Category Archives: Uncategorized

Everything wrong with the Veritasium ‘Faster than light’ video.

Magnetism, Uncategorized

A few years back Nobel prizes were rewarded for all that ‘faster than light’ stuff related to entangled particles (or photons) and the weird belief that particles far apart can more or less instantly communicate with each other.

Last year 2025 (by the way happy new year) we looked in details to the first experiment from John Clauser who used cascading electrons to generate pairs of photons and he got the Nobel prize because he showed that those photons always have the same linear polarization.

Since the year 2015 I started seriously doubting that electrons are indeed tiny bipolar magnets as a possibility to explain the results from the Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922. Back in the time when people tried to explain this result of Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach in the letters they did send to each other it often started with the Gauss law for magnetism and that they ‘should find a solution within this framework of the Gauss law’.

So it never dawned on them that instead of finding a solution within this Gauss framework (magnetic monopoles do not exist) their scientific task should have been: Checking if the Gauss law for magnetism is indeed valid for unpaired electrons. After all, electrons being magnetic monopoles is indeed a perfect explanation for the Stern-Gerlach experiment. But no they did not do it, no one dared to take on the Gauss law that after all is just a fancy piece of math not rooted in any experimental evidence.

That is why even today in this new year 2026 we have crazy stuff like electrons that anti-align themselves with an applied external magnetic field like they did in the SG experiment explanation. And the most crazy thing in my view is the official version of the electron pair where the present day belief is still that because of the Pauli exclusion principle the electrons must have different spin numbers while in practice this simply means the two tiny magnets somehow must be anti-aligned to form a pair while from chemistry we know that electron pairs are very important in keeping molecules together.

But let me stop ranting against the belief that magnetic monopoles do not exist and turn to the beef of why I selected this video: It is all that Bell theorem stuff that says or validates all those ‘faster than light’ kind of collapsing of the wave function that they think actually happens. There is an old proof out that proves that Einstein’s idea’s of so called hidden variables cannot be true. It was only last year in 2025 that I looked into that and guess what? This proof uses the results of a repeated or sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment that gives all those probabilities for measuring electron spin. There is only one little pesky detail: In a century of time there has never ever such an experiment done. And if my idea’s of simply electrons having a permanent magnetic charge, just like their electric charge, are true, in that case measuring electron spin is the same as measuring the electric charge of the electron: It will always be the same no matter what. So that is why John Clauser always had the same linear polarization in his pairs of photons, the root cause or the ‘hidden variable’ if you want to frame it that way of finding always equal linear polarity is that the photons are made by the same electron. You really don’t need all this ‘faster as light’ crazy stuff to explain the outcome of the experiment John Clauser did.

I am more or less planning to look in this new year a bit deeper into all those other experiments done that show the ‘faster than light’ weirdo stuff but almost all experiments use crystals that do the parametric down conversing thing and break down one photon into two lower photons with opposite linear polarization. In my view the only logical explanation using electron permanent monopole properties is that an electron pair gets ejected into a higher energy state and later falls down and as such it will always generate an electron pair with opposite linear polarization.

But lets turn to the video: If electron spin is just a permanent monopole magnetic charge, in that case measuring electron spin is not probabilistic at all and as such the ‘proof’ as presented in the video is clear cut wrong. You can find the video at the end, this post is 3 images and one extra so called Figure 1. Here we go:

Furthermore if electron spin is a permanent monopole feature and depending on the kind of magnetic charge is what gives the two opposite polarization states of the photons they produce. As such the photon pairs as mentioned in the video are never in a superposition let alone that measuring one photon’s polarization leads to a collapse of the wave function and forces the other photon to take on the opposite (linear) polarization. And as such there is no ‘faster than light’ stuff going on at all.

