Finally I have some time left to update this website. I would like to proceed with another part into the introduction to the four dimensional complex numbers. The previous part 20 dates back to 02 Feb 2019 and that too was about this structure of the non-invertible numbers in four dimensional complex space.
When I was reading back a few of my own old writings like part 20 from 02 Feb it struck me that those non-invertible numbers are all just linear combinations of the so called imitators of i. Imitators of i live always in dimensions higher than 2 and they mimic the behaviour of the number i from the complex plane. For example in the spaces of the 3D complex and circular numbers those imitators are not capable of squaring to minus one but they do a pretty good job at rotating stuff by 90 degrees if you multiply by them. In the 4D complex space there are two of such imitators and they do square up to minus one. Of course this is related to the fact you can find two copies of the 2D complex plane in the 4D complex space. So in that regard the 4D complex numbers are a bit different compared to the 4D quaternions that exist of 3 copies of the complex plane (but those do not commute and as such you cannot differentiate or integrate stuff).
Another interesting detail is that in the 4D complex number system the set on non-invertible numbers consists of just two lines that are perpendicular to each other. That is very different from the 3D situation where the set of non-invertibles is always a plane combined with a perpendicular line through zero. The reason that in 4D complex space the set is so small lies of course in the matrix representation and the determinant. On the 4D complex space the determinant is non-negative, just like the determinant is non-negative on the complex plane. Every 4D complex number has four eigenvalues and they come in conjugate pairs, so the product of these four eigenvalues gives the determinant hence the determinant cannot be a negative real number.
And say for yourself: aren’t the eigenvalue functions a very handy thing? If you want to find the eigenvalues of let’s say the 4D complex number Z = 1 + 2l + 3l^2 + 4l^3, that is often a horrible mathematical exercise. But once you have these four eigenvalue functions, you simply plug in any Z and voila: there are your 4 eigenvalues. This post is seven pictures long, as usual in the 550×775 pixel size.
Remark det(Z) = 0 does not show up in a ray tracing method.Oops, did I forget the eigenvalues of the number tau?
Ok, that was it for this post. Till updates my dear reader.
I estimate that most of my readers are familiar with emission and absorbtion spectra as used in astronomy. Light is produced when electrons fall in to a lower energy state in atoms, but that same light (the photons so to say) can also exite another electron in another atom and as such the photon gets absorbed.
Another example: why is glass transparent? Well the photons in the visible range have energies that do not interfere with the electrons in the glass. That is why these photons simply pass through and we can use stuff like glass for the windows in our homes.
So an element, say atomic hydrogen, is capable of emitting light at particular frequencies and at the same time that atomic hydrogen can absorb the same frequencies.
Now we go to the famous 21 cm wavelength: the standard explanation for the source of this em radiation is that in atomic hydrogen you find that both the proton and the electron have the same spin. The spins are aligned so to say and that state has a tiny bit more energy compared to the situation where the electron spins are not aligned. If the spins are aligned (that can be both up or both a down spin) there is a tiny probability that the electron spin flips. That releases a photon of 21 cm wavelength. It is never explained as why it is the electron spin that should flip, after all if the proton spin would flip this should give rise to the emission of a 21 cm photon also…
It is not much of a secret that I think that electrons are not magnetic dipoles but magnetic monopoles. Electrons get accelerated into the direction of the applied magnetic field, but if electrons were magnetic dipoles they would be neutral to external magnetic fields. Ok ok, professional physics professors come up with non homeogenous magnetic fields that should do the acceleration but if I do an easy estimate I find crazy gradients are needed. Something like 100 thousand Tesla per meter or so. It is important to remark that all those people doing the blah blah thing about inhomeogenous magnetic fields only do the blah blah thing: they never show a calculation that supports the blah blah. And yes, they also have a Hamiltonian kind of thing, but in the Hamiltonian the size of the electron is not incorperated. But the smaller in size a magnetic dipole is, the less it will get accelerated by such magnetic fields.
Another example that is hard to believe is the deflection of the solar wind by the earth magnetic field. Not only is the earth magnetic field very weak out there in space, it is hard to believe it has a serious gradient there in outer space. It must be very constant. Yet the solar wind gets deflected by the weak magnetic field of the earth. In my view this can only be done if electrons and protons are magnetic monopoles.
