Oops I likely made a many year mistake when it comes to the magnetic stuff. Many years ago I had the idea that the magnetism as found in sun spots could possibly explained by spinning plasma underneath the solar surface. After all if electrons are magnetic monopoles, a spinning cylinder shaped plasma should eject lots of electrons along it’s magnetic field lines. That makes the spinning plasma a terrible good magnet because is a lot of positive charged plasma is spinning that creates strong magnetic fields.
After the original idea it took me about one year there could be a possible mechanism on the sun that creates such spinning plasma structures: The sun rotates faster at the equator as it does at the poles.
Now sun spots often come in pairs with opposite magnetic polarity and in my view I thought the leading sun spot was the one created by a bunch of rotating plasma under it.
It is easy to understand that if the root couse of sun spots was a rotating column of plasma underneath them, on the opposite hemispheres of the sun the leading sun spot should have opposite magnetic polarity. That one always checked true, but for the rotational hypothesis to be true over the solar cycles the polar magneticity of the leading sun spot should always be the same.
And that is where likely my old idea is crashing right now. In the next picture you see what is more or less observed in the last change of the solar cycle, for me this is not funny.
SC24 and SC25 stand for Solar Cycle 24 & 25 and again: for me this is not funny:
Yes it is what it is. But at least as soon as I discover I have made a serious mistake I tell that as soon as possible. All in all this mistake does not have any impact on the tiny fact that it is impossible for electrons to be tiny magnets, electrons are magnetic monopoles and as such we have two variants of them. So the Gauss law for magnetism is just not true for an individual electron, it is nonsense to say magnetic field lines always loop in on themselves.
But after seven years of explaining this kind of mistakes, that stuff known as the science of physics is not capable of cleaning herself of stupid ideas.
Let’s leave it with that, this correction is a set back but the weirdo’s classified as the physics professors still have to give some experimental proof that electrons are indeed ‘tiny magnets’.
Of course you can’t correct every typo you make. But now it was in the heart result of the previous post so it must be corrected. In the previous post I showed you a way of calculating the determinant of a 4×4 matrix using 2×2 minors. As such I used things like a ‘complementary minor’ inside a square matrix. The typo is easy to understand, it must not be comp(| AB12 |) but this: | comp( AB12)|. The vertical stripes mean you must take the determinant of what’s between them so the typo is that I took the determinant too fast. First you must find the complementary minor and after that take the determinant…
This correctional post is two pictures long, first I show you the faulty one and after that the correct one.
My guess is most readers who tried to understand the previous update did find for themselves it was very faulty. But I could not just ignore it because it was in the main result although the main result is not earth shaking math. Anyway it is what it is and now it’s corrected.
The correction is rather simple: In the past I always said that those old televisions run on something like 50 thousand Volt. That is of course the kathode electric potential and not your input voltage. That is not entirely correct: all photo’s I showed you in the past were made with a small television set and those seem to need a lower kathode voltage. May be something in the 25-30 kV range.
So that is a small correction but I have written posts where we tried to calculate the sideway acceleration and I based the speed of the electrons going from the electron cannons to the glass screen on the 50 thousand Volt. I memory served that gave a giant speed of almost one third of the speed of light and that gave giganormous numbers when it came to sideway acceleration. If indeed those small tv sets run on a lower electric potential, that was a bit over the top.
Well that does not impede the fact that electrons are likely magnetic monopoles and not magnetic dipoles as the standard model of physics says. So far for my correction on past statements.
I am still having a bigger television and I finally made a few photo´s of the behavior of electrons with that oldie. It is best to make those pictures in a dark room so that your camera has a relatively long shutter speed. I tried it once at daylight outside but that gave lausy results because in between the rereshment of the screen it often is black because no electrons have landed there recently. If you take photo´s in a dark room it gets better. When I looked with my human eyes to the television without any magnets around, I see a clear blue uniform is color and intensity everywhere. In the next photo you see how the camera ´sees´ it. Not very uniform…
In the next photo I come in from the right with a stack of magnets. It is amazing from how far away the screen already starts changing.
In the above photo you likely see already the separation of the ´blue´ electrons in those that are attracted by my stack of magnets. That should be the blue spot on the lower right. The other blue region should have at it´s right lower boundary mostly repelled electrons while that large blue region could also contain a lot of electrons that are not disturbed enough.
Ok, the next photo is more important because even at 50 thousand Volt with the relatively sharp tip of my neodymium magnets you get that dark disk where no electrons land. So we have a clear separation of electrons that are attracted versus those that are repelled by the magnetic field from the stack of magnets.
