40 million US$ in particles that are their own anti-particle?

So far for this kind of nonsense, in another development I am still working on the next math post upon a norm based on the eigenvalues that 3D complex and circular numbers have. Next week it should be ready to post it. In case you are interested, try to look for those so called eigenvalue functions in previous posts. In 3D (complex or circular number space) you have three of them and if you take an arbitrary number X, with these easy functions you can calculate the eigenvalues with two fingers in your nose. Below you see already what the basic idea is:

Ok, that was it for this small post upon magnetism. Thanks for your attention and till next week or so.

The RI has a new video on magnetic monopoles.

Yesterday all of a sudden there was a new video upon magnetic monopoles; naive & dumb as I was I only thought ‘Great may be I can learn something new!’ and I started watching.

The video from the Royal Institution is entertaining and as such not boring to watch. But for me there was nothing new to learn, so I started thinking about why this guy Felex Flicker behaves the way he does. After all he is a scientist and given the fact that physics is a so called ‘hard science’ all claims made should be backed up by experiments. Yet this Felix guy when he claims that magnetic domains in metals and electrons are magnetic dipoles, there is once more zero mentioning of any experimental evidence.

Compare that for example to how at CERN they study anti matter. From positrons and anti-protons they managed to make a bit of anti hydrogen. And they do as much experiments with it as possible and try to find out it ther properties of anti hydrogen are such as expected. And that is the way it should be, that is what I view as standard behaviour for a hard science. But for electrons they never ever even tried it. Over the years I have made a long list of troubles with the electron as a magnetic dipole. I can’t name them all here of course so let me pick up just one detail:

If electrons are magnetic dipoles, why do we only observe electron pairs (and unpaired electrons) but never larger structures?

Here you see the new Brexit style in UK clothing, it looks great:

Take for example atomic and molecular hydrogen, there is only stuff with an unpaired electron (atomic hydrogen) and stuff with an electron pair (the molecular version of hydrogen) and nothing else. That kind of behavior is not what one should expect if the electron was a magnetic dipole… Electrons never behave like the bar magnets in the next picture:

May be I should have formulated this a bit less rude. It is not personel or so.

My dear RI folks, it is in so many ways not logical that electrons are magnetic dipoles. So I more or less only wonder that psychological stuff: why do the professors behave like they do? Ok, most of the time it is bad for your carreer to go against the insights as shared in the group, but this electron stuff you tell is just not logical. And, in my view, more logic is found when you think of electrons as having a magnetic charge.

Enough of my preaching, here is the video:

This guy hangs together from electron pair bindings,
why only electron pairs?

Let me leave it with that. Likely in the next post I will show a new way of taking a norm in the 3D complex and circular numbers. It is all based on eigen values, for the 3D numbers you can make a norm out of the eigen values while for general matrices you can’t.

Hurray! Nuclear electric resonance found.

Always when physics people explain stuff like nuclear magnetic resonance and it’s cousin electron resonance, it is always explained in terms of alignment of the particle spin with the applied external magnetic field. In my view that is a bizarre explanation because that would cause hardly any acceleration of the nuclei and electrons, so how can that give some measureable em radiation?

Yet in medical applications like MRI there is plenty of em radiation to make an image from. Where does that come from? In my view where particles like electrons and protons carry magnetic charge and as such are all magnetic monopoles, the resonance works because there is actually something resonating… It must look a lot like harmonic resonance or like a mass on a spring if you want. Basically it should not make much of a difference if you use oscillating magnetic fields or an oscillating electric field. Ok, in practice like medical MRI scanning I don’t think you can use electric fields because most atoms and molecules in your body are not ions, that is they are neutral under electric fields oscillating or not.

To my surprise in a video about a so called ‘Breakthrough in quantum computing’ all of a sudden the concept of nuclear electric resonance came along. Ok, it was on the Youtube channel named Seeker, so often it is not carefully thought through, but anyway. it might be Seeker but the concept of nuclear electric resonance should have large similarities with nuclear magnetic resonance if my idea’s upon magnetic charge are correct…

Let us take the time and look at a few screen shots I made from that Seeker video:

Wow man, NER instead of NMR?

At some points in time the video will get highly confusing, after all it is the Seeker channel combined with the insights of that Australian team trying to make quantum computer with qbits made from magnetic spins. Of course that is not going to work because if permanent magnetism is a charge you just cannot make a super position of it. So if I am right, all those kind of quantum computer will never work. Let’s go to the next screen shot:

This is the confusing part: Electricity makes the magnetic moment wiggle.