Here is an old ‘picture of the day’ from December 18, 1996 ‘A sky full of hydrogen’.
Why doesn’t the 21 cm radiation get absorbed?
The spin flip that ’causes’ the 21 cm radiation seems to be a seldom thing; about once in 10 million years. And it is always mentioned that it is spontaneous. In the next picture from a wiki you see how this supposedly works. Link: Hydrogen line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
Again: Why no absorbtion?
Ok, what is my version of events? Very simple: Suppose there is an hydrogen atom in outer space that has it’s proton and electron carry the same magnetic charge. So both proton and electron have a north or a south magnetic charge. Suppose it is a north hydrogen atom. This atom simply bumps into a single electron having the south charge. Under the right conditions (bump not to slow and not to fast) this leads to a hydrogen atom with a north proton and a south electron. The north electron gets ejected because like magnetic charges repel. And the radiation emmited simply has wavelength of about 21 cm.
The 21 cm em radiation is also used in atomic clocks like those in the EU Galileo global satellite positioning system. In an apparatus named maser the hydrogen atoms get separated due to their magnetic charge and released in a resonance chamber. The point I want to make is that such a resonance chamber must have a very special coating on the inside otherwise the hydrogen atoms all ‘spin flip’ much to fast. So the coating must be a material without any unpaired electrons in it’s outer shell and of course it can’t be a metal because metals often have an electron sea that just sloshes around. From the ESA, here is a scetch of a hydrogen maser:
This was more or less what I had to say on this magnetic subject. If you start thinking about if it is possible that electrons are magnetic dipoles always you will find it is not logical. For example if it is true that the electron goes round the proton in atomic hydrogen, why the hell would the stuff get anti-aligned? If magnetism is just a vector pointing into some direction, if the electron goes round and round the up & down state would lead to precisely the same hydrogen atom…
All you need is a bit of logic.
Ok, we are at the end of this post. All I want to share with you is a teaser picture for the next post. The math of the next post is more or less finished but I still have to turn the stuff into the standard jpg pictures. The next post is more or less Part 21 into the basic introduction to the 4D complex numbers. I stopped those intro files back in Feb 2019, at this point in time I do not know if I will proceed but at least in a couple of days I will add post number 21 into that 4D number system. It is mainly about the so called ‘imitators of i‘, these imitators mimic the number i from the complex plane. Here is the teaser picture:
Here is an internal link to Part 20 intro to the basics of the 4D complex numbers:
I found an old video (what is ‘old’, it is from Jan 2019) and I decided to hang it in the website because it has such a beautiful introduction. The title of the video is The Secret of the Seventh Row. Seldom you see such a perfect introduction and I hope you will be intrigued too when you for the first time see the secret of the seventh row…
Now before I started brewing beer I often made wine. That was a hobby that started when I was a student. In the past it was much more easy to buy fruit juice that was more or less unprocessed, like 100% grape juice for 50 cents a liter. And with some extra sugar and of course yeast in a relatively short time you have your fresh batch of 20 liters wine. And somewhere from the back of my mind it came floating above that I had seen such irregularities arising from wine bottles if you stack them horizontal. But I never knew it had a solution like shown in the video.
Video title: The secret of the 7th row – visually explained
The next video is from Alexander Unzicker, the vid is only five minutes long. First I want to remark that I like Alexander a lot because he more or less tries to attack the entire standard model of physics. That not only is a giant task but you also must have some alternative that is better. For example when I talk or write about electrons not being magnetic dipoles, I never end in some shouting match but I just apply logic.
Let me apply some logic: In the Stern Gerlach experiment a beam of silver atoms is split in two by an inhomeogenous magnetic field. The magnetic field is stronger at one side and weaker at the other. One of the beams goes to the stronger side while the other goes to the weaker side of the applied magnetic field. But the logical consequence of this is that the stream silver atoms going to the weaker side gains potential energy. This is not logical. If you go outside and you throw a few stones horizontal, they always will fall to the earth and there is the lowest potential energy. The stones never fly up and accelerate until they are in space. In order to gain the logical point it is enough to assume that electrons are magnetic monopoles and that is what makes one half of the beam of silver atoms go to the weaker side of the applied magnetic field. If the electrons come in two varieties, either monopole north or monopole south, both streams do what the rest of nature does: striving for the lowest energy state.