And finally the video:

It has to be remarked that both Mithuna Yoagnathan and Derek Muller do nothing strange here. All physics professionals believe this kind of weird stuff to the extend there are even Nobel prizes handed out for this kind of crap. So both Mithuna and Derik are nice people and do only what is accepted as truth. Even the usage of these faulty probabilities related to a sequential or repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment is what they all do while bragging that physics is the only five-sigma science…
Well no it just isn’t, never ever a sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment was performed there is also zero experimental validation for their fantasy that monopoles are tiny bipolar magnets. Another very fundamental piece of experimental validation that is missing is that if it was true that electrons are tiny magnets, in that case they will not be accelerated by a constant homogeneous magnetic field. That is a cornerstone of their thinking but once more: Where is that fucking experimental validation for this?

On the anomalous electron transport in van Hall thrusters.

Magnetism, Quantum mechanics, Uncategorized

If you have never looked at these kind of devices, if you want to understand the problem of the anomalous electron transport you can look in figure 01 below. Or look it up on the internet, van Hall thrusters are at present day a common tool or device in satellites. These ion thrusters need much less propellant compared to chemical thrusters for keeping the satellites in their orbit.
This post is based on an article on some Japanese website on these kind of space devices. It seems that there is much more electron loss along magnetic field lines as their collision models predict. According to their publication it is up to three orders of magnitude higher as their expectation, that is up to a 1000 times too much. And although their article never says it explicit: of course they make use of the electron as a tiny dipole magnet and as such it is neutral to magnetism.
In my understanding of reality that is crazy as hell, why should an electron have only one magnetic charge and two magnetic poles? But electrons being tiny magnets is a deep held belief inside the physics community and that is why observe so many totally crazy explanations when the magnetic properties are a part of the explanation of some set of observed properties.

For example in the case of the explanation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment it is the anti-alignment of the electrons with the magnetic field that explains the split in two beams. And of course when explaining the SG experiment they often tell you about the fundamental probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin and therefore the probabilities of a neutral silver atom going up or down is 50%. We are the 5-sigma science, nothing beats us!

But if the same people have to explain the Einstein-de Haas effect, that is also something with electron spin and a vertical magnetic field, now the explanation is always that all electrons align their bipolar spin because they
feel a torque because of the applied magnetic field. So now the logic is all electrons do the same while in the SG experiment it is the fundamental probabilistic nature that explains the experimental results.

If you use the not so hard to understand idea that the electric and magnetic properties of the electron are the same, as such electrons are permanent magnetic monopoles just as they are electric monopoles, if you use that idea stuff like electron pairs make much more sense: They pair up because they have opposite magnetic charges and that’s why the electron pair is neutral under (weak) magnetic fields.

As a funny side note, if you look at the official explanation for the above two mentioned experiments, those explanations are always a combination of things that sound or look logical. But over the different experiments it is always some stuff with electrons and a vertical magnetic field, so the explanations should not differ so very much (from 100% alignment because of torque to 50/50% alignment because of the fundamental probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin. If you look at it, it looks a lot like those modern Large Language Models or LLM’s work: When an LLM gives you an answer all of it is made up stuff. Some parts are true and some parts are just untrue and a whole lot of in between stuff. But the LLM’s can’t tell what part is true and what part is a bit less truthful. It just sound logical like the explanations from physics professors when they explain this or that experiment.
But enough of the talk, this post is just 4 images long and there are two additional figures. If you don’t know how van Hall thrusters work, look that up in figure 01 or find something on the internet for yourself. In figure 02 I included a picture of the earth magnetic field and the solar wind because that is another down to earth simple example of how electrons move along magnetic field lines. Ok, let me hang in the pictures and I made a small error with the ‘countdown’ number, it should read 01/04 instead of 01/05 but I leave it as it is and won’t repair it:

Ok this post was more or less based on just one pdf, here it is:
Pdf article:

Anomalous Electron Transport in Hall Thrusters:
Electric Field Fluctuation Measurement.

Link used: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tastj/19/1/19_19.81/_pdf

Ok that was it for this post, let me try to publish it via the method of hitting the ‘Publish’ button. Thanks for your attention and see you in a new post.

The Original John Clauser Experiment.