Of course this fantastic part of the video is inspired by how the university people explain magnetic resonance. If you view the video below, please remark there likely is no arrow of a magnetic dipole anyway.

It has to be remarked however that atomic nuclei can have many protons and neutrons and as such all kinds of magnetic configurations should be possible. Next screen shot:

These people are experts in understanding the electron pair.

The guy on the left, I don’t know his name, explains the electron pair as next: These two electrons are in a superposition of spin up and spin down. It is just like man and wife, there are two persons but you do not know if it is the man or the wife. Only when you make a measurement on one of the electrons, you instantly know the spin state of the other electron…

Don’t forget those people from blah blah land have zero experimental evidence for the electron being a magnetic dipole. After having said that, why not go to the next screen shot?

I never ever heard of this guy, but he was Dutch so shame on me.

You should not feel much pity for Mr. Bloembergen. After all he got a Nobel prize so he died while still having plenty of money. You are looking only at an old photograph of just one more perfumed prince. Also, Nobel prize or not, it’s just another perfumed human being not understanding it is impossible for the electrons to have two magnetic poles.

After so many screenshots, enjoy the deep thinking as in the next Youtube video:

Every year we have quantum breakthroughs but never a real computer.

Before we split I want to link to a few experiments that I posted on the other website on 11 May. One of those experiments is completely undoable, the second requires a lot of work because there a beam of electrons should get split in half in a cyclotron. The third experiment is showing that magnetic domains always have surplusses of either north pole or south pole electrons. That is stuff I cannot do myself in my kitchen, garden or living room. The likelihood that someone else will pick that up in the next 10 years is relatively low, it is a wild guess but at best it will be something like 1% to at most 4 or 5%.
As you see my expectations are not very high. Say for yourself: how likely is it that an article about an experiment that validates the magnetic monopole character of electrons passes the peer review process?
That is not very high… Ok, end of this post; live well and think well.

Calculation of the circular exponential circle via ‘first principles’.

Oh oh, this is one of those posts where I only calculate in the 3D circular numbers while I classify it as 3D complex numbers. In the past when I made those categories on this website I did not want to have too many categories so that is why I only have 3D complex numbers as a category.

All in all this post (number 146 already) is not extremely important because over the years I have given many proofs that the parametrization for the exponential circle indeed fulfills all those equations like the sphere-cone equation of the fact the determinant is always one. On the other hand, if you have an important mathematical object like the exponential circles, it is always good to have as many proofs as possible. Just like there are many proofs for the theorem of Pythagoras, it would be strange if we only had one proof and nobody cares about more proofs to that theorem that more or less the central to a giant mountain of math.

What do I mean with ‘first principles’? Very simple: that is the summation formula for the exponent of a linear operator or the matrix exponential if you want. In this post I use a somehow slightly different number tau; I use a number tau that gives a period of 2 pi for the exponential circle. The reason is simple: that makes the long calculation much more readable.

Another thing I want to mention is that the long calculation is nine lines long. For myself when I read the works of other people I do not like it if calculations go on and on and on. I always try to avoid too long calculations or I just don’t write posts about them. Almost nobody reads the stuff it it’s too long and gets too complicated so most of the time I simply skip that. Beside that there is always 0% feedback from the mathematical community, so although I always year in year out try to keep it so simple that even math professors can understand it, nothing happens. Just nothing, so after all those years it is not much of a miracle I don’t want to engage with these overpaid weirdo’s at all. Likely if you are born stupid you will die stupid & I have nothing to do with that. Mathematics is not a science that is capable of cleaning itself up, the weirdo’s keep on hanging to their fantastic quaternions and their retarded ideas of what numbers & complex numbers are. Too much money and too much academic titles have not lead to a situation where the science of math is capable of cleaning itself when needed.

Enough of the blah blah blah, after all the physics professors have the same with their electron spin: where is your experimental proof that the electron is a magnetic dipole? For over five years nothing happens except a lot of weird stuff like quantum computers based on electron spin…

This post is five pictures long, for me it was cute to see how those three cosine functions slowly rise from the start of the long calculation. Also of importance is to notice that I had to use the simple formula for cos(a + b) = cos(a)cos(b) – sin(a)sin(b) that comes from the exponential circle in the complex plane. Just once more showing that 3D complex & circular numbers are indeed emerging from the 2D complex plane. Not that the math professional will react, but anyway…

Let’s go to the five pictures:

I think you must calculate them for yourself, grab a pencil and some paper and use the
fact that the circular multiplication uses j to the third power is 1.