Talking about energy states: Did you know that the brain of math professors is just always in the lowest energy state possible?
But back to the video: Alexander is always stating that often when progress is made in physics, all in all things become more easy to understand. That also goes for electrons, all that stuff about electrons being magnetic dipoles is just very hard to understand; why do they gain potential energy?
In his video Alexander gives a bad space as example where a so called three sphere is located. On the quaternions you cannot differentiate nor integrate, they are handy when it comes to rotations but that’s more or less all there is. So Alexander I don’t think you will make much progress in physics if you start to study the quaternions. And by the way don’t all physics people get exited when they can talk about ‘phase shifts’? They use it all the time and explain a wide variety of things with it. I lately observed Sabine Hossenfelder explaining the downbreak of quantum super positions into the pure ground states (the decoherence) as done by a bunch of phase shifts that make all probabilities of super positions go to zero. Well, the 4D complex numbers have a so called exponential curve and voila; with that thing you can phase shift your stuff anyway you want…
Video title: Simplicity in Physics and How I became a Mathematician
Yesterday I started working on the next post. It is all not extremely difficult but ha ha ha may be I over estimate my average reader. After all it is about the non-invertible numbers in the space of four dimensional complex numbers. The stuff that physics and math professors could not find for centuries… So you will never hear people like Alexander Unzicker talk about stuff like that, they only talk in easy to understand common places like the quaternions. And when I come along with my period of now about 18 years completely jobless, of course I understand the high lords of all the universities have more important things to do. All these professors are just soooooo important, they truly cannot react on social slime that is unemployed for decades. I understand that, but I also understand that if such high ranked people try to advance physics with the study of quaternions, the likelihood of success is infinetisimal small…
Anyway, here is a teaser picture for an easy to understand problem: if two squares are equal, say A^2 = B^2, does that always mean that either A = B or that A = -B?
In another development for decades I always avoided portraits and photo’s of myself on the internet at all costs. Of course after 911 that was the most wise strategy: you stay online but nobody know how you look. But over the years this strategy has completely eroded, if for example I just take a walk at some silly beach about 30 km away people clearly recognize me. So I more or less surrender, likely I will still try to prevent my head being on some glossy and contacts with journalists in general will also be avoided for decades to come. But in the present times why not post a selfportrait with a mask?
The upper half of the picture below is modified in the ‘The Scream’ style and the lower half is modified with something known as ‘vertical lines’.
Is the glass half full or half empty? You can argue that it is half full because the so called ‘pure tones’ as introduced in the previous post work perfectly for making a four dimensional Fourier series based on the 4D complex numbers. The glass is half empty because I started this Fourier stuff more or less in order to get some real world applications done, but 1 dimensional signals like a sound fragment do not reconstruct properly.
Why do they not reconstruct properly? Well often you need to take the sum or the difference of a 4D complex number Z and it’s conjugate that I write as Z* (because I cannot do ‘overline’ in this text mode). But the sum or the difference of such 4D numbers removes only the real part or the second imaginary part. The first and third imaginary parts stay in this sum or difference, this stuff is what makes the reconstruction of a signal s(t) going wrong.
Yet I was not crazy, as far as the reconstruction works it does it more or less as expected only you get only half of the signal reconstructed. That is not that worse but the garbage that enters the reconstruction is what makes this kind of making a 4D Fourier series something that will never have any practical benefit. But again does that mean the glass is half empty?
I remember that a long time ago in something like 1991 or 1992 I had found the product of a 3D complex number X and it’s conjugate X*. My naive idea was that this should only give the unit sphere in 3D space, but this product that also two imaginary components that I considered garbage at the time. Back in the time, it was just before the internet era, I could not know that this ‘garbage’ was actually the equation of a cone. And if you intersect this cone with the unit sphere in the space of 3D complex numbers, you get the 3D exponential circle. So it wasn’t garbage, it was the main prize in 3D complex number theory. Back in the time in 1991 it was stuped from me to expect the 3D complex numbers would behave ‘just like’ the two dimensional complex numbers from the complex plane. May be in this year 2020 I am making the same mistake again by expecting a 4D kind of Fourier series must behave ‘the same’ as those defined on the real line (the original Joseph Fourier proposal) and the more advanced version from the complex plane.