Magnetism, Quantum mechanics, Uncategorized

In the year 2022 the Nobel prize in physics went partially to John Clauser for the experimental proof or validation of quantum entanglement. This experiment was the first to probe the idea’s of John Bell and as far as I know this experiment differs from all later experiments that often use that so called “Parametric Down Conversion” stuff to get their entangled photon pairs. With the down conversion method where one photon gets smashed in two, the linear polarization of the photons is opposite to each other. So my idea was: Likely sometimes an entire electron pair gets exited and falls back. But it is very very hard to verify such a claim via experiments on the crystals that actually do this down conversion of photon energy.
But the original experiment from John Clauser uses calcium atoms and a cascade of one electron going down two energy levels. And, that is important of course, here the two photons always have the same linear polarization.
I am now into the 11-th year of looking at electrons as magnetic monopoles, in particular with a permanent monopole charge just like the electric charge of an electron. For years and years it looked logical that circular photons would be produced by these two kinds of electrons and the opposite magnetic charge caused the two different circular (or elliptical) photons. Only this year it dawned on me that the two different kind of linear photons have the same origin: The two different magnetic monopole charges and electron can have.
It has it’s own logic, the idea of electrons as magnetic monopoles finally makes sense of say the electron pair where the Pauli exclusion principle (opposite spins) is only a bag of nonsense if you view electrons as tiny magnets or the bipolar magnetic model that is commonly believed in.

Here in the original John Clauser experiment it now has it’s own logical explanation too: John could not control what kind of electron got exited, as such he got different polarization all of the time but these polarizations for the pair of photons were always the same.
A guy named Kocher did the first experiment with this calcium stuff I believe it was in the 1960-ties. He summarized the results in a beautiful manner:

(1) If both polarizers are aligned with their axes parallel, coincidence counts will be observed.

(2) If the polarizer axes are perpendicular, no coincidences will be observed.

If you want to read what Kocher wrote, at the end I have a link for you.
So now we understand the root source of the experimental results from Clauser, it is also clear that this is not entaglement in the sense of a superposition of photon polarization as often portrayed as a so called Bell state. All of the time the photons had already their polarization.

It is NOT that measuring one photon makes the other have the same polarization, all of the time they already had theirs. And there is also a relative easy way to verify that the photons might be (strongly) correlated but do not influence each other:
If you have access to so called entangled photons, send one of them through a quarter wave plate so it becomes an elliptic photon. Now check if the other photon is also elliptic, if I had to bet on the outcome I would say that the two photons do not influence each other.

This post is five images long while I added two additional figures. And after that there is another video from Qiskit IBM quantum computing where it is ‘explained’ that hidden variables explaining the photon correlation do not exist. In figure 3 you see a screen shot of the video. And of course the link to Kocher’s summary paper.

In the next Figure 1 you see what I think are the two linear polarization states of a photon: their magnetic fields are phase shifted by 180 degrees. This introduces all kinds of subtleties that are not discussed now but for example if the electric field of a photon is vertical, you still have two kinds of photons. (Where of course the official version of linear polarization is the direction of the electric field of a photon where it’s magnetic part is always left out and not talked about.)
In Figure 2 you can see John Clauser at work and a simplified energy level of calcium atoms for the cascading electron.

I left out stuff like the speed of light and the
frequency of the photon.

In quantum mechanics there is also some kind of proof that the so called hidden variables do not exist. I never looked in the (historical) details of it. But the few times I observed such a ‘proof’ it is always that when measured the quantum stuff, there is always that fundamental probabilistic stuff. I think that’s wrong when it comes to say electron spin (the permanent magnetic charge) and as such the photons they produce can also never be in a superposition as say in the Bell state.
It is about 13 minutes into the video where the lady does the magical “Hidden variable do not exist” kind of proof. By the way this is the same lady I showed you some weeks ago where she claimed that a repeated or sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment was done many times.
But there is no successful sequential SG experiment done ever, if there was it would very very likely be in the annals of the Nobel prize and it’s just not there. A successful sequential SG experiment would not only validate the official belief in the probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin, it would also destroy all my findings into electrons being magnetic monopoles.

