Spin selection rules and the permanency of magnetic charge of the electron.

The official version aka the standard model of particle physics says there is only one kind of electron, all electrons are the same, and their magnetic properties like spin are only a matter of alignment cq anti-alignment with the magnetic field. The standar model treats electrons as tiny magnets.
I think that electrons are magnetic monopoles and as such there are two kinds; a north pole and a south pole kind. But can electrons flip their spin? After all a lot of quantum computing is based on the idea that indeed electrons can flip their spin even stronger: the electron can be in a super position of spin un and down.
Over the years I slowly evolved to the position that the magnetic charge of electrons is permanent. And if the magnetic charge is permanent in that case in the electron cloud of an atom or a molecule, al lot of transitions cannot be done. During those transitions the spin of an electron cannot flip simply because it’s charge is just like the electric charge: permanent.

Now I did not know it but inside a lot of chemistry files you can find a thing known as ‘Spin selection rules’ that give a good description of how an electron can jump up and down the diverse orbitals when it comes to it’s spin. You can also find it under ‘Forbidden transitions’ but also stuff like radioactive decay has forbidden transitions.

An important feature of a forbidden jump in electron transitions is that ther assiciated energy can be observed but that is always on a longer timescale. My impression is that the chemical people don’t understand very good as why this is: Well an electron in some atom or molecule can only ‘flip’ it’s spin as it gets replaced by another electron.

Example: The 21 cm radio frequency in radio astronomy. Photons with a wavelength of 21 cm come from atomic hydrogen that undergoes a spin flip to it’s lowest potential energy configuration when it comes to magentism.
But if that can only be done by other electrons bumping into that hydrogen atom, that says something about the electron streams in vacuum from where the 21 cm radiation is coming.

Here a simple picture of what is allowed and what not:

Basically it says: Spin flip is not allowed.

It is very well known inside the science of chemistry that energy states like those singlet and triplet stuff above are very close to each other. So how it is possible that just some thermal shaking or good old molecular vibrations do never flip the spin of an electron?

If all that mumbo jumbo about electrons was true, why can’t some heat or some vibrations make that sole electron flip it’s spin? Do we get that nonsense like “If you think you understand quantum mechancis, in that case you don’t understand quantum mechanics” one more time?

And I admit that too: If you are that stupid to view the electron as a tiny magnet, yes indeed the science of particle physics but also chemistry becomes very hard to understand. It’s loaded with weird stuff all over the place. In chemical bonding the electrons in a pair must always have opposite spins but in permanent magnets the spins must always be aligned.

May be it is time to split my dear reader. See you in the next post.

Proof that Z^2 = -1 cannot be solved on real spaces with an odd dimension. (General theory part 1.)

Finally after all those years something of a more general approach to multiplication in higher dimensions? Yes but at the same time I remark you should not learn or study higher dimensional numbers that way. You better pick a particular space like 3D complex numbers and find a lot out about them and then move on to say 4D or 5D complex numbers and repeat that process.
Problem with a more general approach is that those spaces are just too different from each other so it is hard to find some stuff all of those spaces have. It is like making theory for the complex plane and the split complex numbers at the same time: It is not a good idea because they behave very differently.
The math in this post is utterly simple, basically I use only that the square of a real number, this time a determinant, cannot be negative. The most complicated thing I use of the rule that says the determinant of a square is the square of the determinant like in det(Z^2) = det(Z)^2.

This post is only 3.5 pictures long so I added some extra stuff like the number tau for the 4D complex numbers and my old proof from 2015 that on the space of 3D complex numbers you can’t solve X^2 = -1.

I hope it’s all a bit readable so here we go:

Oops, this is the circular multiplication… Well replace j^3 = 1 by
j^3 = -1 and do it yourself if you want to.

So all in all my goal was to use the impossibility of x^2 being negative on the real line to the more general setting of n-dimensional numbers. As such the math in this post is not very deep, it is as shallow as possible. Ok ok may be that 4D tau is some stuff that makes math professors see water burning because they only have the complex plane.
Let me end this post with thanking you to make it till the end, you have endured weird looking robots without getting mentally ill! Congratulations!
At the end a link to that old file from 2015:

Video ‘proof’ that all chemistry professors are nutjobs.

Over the years I have written about the weird fact that according to the official theory the electron pair is a binding element in chemistry if they have opposite spins. That is very strange because that means the two electrons must be anti-aligned so the binding must happen via a north pole to north pole binding or a south pole to south pole binding.
But if you formulate it that way, instantly everybody understands you are crazy because a magnetic north pole is repelling against another magnetic north pole.
That is why they always talk about the Pauli exclusion principle and that you must use quantum numbers and more of that blah blah blah that is only there to masquerade that the binding is 100% crazy if the official theory upon electron spin was true.
It has to be remarked that if it is true that electrons are tiny magnets (they are not!), in that case it is logical that the binding must be done via equal magnetic charges. So north pole against north pole and the same for the south pole stuff.
Haven’t chemistry professors never heard of the elementary thing about magnetism and electricity: Like charges repel and different charges attrack?