With the 4D Dirichlet kernel just like with the 2D Dirichlet kernel from the complex plane, you must take the difference of a number and it’s conjugate. In the complex plane this makes the real component zero and this difference is just an imaginary number. The 2D Dirichlet kernel is the quotient of two such imaginary numbers and as such it is always a real number. For the 4D Dirichlet kernel stuff is not that easy but for me it was surprising that you can show relatively easy the 4D Dirichlet kernel has to be a ‘self conjugate’ number. That means Z = Z* (on the complex plane when you have a number z such that z = z* it means it is a real number).
This post is 8 pictures long, 7 of them have the standard size of 55×775 pixels but I had to make one picture both a bit more broad and higher in order to get the math fitting in it. Ok, let’s upload the math pictures with the stuff around the 4D Dirichlet kernel.
Do not fear if the 4D kernel looks a bit complicated, just take your time…Yes trouble on the road, but it sure looks cute!
Ok, credits have to go to where that is deserved. I remember that back in the time like in 1990 I found it relatively hard to calculate the 2D Dirichlet kernel. It took me over 15 or 20 minutes but again: that was before the internet era. Yet at present day I was all so simple and why was that? That is because there is a nice Youtube video doing the easy stuff, it is from ‘Flameable math’:
May be at the end I can say the glass is half full because now this reconstruction stuff does not work properly, luckily I do not have to construct the Fejer kernel for 4D complex numbers… Ok, let’s call it a day and let me end this post.
I want to start with a bit of caution: In this post you can find the definition of the 4D Fourier series. It looks a lot like the definition as on the complex plane. But I still did not prove all those convergence questions. And I also do not remember very much from the time when I had that stuff as a student (that was about 30 years ago). So I don’t know if I will be able to make such proofs about convergence and what kind of functions you can use to make a Fourier series from etc etc.
Yet in this post I define a set of possible signals that I name ‘pure tones’ and these clearly have a 4D Fourier expansion because by definition they have a finite number of non-zero Fourier coefficients. Of course when you only have a finite amount of non-zero coefficients, you don’t have any kind of convergence problem. So for the time the convergence problems are avoided.
In this post, number 154 already, I hope I demenstrated enough that the basis functions used in the definition are all perpendicular to each other. After all that was a nasty hurdle we met when it was tried with just the four coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve as our basis vectors. So we do not meet that problem again using the exponential curve as a whole. If I denote the exponential curve as f(t), the basis functions we use are basically f(nt) where n is a whole number. Just like in the previous posts I always use the notation f(t) when the period is related to the dimension and g(t) when the period is different. Here I use of course a period of two pi because that is convenient and it makes the coordinate functions more easy to write out: the first one is now cos(t)cos(2t) and the other three are just time lags of the first one. But if you want to write g(t) as an exponential, because of the period it now looks a bit more difficult compared to just e to the power tau times t.
For myself speaking I have no idea at all if crafting a Fourier series like this has any benefits of using just the definition as on the complex plane. After all I only have more or less basic knowledge about the use of Fourier series, so I just don’t know if it is ‘better’ in some regards and ‘worse’ in others.
At last without doubt under my readers there will be a significant fraction that wonder if those 4D complex number system is not some silly form of just the complex plane? After all if that 4D space is based on some imaginary unit l with the property that now the fourth power l^4 = -1, how can that be different from the complex plane? The answer to that lies in the logarithm of the first imaginary unit l. If this 4D space was just some silly extension of the complex plane, this log of l should be nicely bound to i pi/4 where i is of course the imaginary unit from the complex plane. But log(l) is the famous number tau because with that you can make the exponential curve f(t) = e^(tau t). Basically the main insight is that i pi/4 makes the complex exponential go round with a period of four because i^4 = 1 and the 4D number tau makes the exponential curve go round with a period of 8 because l^8 = 1.
This post is six pictures long, all 550×775 pixels in size.
The next picture is not written by me, I just did a ´copy and paste´ job.Ok, we proceed with the ´pure tone´ stuff:
As usual I skipped a lot of stuff. For example, how did Fourier do it? After all at the time all this stuff with inner products was poorly developed or understood. That alone would be a cute post to write about. Yet the line of reasoning offered by Joseph Fourier was truly brilliant. In case you are lazy or you want to avoid Google tracking you, here is a link to that cute symbolab stuff: symbolab.com Link used: https://www.symbolab.com/solver/fourier-series-calculator
Ok, that is what I had to say for this tiny math update.