Again, this is not a ┬┤very important┬┤ post. Given all those results and proofs from the past it is logical such a long calculation has to exist. It┬┤s relevance lies in the fact you simply cannot have enough proofs for the calculation of parametrizations of the 3D exponential circle.

Let me leave it with that. See you in the next post.

Three video’s for killing the time if needed.

This time a somewhat different post, just 3 video’s I thought are interesting to share for their own reasons. In the first video the American television physics professor Brian Greene goes beserk on the beauty of the exponential circle in the complex plane… Brian, like so many others, do not know what they are missing. So many spaces have exponential circles and curves and indeed they are beautiful.

The second video is about a question that is often asked: Is math invented or is it a discovery? I think this is a false way of looking at math, if you replace the word ‘math’ by ‘food’ you already understand this is a weird question: Is food invented or is it discovered? In my view that often goes hand in hand but opinions vary wildly on this subject. The video is an interview with the UK math professor Roger Penrose. I included this video because back in the 80-ties of the previous century Roger had written some books on the things known as spinors. A lot of so called scientists think that spinors have something to do with electron spin, there are even weirdo’s that think after the electron has encircled the nucleus once it’s spin state is altered so that after two rounds the electron has it’s original spin back… Oh oh for people like Roger and those others it will be a long way in understanding the electron cannot be a magnetic dipole. In all ways possible that is not logical. For example the unpaired electron is not magnetically neutral while the electron pair is. And there are a whole lot more examples to be given showing electrons simply can’t be magnetic dipoles. And you only have to use the thing called logic for that; no weird quantum mechanical stuff but just a magnetic charge on the electron gives much better results if you use the thing called logic.

The third video is about a weird line of reasoning that I have observed in many video’s. It is about explaining how those jets form that emerge from black holes and their accredion disks. The reasoning is that the plasma in the accretion disk goes around the black hole and if a charge goes round it produces a magnetic field & that is all explanation given always. That is nonsense of course, even spinning metals like when you are drilling a hole with your drill machine never produces a magnetic field because for every electron that goes round on average also a proton goes round and all in all there is no overall magnetic field created. But if the electrons are magnetic monopoles, they will have much more acceleration compared to the far more heavy protons and as such an accretion disk around a black hole should be positively charged all of the time and that explains why the magnetic fields are so strong over there.

Ok, I crafted 8 pictures from the stuff. For example I made a 4D generalization of the 3D outer product while explaining such math is an invention and not a discovery. After the 8 pictures I will post the three video’s that aroused my attention for one reason or another. Have fun reading it.

The link to Reason 82 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles is
08 Feb 2020: Reason 82: More on solar flares.
http://kinkytshirts.nl/rootdirectory/just_some_math/monopole_magnetic_stuff05.htm#08Feb2020

And here are the three Youtubers to kill the time.

Ok, let┬┤s try to upload this bunch of stuff and see what happens.

Integration on the complex and circular 3D number spaces.

A lot of math professionals rather likely still think that 3D complex numbers do not exist, may be for reasons like there are non-invertible numbers or whatever what other reason they have. This post more or less proved such views are nonsense; for example a lot of math on the 2D complex plane does not rely on the fact it is a field (and as such only division by zero is forbidden).

But on the 3D complex and circular number spaces indeed it brings some complications if you have non-invertible numbers in the function you want to integrate over a particular curve. And I have to say that problem could be solved by using the special properties that those numbers have. In this post I only show some examples with the non-invertible number alpha (alpha is the midpoint of the 3D exponential circles and all multiples of alpha are also non-invertible so the line through 0 and alpha are all not invertible).

For me writing this was a good distraction away from all that negative news we have day in day, all those countries reporting daily death toll can make you a bit depressed… So when I am through with the daily news I always do some other stuff like calculating a few of such integrals. That is a very good antidote against all that bad news. After all there is not much gained if you constantly think about things you cannot change at all.