Lets look at electricity first: Suppose you have two metal balls and one is strongly negatively charges so it has a surplus of electrons and the other is very positively charges so it has a deficit of electrons compared to the protons there are in the ball.
It is well known that these two metal balls now feel an attractive force between them. There is even a name for that: These are Coulomb forces. We find this behaviour back on every scale, the smallest example is the most simple atom there is, the hydrogen atom where one proton and one electron behave the same as macroscopic things like metal balls.

Now we look at magnetism: If you have two macroscopic magnets the lowest energy state is when north pole meets south pole. Why is this the lowest energy state? Simply because it costs energy to remove the two magnets. But according to the physics professors and the chemistry professors, in the electron pair the spins are not aligned and as such they are anti aligned.

And nobody remarks this is crazy, on the contrary they rejoice in all that stuff by stating things like “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”.

All that weird stuff is based on the idea that magnetic monopoles do not exist and as such even small point like particles must be a tiny magnet. And the idiots fool themselves by believing that the so called magnetic moment of the electron is measured with 12 decimal places exactly. These people are dumb to the bone: they have zero experimental evidence that electrons are tiny magnets while the 12 decimal places thing was done via measuring frequencies. Why do those people get tax payer money for their salaries?

Anyway the simple solution to this all is that electrons are not tiny magnets and as such they are magnetic monopoles. Only in that case we have that in the electron pair the electrons having opposite spin means a south pole to north pole connection.

I have four screen shots before I post the link to the video about computer models of chemical science stuff. So here we go:

This is the model with the earth as the center of the universe.

It took hundreds and hundreds of years to hammer this out of accepted knowledge: The earth is not the center of the universe. It is ironic that Sir Richard Catlow uses this in his video presentation while later he shows that molecular binding via electron pairs. Richard and his fellow chemistry and physics professors prove every day they are stupid by claiming electrons are tiny magnets…

This shows binding via north pole to north pole if we take the color red as a north pole…
Is this science or is it garbage?

I am 100% used to the fact my insights are always neglected. So I do not expect that a relative dumb person like Sir Richard Catlow will give some kind of serious answer. He just will keep on doing his weird stuff without a second thought that it is all not very logical. That is why I can say these people are a nutjob to start with.

The video also contains a jewel from long before the electron was discovered: A model for CH4, it is just so cute that some smart folks figured that out so long ago:

In reality methane is not a flat molecule, but this is ultra cute!

Chemistry and physics professors are all nutjobs because they keep on thinking that electrons are tiny magnets. They just are not scientists because they have zero experimental proof for the things they say about electron spin. They always use the Gauss law for magnetism as some kind of proof that magnetic monopoles do not exist, they have zero experimental proof for that all.

Ok, lets go to the video, it is about one hour long:

Why are they all that stupid year in year out?

End of this post, see you in the next one & thanks for your attention if you too think people so stupid should never get such much tax payer money…

What is the repeated conjugate ‘determinant style’? (Also: Repeated adjoint matrix.)

This post is easy going for most people who have mastered the art of finding the inverse of a square matrix using the so called adjoint matrix. I was curious what happens to a 3D circular number if you take the conjugate ‘determinant style’ twice. In terms of standard linear algebra this is the same as taking the adjoint of the adjoint of a square matrix.

It is well known by now (I hope anyway) that 3D complex and circular numbers contain a set of numbers with a determinant of zero, you can’t find an inverse for them. To be precise, if you take some circular 3D number, say X, and you make some limit where you send X into a not invertible number, you know the inverse will blow up to infinity.
But the conjugate ‘determinant style’ does not blow up, on the contrary in the previous post we observed that taking this kind of conjugate gave an extra zero eigenvalue in this conjugate.

In terms of linear algebra: If a square matrix is not invertible, it’s adjoint is ‘even more’ non invertible because a lot of the eigenvalues of that matrix turn to zero.

And although the inverse blows up to infinity, the cute result found is that it blows up in a very specific direction. After all it is the fact that the determinant goes to zero that blows the whole thing up, the conjugate ‘determinant style’ is as continuous as can be around zero…

It’s a miracle but the math is not that hard this time.