This evening I brewed a fresh batch of wort, it is now cooling and tomorrow when it is at room temperature it can go into the fermenter bottles. Everything is relaxed around here, in the last week in my city only four cases of COVID-19 into the hospital.
Orginally I planned to define the 4D way of taking a Fourier series in this post, but while writing this post I realized to would become too long. So this post is seven pictures long (all 550×775 pixels) therefore I hope it does not cross the length of your attention span. For myself speaking always when I read some stuff that is ‘too long’ I start scrolling till the end and as such you often miss a lot of important details.
An important feature of exponential curves is that you have those de Moivre identities that come along with all those exponential curves. In this post I did not prove the 4D version of a de Moivre identity for the 4D complex numbers, but I give some numerical evdence. It has to be remarked that when I wrote the 20 posts around the basics of the 4D complex number system, I did not include the de Moivre identity. So that is more or less an ommision. On the other hand it is of course much more important to be able to find the exponential curve in the 4D space that is the basic material needed to write down such a de Moivre identity.
I categorize these posts about the 4D Fourier series also under ‘integration’. Not that I have many fantastic insights about integration but the reason for this category is much more down to earth: You have to perform an integration for every Fourier coefficient you calculate. In case you missed it: this year I finally wrote that post about how to define integration in the 3D complex numbers. Use the search function of this website in order to find that post in case you are interested.
Ok, that is what I had to say. Let us go to the beef of this post number 153 and that is of course the seven pictures that are all hungry for your attention. Here are the seven pictures:
Although I only gave some numerical evidence, the de Moivre identity is important!
There is an online Fourier series applet as it is named in these years. In the past we did not have applets but only computer programs. Anyway it is important those applets are there so I want to give a big thumbs up to the people that maintain that website! Here is a link to the Fourier thing:
At last I want to point at the importance of such free websites. It is very good if a society has enough of this kind of ‘free stuff’. For example when in the year 2012 I picked up my study of the 3D complex numbers for me it was very important that there were free online applets for the logarithm of a matrix. Without such a free website I would have taken me many more years to find those exponential circles & curves. Or I would not have found them at all because after all my biggest breakthrough was when I did read that numerical evidence from log j on the 3D complex numbers: why are the two imaginary components equal I was just wondering? Later I found how crucial that was: only if the imaginary components are equal the eigenvalues are purely imaginary in the complex plane.
So I am breaking a lance for free websites where you can find good applets (read: computer programs) that help your understanding of math.
Ok, that’s it for this post. In the next post I will finally give that definition and after that I do not have a clue. I still do not have any good proof for convergence of these 4D Fourier series so we’ll see. Till updates.
Warning: This post contains stuff that is not correct! Yet I decided to post it anyway so you can see that crafting math is also just keep on working until you have it right. The reason it does not work in the post below is that the basis functions I use are not all perpendicular to each other. And if you want to reconstruct a function or a signal s(t) with the basis functions as mentioned below, you will get weird overlap and the end result will not be correct.
Ok, that was a bit frustrating. But all in all I don’t have much reputation damage because more or less instantly I found another way of crafting the 4D Fourier series and that seems to work perfectly. So compared to the professional math professors who at one point in time accepted the quaternions and together with that stupid theorem of Frobenius concluded that 3D or 4D complex numbers are not possible, at least I don’t look that retarded. Sometimes I can be stupid too but at least it does not last for over one century. And may be that is also the reason that professional math professors absolutely do not want to talk about my work on 3D & higher dimensional number systems; admitting that you have been stupid for over one century is of course not an easy thing to do. And given the fact I am now unemployed for 17 or 18 years, rather likely the professional professors would rather be eating dog shit compared to speaking out my name… Once more we observe that in this world there is never a shortage of idiots.