This post is relatively long; at first I crafted 12 pictures but it soon turned out that was not enough. So while filling the 12 pictures with the math and the text I expanded some of the pictures so they could contain more math & text. That was not enough and in the end I had to craft two more background pictures. All in all it is 14 pictures long, that is a record length for this website.

If in your own mathematical life you have performed contour integration in the complex plane, you must be able to understand how this works in the 3D spaces. And for those who have done the thing known as u-substitution on the real line: it is just like that but now this u thing is the parametrization of a path. All that stuff below with gamma in it is either the path or the parametrization of that path. Please remark that you must use the complex or the circular multiplication on 3D, just like integrating over a contour in the complex plane uses the 2D complex multiplication.

In case if you are not familiar with the number alpha that is found at the center of the exponential circle, use the search function of this website and for example look up ‘seven properties of the number alpha’.

I hope I have removed all faults, typo’s etc so that later I do not have to repair the math because that is always cumbersome. Here we go: 14 pictures long so this is hard to grasp in detail in just a few hours. But it is beautiful math & that is why I do this. For me math is a lovely hobby.

Enough of the blah blah blah, here we go:

Ok, let┬┤s first hit the button ┬┤Publish┬┤ and see what will happen…
It looks all right but a day after first publication I realized there was some missing text. It turned out I had to rename picture number 2 and now every thing was like it was planned.

Later I will flea through the rest of the text, if needed I will post more addenda. For the time being that was it so till addendums or till the next post.

Integration on the circular and complex 3D number spaces.

Ok, the math text is finally written. It took a long time but all in all I am very satisfied with the result. It will be a long post, I estimate about 12 pictures long and that is more or less a record length on this website. I have finished only two pictures and I will take my time to make the other ones because my mouse does not work properly. When I click with the computer mouse, very often that acts as a double click and that makes making pictures a laborsome task because of all the errors that double clicking gives. And when I have to repeat a series of clicks three or four times before it is ok, it will take some time. May be I should buy a new mouse,

Anyway to make a long story short: For years I stayed more or less away from crafting math about integration because it is hard to find a definition that would work always. My favorite way of using Riemann sums could not work always because of the existence of non-invertible numbers in the 3D spaces. And that gave some mathematical fear in my small human mind because path independence came with that way of Riemann summation. All in all it is beautiful math to think about: For example if in 3D you use a primitive to integrate over a closed loop, is it always zero?

So only the first two pictures are posted and I have no idea when all other pictures are finished. Here we go:

Oh oh, only later I observed a double click problem in this picture…

That was it, till updates.

Just a teaser picture for integration on 3D complex and circular numbers.


It is about time for a small update! Despite all that COVID-19 stuff going round, for myself after all those years I finally tried to put integration on higher dimensional number systems on a more solid footing.
All those years I just refrained from it because you cannot use my favorite Riemann sum approach because of the non-invertible numbers we have in 3D or even higher dimensions.
But now I am trying to finally make some progress and stop avoiding this subject, I find it is utterly beautiful. It has an amazing array of subtle details involved when you have some non-invertible numbers in your integration stuff.
I have no idea when I have finished this rather important detail in my cute theory of higher dimensional complex & circular numbers, so let time be time & in the meantime only post a teaser picture about that lovely integration stuff. In the first lines you see a very familiar integral, likely you have done such calculations in the complex plane. In the case of 3D circular and complex numbers you must (of course) use the multiplication on 3D space to make it all work. Basically you are evaluating (or calculating) three integrals at the same time, just like on the complex plane where you are evaluating two integrals at the same time in your calculation. If you work with a pencil & paper, make sure you have enough paper because all those 3 integrals also have 3 terms in it so your calculations can become quite long…
Here we go:

Please remark this only works for invertible X.

Ok, let me end this update now. Till updates and for some strange reason you must wash your hands while the proper authorities never point to 3D complex numbers… Till updates.

Hilarious video: Don Lincoln explaining the Stern Gerlach experiment.

I am always baffled by those folks explaining this important experiment; why do they not see that the explanation offered is just 100% bs? It could be that in physics there are all kinds of ‘patches’ that explain particular parts of magnetism. Let me write two of those patches down:

Patch 1: Since in the Stern Gerlach experiment a beam of silver atoms was split in two under the application of a magnetic field, the ‘logical explanation’ offered is always that when electrons enter a vertically applied magnetic field, 50% will have spin up and 50% is spin down. If the applied magnetic field is turned 90 degrees, say horizontal, again both beams will split again in 50% left spin and 50% right spin.