So my dear physics community: Bring it on what you have!

For me this is not very convincing.

And now for the video from Qiskit, IBM quantum computers:

And lets not forget the summary to a very early experiment measuring photon linear polarization using the calcium electron cascading mechanism:
Quantum entanglement of optical photons: the first experiment, 1964–67
Link used: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/quantum-science-and-technology/articles/10.3389/frqst.2024.1451239/full

Ok that was it for this post.

Expressing a determinant of a 4×4 matrix in the determinants of 2×2 minor matrices.

Matrix representation, Pythagoras stuff, Uncategorized

I wrote this post because I was curious how the world famous +/- pattern would look in case you try to do what the title of this post says. I focussed on the first two columns and there are six 2×2 minors to be found there. May be in the future I will use the result from this post in more writing around the theorem of Pythagoras for nxd matrices where the first d columns of a matrix are also a parallelepipid of dimension d. And if done properly, after making the nxd a square matrix, you can take the determinant in the way of this post and get the d-dimensional volume of the parallelepipid.

Well, we’ll see because yes you get that volume but you don’t get a proof of the matrix version of the theorem of Pythagoras for such nxd matrices.

This post is as simple as possible so if you understand the 4D case I expect you to also grasp how to generalize this to arbitrary dimension. The post is five picutes long and it is handy to have the permutation variant of calculating a determinant in the back of your head. In case you never did see that before, shame on you but you can’t help it if you are some victim of the American educational system… Here’s a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant.

Ok here are the five picture for this post:

As you see: grouping this as six minor determinants multiplied against the determinant of their duals is a handy way to get all those 24 terms of each four factors a 4×4 determinant has. That was it for this math post, likely the next post is one more on magnetism and all those experiments around the so called Bell theorem. We’ll see but anyway thanks for your attention and may be see you in another post.

A question and a video on qubits by David DiVincenzo.

Magnetism, Uncategorized

Lets me start with my question for you: Likely more than once you have seen a depiction of a photon in terms of it’s electric and magnetic field. And always the magnetic field and electric field are very similar, see for example the first picture below. That is my understanding of a linear polarized photon: It has it’s maxima, minima and zero’s on the same place.

Photons can be made by electrons for example when they accelerate. The official version of the electron is that it is a ‘tiny magnet’ and as such not a magnetic monopole as I think it is. My question is very simple:

If it would be true that an electron has two magnetic poles and is an electric monopole, then how come the electric and magnetic field in a photon are so similar?

That is kind of weird and after a decade of looking at explanations of magnetic stuff by physics people I know that always when something a weird or outright crazy, it is always ignored. They only tell things that at the surface sound logical and all weird stuff simply gets neglected. There are many examples of this, one of the main examples is the electron pair in chemical bonds. The official theory says their spins must be anti-aligned but elementary insights in magnetics say that now the potential energy is maximal while in general nature always strives to the lowest potential energy state. And try to hold two bar magnets with the same poles at each other and it repels: Well the weird things about electron pairs always get skipped by the professional physics professors…

Anyway, below is my understanding of two linear photons made by two electrons with a different magnetic (monopole) charge. I have left out all details that are not needed like the speed of light or the frequency. That is because I want to highlight the difference in the magnetic component they have: A phase shift of pi or 180 degrees if you want so.

So far for the question I had for you. The video is from Qiskit, that’s IBM, and in the quantum computer world David DiVincenzo is a celebrated name. Back in the nineties together with another person he posted some criteria for making something as say a qubit based on the spin of the electron.
He has been working of stuff like this for about three decades now, of course there is no working qubit based on electron spin at all and of course David has no clue at all as why this is but like all university people he is extremely good at talking out of his neck.

I took the freedom to make a few screenshots and in the middle of the image below you can see David has strong mathematical fantasies about how such spin qubits should behave. Well David, if you ever read this: Likely they won’t do that in a billion years.