Remark it is very hard to explain the dark region where clearly no electrons land with the Lorentz force. The standard model has only this Lorentz force in it and ok ok they also use that weird term for the potential energy for an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field but in my view that is not correct because it does not include the size of the electron. And by the way, it should be a cakewalk to separate the electrons according to their spin using magnetic fields that are as uniform as possible. There are still plenty of those in physics labs all over the world, if electrons are magnetic monopoles it should not make much difference if you use a uniform or non/uniform magnetic field.
In the last photo I turned my stack of magnets around. On the other side I often have 2 or 4 ring shaped magnets that I removed from two magnetron ovens. They have a hole through the middle and I tried to photograph it such you can look through that very hole.
I hope you see that tiny spot in the middle where the attracted electrons create a while light. Ok that was it for this update. In the meantime I am working on a post around the sphere/cone equation written in matrix form. But that is far from finished so see you somewhere next month!
This post is on magnetism only but it is more or less in the planning that the next post on 4D complex numbers is about diagonalization of a 4D complex number. After that we have (may be) to try and calculate the number tau in this way.
Ok magnetic stuff:
Since I think that electrons are not magnetic dipoles but carry one of the two possible magnetic charges, electrons will always be accelerated by magnetic fields just as they are by electrical fields.
That basic idea of magnetic charge makes a whole lot of things much more easy to understand. For example electron pairs are only observed as pairs, never as triples or whatever what like circular structures of 17 electrons…
Let’s look at the most simple molecule we know of: molecular hydrogen. Two atomic hydrogen are both electrically neutral, why should they bond anyway? But if the two electrons of those two hydrogen atoms carry opposite magnetic charge, that could be a reason as why they want to bond anyway.
And if you think about it that way (the protons also carry some magnetic charge) all of a sudden a hydrogen molecule is nothing but a balancing act between electric and magnetic charges.
Once more: Why do we only observe electron pairs in chemical bonding via electron pairs? If the electron was indeed a magnetic dipole, what explains we only observe electron pairs?
I made a beautiful drawing of two electron magnetic dipoles, I know I know it is a bit simplistic with two simple lobes of magnetism in a 2D representation. But here it is & how is all that bonding in the electron pair supposed to go?
Why do we only observe electron pairs and not other forms of possible magnetic dipole formations? We have never seen only one electron triple as far as I know.
I know it is a terrible drawing. Always when I show drawings to other human beings they always get tears in their eyes…:)
In the beginning I just thought that the tears were explained because those people could see the underlying beauty of my drawings. But later they also started vomiting and I was just scratching my head and decided to post less and less drawings because that vomit is so smelly and dirty.
But let’s not talk about the smell of vomit but a bit more on the wonderful progression the Max Planck Institute is making with their expensive nuclear fusion reactor known as the Wendelstein 7-X fusion reactor. They have set breathtaking records like in the next link:
If my version of electron spin carries more truth compared to the retarded version of every electron is a magnetic dipole, if that is true nuclear fusion machines like Tokamak or the Stellarator design as used in the Wendelstein 7-X reactor will not work properly.
So let’s make it a little contest between me and the entire Max Planck Institute, in particular the IPP parts of it (IPP = Institute for Plasma Physics).
Now that is German stuff so I will use a German video as found on the internet where a German guy named Harold Lesch asks questions at another German guy named Hartmut Zohm. One of those questions is answered at 3.33 minutes into the video where Harold asks if there are still some major ‘technical hurdles’ that have to be taken…
Hartmut Zohm says: Das haben wir alles schon ausgeraumt.
Loosely translated the answer says that ‘everything has been cleaned out’.
Here is the video:
Harald Lesch & Hartmut Zohm zur Fusionsforschung
And of course a picture of how it looks to observe two humans not understanding electron acceleration by magnetic fields:
So what is the little contest between the Max Planck Institute and me?
Very simple: They will keep on going with the insight from the standard model of physics that says electrons are magnetic dipoles. And from my side I will keep on insisting that electrons are the long sought magnetic monopoles and as such are accelerated by magnetic fields.
It will take some time to let this pan out, after all the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator is not something you turn on like a light bulb. But one thing is clear; the longer the machine is turned on the longer the electrons get accelerated and likely this is creating a long list of plasma stability problems like ever growing turbulence. Or more and more electrons smashing into the vessel walls because the high speed will make them leave the magnetic field lines they follow at low speeds…
At last I want to remark that electrons as magnetic dipoles with only one of the two possible magnetic charges makes something like the formation of H2 easier to understand. But that comes with a hefty price: Now the formation of proteins becomes much more difficult to understand. If you look at animations from how proteins form very often you see the electron as a magnetic dipole and when needed it simply flips around… So what happens in reality is unknown to me, is there all kinds of electron transport going on so that the right electron is at the right place in a chemical reaction? Or are there all kinds of photons going round changing the magnetic charge of the individual electrons?