Patch 2: Making permanent magnets. A magnetic field is applied to some metal and now all unpaired electrons always align with the applied magnetic field. Sometimes the explanation is a bit more advanced; at first it is explained that in the magnetic domains of say iron all spins are aligned and when making it into a permanent magnets all the magnetic domains align according to the applied (strong) magnetic field.

On their own such ‘explanations’ might sound logical, but if you combine them you get total rubish. It cannot be that one the one hand if you apply a magnetic field 50% of the unpaired electrons anti align and the other 50% align with the magnetic field while on the other hand always 100% of unpaired electrons align nicely when you make a permanent magnet. Such ‘explanations’ or patches of knowledge should enforce each other, but here it gives total bs. Either it is always 50/50 or it is always 100% alignment, why do those professional physics folks never observe that tiny part of physical reality? In my view they cannot go outside the patches, the reasoning always stays local inside that particular patch (explaining the SG experiment versus making permanent magnets).

The 50/50 patch that should explain the Stern Gerlach experiment is always very strange if you just keep an iron nail next to a magnet; wow man it gets attracted! But if 50% of the unpaired electrons in that nail would anti-align and the other half would align, what would explain the attraction? In my view people like that a weird beyond comprehension.

At Fermilab the honorable Don Lincoln often explains all kind of physical things, his style in doing so is often a bit too arrogant in my view. If you want to study physics you must be humble and always operate from the fact you only have a human brain. So being an arrogant overpaid jerk is a quality you must loose; that human stuff will ensure you will never understand physical things because it prevents you to think a bit deeper on it when for example you try to check if you could be wrong…

The video is on more items, not only the SG experiment but also the Einstein-Rosen-Podolski paradox, the creation of an electron-positron pair from a spin 0 particle & more of that stuff. I made two pictures from two screen shots. By all standards it is hilarious because what spin 0 particle are we actually talking about? Of course that is not mentioned, with just a tiny bit of arrogant behavior it is simply stated and you as an onlooker of that video are supposed to bow for the wisdom of Don Lincoln…

Cooment: In my view this shows conservation of magnetic charge.

Please remark I have no experimental evidence that if electrons are magnetic monopoles, there is conservation of total magnetic charge just like with electric charge. I think it is the case but you also have constantly those physics people explaining that you can flip electron spin with micro waves. But all those patches they try to explain, for example spin flip inside a qbit for quantum computing, can also be the result of electron change. There are always more electrons in the surrounding and if you apply some micro wave radiation it could very well be that you ram out the anti aligning electron that simply gets replaced by an electron of the opposite magnetic charge. After all I have never ever seen an experiment where there is only one electron trapped in isolation and after a short pulse of em radiation it has changed it’s spin.

Ok, let us go on with the hilarious stuff:

Comment: Never forget that Stern was the first assistant professor to Einstein. So Einstein never ever had a clue about electron spin in the first place…

Ok, let’s go to the video itself. The Lincoln guy is a bit irritating because of his arrogant attitude, but it is soon funny & hilarious when he props up his 50/50 spin alignment nonsense. For me it is funny because if electrons carry magnetic charge, a more or less conservative estimate as when the professional physics professors will find that out is about 5000 to 5 million years into the future.
Just like the speed math professors understand a bit more upon 3D complex numbers.
Title of the video: Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance.

Ok that was it for this post, think well and work well.
Updated on 18 March 2020: Lately I found a cute video from Veritaisum and the MinutePhysics guy where indeed they use both patches of ‘explanation’ in just one video. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is explained via electrons doing the 50/50 thing while for permanent magnets all electrons align & we can safely conclude these guys are lunatics.

But if you look at other video’s of Veritasium & the MinutePhysics guy, they often look so smart and it all looks like they have more or less healthy brains… These guys are not idiots and that leaves we with a big question I still have: Why do the people of physics never understand that separate patches of human knowledge should enforce each other?
Why do these two guys not see that giving two explanations is highly contradictionary? If you have a permanent magnet in your hands and you approach a piece of iron, if 50% of the electrons align and the other half anti-align, iron would not be magnetic. But Iron is very magnetic as any body knows, so why do weirdo’s like Veritasium & the MinutePhysics guy not see that? Here is that cute video from two idiots not capable of seeing their wisdom is not perfectly optimesed:

Ok, let’s close this post for the second time.