For example in the entiry video of one hour long David never ever touches the delicate detail of how to flip the spin of an electron. Now of course you can always apply a magnetic field and say that the electron will align itself with that magnetic field because it has a torque on it by this magnetic field. On the other hand official quantum theory says that alignment or anti-alignment is fundamentally probabilistic. So this is a problem and people like David never have such problems. Or at least they don’t talk about it…

At last the video, it is a bit long and not suitable for a tiktok video.

Ok, that was it for this post on magnetism. The next post is a math post on how to express the determinant of a 4×4 matrix in terms of a bunch of 2×2 minor matrices. Thanks for your attention.

A bit more on the “Cross Product” in 4D space + a few Pythagoras remarks.

Matrix representation, Pythagoras stuff, Uncategorized

Yes I know the name “Cross Product” is not correct because most people think a product has to do with two things or more formal: A product has two arguments. On the other hand this method of calculating a vector perpendicular to a specific triple of vectors in 4D space is a clear cut extension of the widely known and used cross product in 3D space.

At first when I started writing this post I only wanted to bring a bit more clarity of why it is handy to just use the famous +/- checker board pattern like you must in the inversion of a square matrix, but when I finished it even I considered it just too simple. And yes I always try to make it “As simple as possible” but I wanted a tiny bit more so called “math bone” to it so that’s why I wrote the rest of this post.

And in the rest of the post I show you how to make a 3D vector into a 3×3 matrix such that the determinant is the length of the original vector, this is done in two ways. I used stuff like that a few years ago when we looked at the matrix version of the famous Pythagoras theorem. So at the end I will link again that beautiful pdf from Charles Frohman upon that subject of a Pythagorean theorem for non-square matrices.

I also included a simple way to see why this method of finding or calculating a new column that is always perpendicular to all other columns to the left of it works. Originally I just took it from the way you calculate the inverse of a square matrix.

So that’s more or less it, the post is six pictures long and at the end the pdf upon that Pythagoras thing. I made a fault in numbering the pictures but I am to lazy now to repair it. It should read 01/06 and not 01/07…

All that is left is place the link to the pdf. The pdf is roughly made of three paragraphs, the first one is the most important while the second paragraph are for crafting a bit theory to finally prove the theorem in the third paragraph.

The Full Pythagorean Theorem.
Link used: https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~frohman/pyth2.pdf

That was it for this post, I hope you like the pdf because I consider it a very good math text.

IBM’s Katie McCorMick Claims COUNTLESS SG Experiments Have Been Done. The BS Continues…

Magnetism, Uncategorized

This video shows that in all likelihood quantum computers will never work, anyway not when it comes to simulating chemical reactions where electron pairs play a role.
Let me explain: The SG experiment is of course the Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922 for readers who do not know that. That was the experimental discovery of electron spin although Stern and Gerlach wanted to prove something very different. Now as far as I know a repeated SG experiment, or a sequential experiment, has never been done. Likely it has been tried a few times but as far as I know nobody succeeded into getting the desired results and as such proving the probalistic nature of measuring electron spin. Since 2015 I have been looking for this but until now I found nothing.
In this video at about 08:09 min into the video Katie claims that after the original SG experiment from 1922 countless experiments have been done where a sequence of such experiments was done. See the image below, the Z and X just denote the derection of the applied magnetic field. These kind of experiments just have no result.
In video’s like this you always hear the names of Stern and Gerlach but never ever the folks who would have done such a repeated experiment.

And again for readers unfamiliar with what I think of electron magnetism, I think that electron magnetism is just as electron electricity: It is a monopole and permanent charge. So there are two kinds of electrons that have the same electric charge and opposite magnetic charges. On top of that I think the magnetic charge is permanent so it can’t be flipped and measuring the spin is not a probabilistic event. It’s permanent…
I made a few screenshots from the usual nonsense in the sense it is not rooted in experimental evidence:

For myself speaking I do not understand why so many people think that these experiments are actually done. Since I was a bit annoyed by the video, with a simple internet search in only a minute or three I found a nice pdf from MIT the Open Courseware stuff. Let me quote from page 5:

Let us now consider thought experiments in which we put a few SG apparatus in series.