In this post I use the coordinate functions of the exponential curve in the 4D complex numbers but I changed the period to 2 pi instead of a period of 8 that comes along with taking the log of the first imaginary unit. I also would like to mention that I use the so called modified Dirichlet kernel and because that kernel originates from Fourier analysis you must not get confused by the name ‘Dirichlet kernel’. The modified kernel is important (anyway for me) because it spits out all those coordinate functions for making exponential circles and curves in all dimensions possible. While if memory serves, the use of the Dirichlet kernel inside Fourier analysis is for using it in proofs of convergence. But may be I remember that completely wrong, after all it was about 30 years ago that I studied the Fourier stuff for the last time. The last two weeks were pleasant from the mathematical point of view, all that old Fourier stuff that somewhere still lingers around in my brain. But so much is gone, what is that Gibbs overshoot? Is that when a male math professor has his yearly orgasm? And what was the Parcival identiy? I don’t have a clue whatsoever. This post is 7 pictures long, four are of 550×775 pixels and I had to enlarge the other three to a size of 550×850 pixels. So it is not a mess like the previous post where I just enlarged the pictures on the fly until all that text was there. Here it is:
Again, this way of recontruction does not work!
Likely all those basis functions have this problem, if you take the inner product of an arbitrary basis function against the same basis function with three times the speed, it is not zero. And as such it is not perpendicular…
For people who have never heard of inner product spaces done with functions I found a cute pdf where a lot of the basics are explained.
I would like to be the 4D Fourier stuff done in a correct manner in the next post but sifting through what I wrote on 4D complex numbers I realized I never wrote about a de Moivre identiy for the 4D exponential curve. May be I will publish that in a separate post, may be not. Anyway, have a good time and see you in the next update.
About a week ago I started investigating how you could craft a Fourier series using the coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve. The usual way the series of Joseph Fournier are done is with the sine and cosine that are also the building blocks of the exponential circle on the complex plane. So I needed to look up my own work on the 4D complex numbers because in the beginning of 2019 I stopped writing posts about them and after such a long time not every detail is fresh in your brain of course. Anyway I did a Google search on 4D complex numbers and to my surprise this website popped up above where the quaternions were ranked. I was ranked number one. That was a great victory of course, it means that people are actually reading this stuff… In one of the screen shots below you see the quaternions once more topping my 4D complex numbers but from day to day it seems that Google is shuffeling the top results a bit so the search results look a bit more dynamic on a day to day basis.
This year I didn’t look at the search engine stuff at all, we still have that corona stuff going on and beside that why look at such boring stuff if I can do math instead? But I could not resist and went to the Microsoft Bing search engine. For years they never ranked this website on page 1 if you searched for ‘3D complex numbers’. But all those years if you looked into the picture search of the Bing search engine a giant fraction of the pictures was from this website. That was very strange, how can you return so much pictures from my website while never mentioning me at any significant position in the rankings of the html files? Ok ok most people say Bing is an inferior search engine compared to the Google search engine and as such not many people use the bing thing.
So once more and for the first time in this year 2020 I searched for ‘3D complex numbers’ on the Microsoft search engine. To my surprise instead of being burried down deep on say page 10, at Microsoft they had seen the light. Here is a screen shot:
Not bad, Reinko is in pole position & where is the competition?
In the next screen shot you see the html listing of Google when you search for 4D complex numbers. Today when I made the screen shot I was not ranked at no 1 but for some strange reason that did not make me cry like a baby in distress.
All in all there are 20 posts for 4D complex numbers.
And the last screen shot is about the Google thing for pictures when you search for four dimensional complex numbers. Luckily there is no competition but does that mean the rest of humanity is stupid as hell?
Of course not, it only means no one is interested in crafting 4D complex numbers for themselves. Professional math professors don’t want to talk about 4D complex numbers in public, so why are my internet search engine rankings that high? It might be that it is read by non math professors and that more or less explains the high rankings…
Google picture search on 4D complex numbers.
Ok, it is now 22 June and I finally wrote down what the new way of Fourier series is using the 4D exponential curve. Writing of the next post is almost finsihed and I think I am going to do it just like Joseph Fourier did. That is without any proof at al for the most important things…
Anyway, in the nexgt picture you see the Fourier series in a 4D style:
It could ber handy to look at the end of an old post from 01 Nov 2019, there I show you how you can use the modified Dirichlet kernels for finding parametrizations of the exponential circles & curves in 2, 3 and 4 dimensions. If it is possible to craft a 4D Fourier series (again this is only postulated so there is no proof at this date) you surely must try to understand the 4D modified Diriclet kernel… Here is the link:
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 2€ per post… 😉 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´.
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.