I don’t have a clue as how our human bodies actually make all those proteins…
That is the end of this post.
A correction on the 17 June 2017 post is added on 29 Oct 2018. It is just a silly typo in just an example of a possible so called trapdoor function, but last week when I read that old post again I decided to correct it. So although it is a very old post compared to the present day news cycle where idiots run the atheneum formerly known as the Federal government of the USA, I still live in timescales that evolve more slowly.
After all, almost all of the math as written down in the post about finding prime factors of huge composite numbers as they are used in internet security was found by me in the nineties. So it is over two decades old math and by other standards that is still very young math…
The original post was 15 pictures long, as usual it is very hard to understand all stuff in a single day. The human brain learns slow because all that brain matter has to rewire itself and that is a process that makes you tired, just like nature wants I just guess.
In the end I came close, I had all the technical stuff figured out but I still lacked a mechanism of converging into the direction of the prime numbers as used in for example communications encryption.
Ok, the correction itself is on the second picture of the old 17 June 2017 post.
If you don’t want to read the old post, the correction looks like this:
In the previous post where I tried to demonstrate that it is impossible to accelerate electrons via exposing them to non-uniform magnetic fields contains a tiny error of 1/2.
I did forget to multiply the Bohr magneton with the electron spin number of 1/2.
Is this a serious problem? Not for me, because now the magnetic dipole moment of the electron is halved you need double the gradient of the applied magnetic field. So we need a spatial gradient of only 10 million Tesla per meter in order to accelerate the electron by 1/10 of the gravitational force here on earth.
I have decided to leave the pictures in the previous update unchanged because if a fault of forgetting a factor of 1/2 leads to a rejection by so called professional physics professors, that only shows these people are garbage to begin with.
Here is the correction that I will not show in the previous post:
Lately I viewed a video of some folks who did throw a bureau chair into a medical MRI machine of 3 or 6 Tesla stationary magnetic field. The magnetic field of the MRI machine pulled at the chair with a force of about 1000 kg (ok that would be 10 thousand Newton).
Just imagine what a magnetic field with a gradient of 10 million Tesla would do…
And on top of that, in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment it were not loose unpaired electrons that did get accelerated but silver ions that are many thousands times more massive as our poor unpaired electron that makes the entire silver ion moving…
So instead of 10 million Tesla / meter, 10 billion Tesla per meter should be more reasonable in order to explain the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922. (That is if you base your theories on the assumption that elementary particles like electrons cannot be magnetic monopoles.)
End of this correction, please take your time in order to understand the content of the previous post because that is much more important! Till updates.
This post has many goals, for example in the previous post I talked about a ‘very rudimentary Fourier transform’. In this post it is a bit less rudimentary, a bit more satisfying definition is given but still I did not research all kinds of stuff like the existence of an inverse & lot’s more basic stuff.
For myself speaking I consider this ‘new Fourier transform’ more as some exotic bird that, if capable to fly a few meters, will only draw applause from specialists in Fourier analysis.
So for myself speaking I am far more happy we need a more advanced number tau and the mathematical miracles you can do with it in three dimensions.
Therefore I included two examples of exponential curves that go through the plus and minus of all three basis vectors in 3D space, after all this is one of my most remarkable math results…
In this post I also show you how to use the calculus of ‘opposite points, in three dimensions it works like a bullet train but the higher the dimensions become the harder it is to frame it in simple but efficient calculus ways like using opposite points on exponential circles.
Another thing to remark is that an exponential circle is always a circle; it is flat in the 2D sense and has a fixed radius to some center. When this is not the case I always use the words exponential curve…
This post is nine pictures long, I truly hope you learn a bit from it.
You really do not need to grasp each and every detail, but it is not unwise to understand that what I name the numbers tau are higher dimensional versions of the number i from the complex plane.
Ok, here we go:
In these nine pictures I forget to remark you can also craft a new Cauchy formula for the representation of analytic functions. For myself speaking this was far more important compared to a new way of Fourier transform.
You still need that more advanced version of tau…
Can´t get enough of this stuff?
Ten more pictures dating back to 2014 at the next link:
In the post on the factorization of the Laplacian from 5 August I made two rather stupid ‘cut and paste’ errors. But since this particular calculation is definitely inside my own list of top 10 magnificent calculations I decided to make the correction also a separate post.
That is only to show how important I rank this particular calculation; it should be posted flawless and not with stupid typo’s on stupid places…
Here is a picture showing the stupid ‘cut and paste’ typo’s and the corrected calculation as it should have been on 05 Aug of this year:
As you see on inspection: Only the top line is wrong so in practice it is not a big deal.