Oh, now it’s watered down to “Considering thought experiments”? Well if you want to read the thing, here it is:
SPIN ONE-HALF, BRAS, KETS, AND OPERATORS

And of course the video:

Another interesting point is that you can do the Stern-Gerlach experiment for yourself! On an IBM quantum computer! Lets leave it with that.

A very sloppy video from Fermilab on non-locality of electron spin.

Magnetism, Uncategorized

To focus the mind and or for new readers; I am of the opinion that electrons are magnetic monopoles and that their magnetic properties are just as the electric properties: permanent and monopole.

Well that is very different from the official version of electron magnetism that involves the Gauss law of magnetism that says magnetic monopoles do not exist and as such the electron must have two magnetic poles. There are a plentitude of what I name weird energy problems with bipolar electron magnetism. For example what makes an electron anti-align with an applied external magnetic field? If you look at it that way, it is easy to find much more weird energy problems and the main example I always use is the electron pair. For example molecular hydrogen is has one bonding electron pair and it’s spins must be opposite or anti-aligned as the wording goes.
Well, what explains that this is the lowest energy state? And how can H2 be stable with a magnetic configuration like this? Bar magnets are only stable and in a state of low potential energy if their magnetic fields are aligned, so why is it opposite with the two electrons in an electron pair?
If you view electrons as having a monopole magnetic charge, you never run into those problems that are always skipped when in experimental results electron magnetism plays a role. It is just always skipped, look at any explanation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment and you never see it explained as why electrons anti-align with the applied vertical magnetic field.

But lets go to the video: Fermilab’s Don Lincoln explains how an entangled electron pair should behave. Of course he does not have any experimental evidence to back up all the stuff he claims. For 10 years now starting back since 2015 I have been searching for a repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment but there is only talking out of the neck and no results anywhere. Now a repeated SG experiment is just applying differently oriented magnetic fields to an electron and the official theory says that the probability for spin up or down is the cosine of half the angle of the difference in ortientation of the two succesive magnetic fields. So it looks a lot like linear polarization of photons only there you have the entire angle and not half the angle.

Since I became interested in electron magnetism 10 years ago I have seen a few hundred video’s on all kinds of stuff related to electron spin. Also those long video’s of say one hour or longer where researchers explain what they are doing. And often in those presentations there are some theoretical curves and with litle dots or squares the experimental results are given to the audience.
So what Don Lincoln is doing in the video is rather misleading; the curves is just the square of a cosine but there are no experimental results as far as I know.

This is pretending experimental results…

I think it was two years back or so that a few Nobel prizes were handed out and one of the recievers Alain Aspect remarked in a video that is was just to hard to do this experiment with real spin half particles like electrons. As such Alain did his experiments with photons. Don Lincoln even shows a picture of Alain and because most physics people always talk out of their neck when it comes to electron spin, he does the entanglement thing with electrons. In this video he does not brag that physics is a so called ‘five sigma’ science where all stuff is validated rigidly.
So here is the video in case you are interested in that so called non-locality stuff:

Ok, I have more to do today so let me close this short post on the ususal nonsense of official electron spin.

Two more video’s on the Stern Gerlach experiment from the year 1922.

Magnetism, Uncategorized

The two video’s are very different, the first and best one is from the guy from the Science Asylum that is also a video channel. And for the first time I looked up what his name is and that seems to be Nick Lucid. The main reason for me to write this post is the fact that Nick is the very first person who tries to explain why electrons do anti-align. He thinks it has to do with the so called ‘intrinsic’ angular momentum that electrons have. I think that does not solve the energy problem in any serious shape or form, the energy problem is of course that the potential energy of the electrons gets raised in they turn into an anti alignment with the applied magnetic field.