But this particular calculation made me understand the importance of studying more and more of the sphere-cone equations so I want this to be tip top & as perfect as possible.
Bad news from the Dutch university of Leiden.
For the pictures on my website I rely on that so called WIMS collection of packages. I first found it at some French university but later it was found out it was also stored in my home country at the university of Leiden.
Yesterday when I needed just one new picture I found out the university of Leiden has removed this collection of math packages. Why they have done this I do not know but in my life from experience I know that by definition all university people are full of shit.
Now at date 25 Sept 2016 I once more understand I was stupid to rely on a service done by university people; in the end they will always fuck you in the ass. How could I have been as stupid as to be dependent for my graphics to depend on university people?????
Of course the university of Leiden offers me an alternative route: Go back to France where the whole thing is still online. Now just look at these perfect images as they come back from France (this is the equation for the top picture on this website on 3D complex numbers:
Once more we observe: If it works at an university it is just so full of shit that you cannot measure the amount of shit in that particular person before or after a toilet visit… Back in the year 1992 I decided that a professional academic career was not my path of life, now 24 years later this is once more validated. Better avoid all contacts with weirdo’s like that…
Updates on magnetism:
Over on the other website I posted two more reasons as why electrons simply have to carry a net magnetic charge.
Reason number 34 is about two more or less famous physics professors telling acute nonsense when it comes to electron stuff. You can find it in the next link:
Reason number 35 is about explosive discharges in the field of nuclear plasma physics; professional plasma professors just do not understand their own line of work. Any idiot can find out that electrons are accelerated by magnetic fields but since all people working at universities are full of shit they are blind for the obvious facts of life.
New reasons for electrons carrying magnetic charge are in the making, here is a picture I will use in explaining the so called ‘bonkers force’:
The bonkers force is perpendicular to the Lorentz force.
You might wonder why this is named a ‘bonkers force’?
The answer is simple: It will make professional physics professors go bonkers.
And that my dear reader is a good thing, till the next post on the curl of vector fields.
Three months ago on 06 Dec 2015 I posted the 6D numbers update because that is the smallest space that includes both the complex plane and my own invented 3D complex numbers.
To my amazement a few days ago I typed in on a Google search the phrase ‘3d complex numbers’ and when you search for pictures my teaser picture for that 06 Dec post was picture number 3.
So I started reading my own stuff again; why is this post so popular given the fact it has an extremely boring title???
It was only later that very likely my own goal of including stuff that is known, like the complex plane, must be some factor for readers clicking on that post so often. And after thinking about it coming back & so on & so on.
But I found another typo in that old post and that is the update for today; I show you the part that includes the typo and also show you the correction. Picture number 3 shows the teaser picture standing on rank 3 in the Google picture search.
Now you must never think you are king with search results like this, if for example you are in Brazil and type in the same search string ‘3d complex numbers’ you might very well get a very different result: Google like to ‘craft the search to the individual’ in order to maximize advertisement revenue…
Anyway, three pictures that form a correction on the 06 Dec post are below:
The above picture contains the stupid typo that says this imaginary number l is the square root of the complex plane thing i. This is plane stupid, in the next picture you see a correction±
In the third picture of this update you see the teaser picture on position number 3 in that Google picture search, don’t forget Google has a large bag of tricks to localize search results. So I as the idiot that I am might think that in spaces like Brazil or Australia you get the same results I forgot how Google makes the money:
Delivering search results accompanied by advertisements…
Ok end of this second correction on the 6D complex numbers. Till updates.
It is not a big deal because every person who understands a bit about how matrix representations work sees instantly these must be two typo’s.
But recently about once a week I am scanning how this new website is doing in search engines like Google. And I am very satisfied, every post can now pop up as a separate search result and for example on pictures to my surprise the next picture popped up as pic number six if you search for ‘3d complex numbers’.
This is the version with the two typo’s in it:
And here is the corrected version:
So it is not a big deal but if a search result ends that high it is not unwise to correct it.
And to be honest, I know for years that you can craft let’s say 15 dimensional complex numbers from 3D and 5D complex numbers.
But to be honest, I had never done it until the December update from last year.
And I have learned some stuff too, only if you dive into those technical details like how those basis vectors are actually related you appreciate it so much more.
You know the nicest thing about higher dimensional complex numbers is very simple: I know for sure I am about one of the first humans to hang around in those spaces.
Beside the mathematical beauty the stuff has, it has also that old stuff like discovering new lands that is basically baked into the human genome.
Ok, enough of the phylosofical bla bla. Till updates.