To put this problem in a more simple to understand thing with say gravity: If you throw a piece of rock perfectly horizontal, it will move sideways and only down. If it goes up that would be a serious energy problem because they higher the rock is the higher it’s potential energy and where does the rock gets that energy from? Therefore in reality you never see rocks spontaneously fly up but in quantum mechanics with electrons and magnetic fields this happens all the time. Anyway this happens all the time if it was true that electrons are tiny bipolar magnets. And of course I don’t think that, I think that electrons carry a monopole magnetic charge just like they carry a permantent monopole electric charge. The only difference is that there are two magnetic charges that electrons can have where the electric charge is always the same and is negative.

I prepared 7 images but one was not needed so there only a few screen shots. So basically 6 pictures mostly text and a few basic calculations related to the supposed way electrons get accelerated by magnetic fields. There are an additional 3 Figures so all in all 10 pictures or images and two video’s.

The first video is the best, anyway in my opinion, that’s the one from the Science Asylum. I added the second video because that is one of those many video’s that simply skip where this all runs out of the rails: Why do electrons anti-align, where comes the energy from? So lets go:

Figure 1: Screen shots from the first video.
Figure 2: How to deal with the Lorentz force in a setup like this?
Figure 3: With this setup the Lorentz force is not a hinder.

The next image is just a leftover.

If you made it till here, you can now finally see the video from Nick. That is if the video would embed and for some strange reason it does say it won’t… Anyway the title of the video is Physics Misunderstood This Experiment For Years. (For the time being even the link does not work, it is now a private video… So may be next week I’ll give it another try and see if this is a temporary thing.

And the second and last video of this post. This is much more a demonstration of how the energy problems there are with this bipolar model for the electron are just never talked about. It is at the end of the video but there he does it.

Weirdly enough this video embeds seamlessly…

That was it for this first post of the year 2025. As always thanks for your attention.

An open question related to the sum of a bunch of sines.

Uncategorized

Lately I added a bunch of sine functions and I wondered what the maximum was. And to be honest I had no idea, in math that is pretty normal otherwise you would not search for such answers. The questions you can answer instantly are often much more boring and often don’t add much value or insights. So what was I looking at?
Well take the sine function, lets write it as sin(t). Make a timelag of one unit or if you want a translation and that’s sin(t – 1). Proceed in taking time lags like sin(t – 2), sin(t – 3) and so on and so on and add them all up.
The question is: Can you say something about the maximum value that this sum can take? And no, I had no idea about how to approach this problem.

The interesting detail is of course that this sum of sines does not seem to converge or diverge in any significant way. You can check that for yourself in for example the DESMOS package, just type the word sum and you get the sigma symbol for a summation. I like the package and in case you have never seen it, here is a link: https://www.desmos.com/calculator?lang=en.

As far as I know this problem has no or little math meaning, it is just some recreational stuff. But if you in your life had the honor of calculating a bunch of Fourier coefficients again and again, you know that the summation of sines and or cosines and or complex exponentials can have very tricky convergence questions. Now with my little sum of sine time lags we don’t have any convergence at all, the funny thing is it also does not diverge.

This post was meant to be short but as so often it grew to five pictures long and on top of that there are three extra figures added to the mix. It’s all pretty simple and not deep complicated math that as so often is very hard for human brains to digest. Have fun reading it.

Figure 1: Yep, this is not a periodic function.
Figure 2: Positive interference leads to larger amplitudes.
Figure 3: Oh oh some stupid typo’s with the number 50…

At the end of this post I want to remark that I framed the question for some finite sum of sines. That is because I wanted to avoid all things related to taking a supremum and stuff like that. Look at Example 1 above, here of course the maximum value of the two sines is not 2 because there is no real solution to this, but of course the supremum is 2 because you can come arbitrarily close to 2.
Of course in Example 3 I wanted to know the sup and the inf of the amplitudes, but I framed the question in a finite sum of sines anyway.

Ok that was it for this unclassified post. If you want you can think a bit about sums of sines and if you get bored of that you can try to figure out what an electron pair is if the Pauli exclusion principle says it must have opposite spins… Thanks for your attention and see you in the next post.