Four pictures for now and I plan on a small one picture addendum later.
So lets go:

Isn’t it cute? This infinity has a direction namely the number alpha…;)
Small correction: It should be taking the conjugate TWICE…

All in all this is not a deep math post but it was fun to look at anyway. May be a small appendix will be added later, so may be till updates inside this post or otherwise in some new post.
Added Sunday 16 April: A small appendix where you can see what the adjoint taking process is doing with the eigenvalues of a 5×5 diagonal matrix. The appendix was just over one picture long so I had to spread it out over two pictures. You understand fast what the point is if you calculate a few of the determinants of those minor matrices. Remark here with a 5×5 matrix all such minors are 4×4 matrices so it is the standard setting and not like that advanced theorem of Pythagoras stuff.
Well it all speaks for itself:

Ok, that was it for this update. Thanks for the attention and see you in another post.

Factorization of the determinant inside the space of 3D circular numbers. Aka: The conjugate ‘determinant style’.

A few weeks back I was thinking in writing finally some post about general theory for spaces with arbitrary dimension. It soon dawned on me that the first post should be about the impossibility of solving X^2 = -1 on spaces of odd dimension for both the complex and the circular method of mulitplication on those spaces. So post number one should be about the fact the famous number i does not exist in spaces with dimensions 1, 3, 5 etc.
And what about the second post? Well you can always factorize the determinant inside such spaces, that is a very interesting observation because the determinant is also the product of all eigenvalues. These eigenvalues live traditionally in the complex plane and as such a naive math professor could easily think that the determinant can only be factorized inside the complex plane. So that would be a reasonable post number two.
Since all these years I only did such a factorization once I decided to do it again and that is this post. The basic idea is very simple: If you want to find an expression for the inverse of a general 3D circular number, you need the determinant of that number. From that you can easily find a factorization of the determinant. It’s as simple as efficient.

But now I have repeated it in the space of 3D circular numbers I discovered that part of this factorization behaves very interesting when you restrict yourself to the subset of all 3D circular number that are not invertible. That is that taking the conjugate ‘determinant style’. The weird result is that taking this kind of a conjugate increases the number of eigenvalues that are zero. So this form of conjugation transports circular numbers with only one eigenvalue zero to the sub-space of numbers with two eigenvalues zero.

For years I have been avoiding writing general theory because I considered it better to take one space at a time and look at the details on just that one space. May be that still is the best way to go because now I have this new transporting detail for only what would be the second post of a general theory, it looks like it is very hard to prove such a thing in a general setting.

Luckily the math content of this post is not deep in the sense if you know how to find the inverse of a square matrix, you understand fast what is going on at the surface. But what happens at the level of non-invertibles is mind blowing: What the hell is going on there and is it possible to catch that into some form of general theory?

I tried to keep it short but all in all it grew to a nice patch of math that is 8 pictures long. Here is the stuff:

At the end of this post I want to remark that the quadratic behaviour of our conjugate ‘determinant style’ is caused by the fact it was done on a 3D space. If for example you are looking at 17 dimensional number, complex or circular, this method of taking a conjugate is a 16 degree beast in 17 variables. how to prove all non-invertible numbers get transported to more and more eigenvalues zero?

May be it is better to skip the whole idea of crafting a general theory once more and only look at the beautiful specifics of the individual spaces under consideration.

End of this post and thanks for your attention.

Comparison of the ‘Speed = the Square’ equation on 7 different spaces.

This post is very simlilar to a few back when we calculated the results on 4 different spaces. This time I hardly pen down any calculation but only give the results so we can compare them a little bit.
The way most professional math professors tell the story of complex numbers it goes a bit like this: We have the real number line, the complex plane and on top of that a genius named Hamilton found the quaternions. On top of that there are a bunch of so called Clifford algebra’s and oh we math professors are just so good. There is no comparison to us, we are the smartest professionals in the world!

Well that is very interesting because it is well known these so called ‘professionals’ could not find the 3D complex numbers for about 150 years. So how come they all say we have this and that (complex plane and quaternions) and that’s enough, we are just perfect! Why they keep on saying rubbish like that is the so called Dunning-Kruger effect. That’s something from psychology and it says that people who lack understanding of some complicated stuff also lack the insight that they are stupid to the bone when it comes to that particular complicated stuff. So the views of professional math professors is very interesting but can be neglected one 100 percent, it’s just Dunning-Kruger effect…

If you look at the seven results of the ‘Speed = the Square’ equations, the solutions form a strickt pattern that only depends of the number of dimensions and if it is the complex or the circular multiplication. So every time a math professor goes from the complex plane to the wonderful world of quaternions you now know you are listening to a weirdo.

I said I only give results but since I have never ever introduced the 4D circular numbers I just extrapolated the other six spaces to the solution that lives in that beautiful space. So the last example is a bit longer.

Anyway although the math depth of this post is not that very deep (solving a differential equation that wants the derivative to be the square of what you differentiate), it clearly demonstrates solutions of all 7 different spaces look strikingly similar.
But because of the Dunning-Kruger effect likely the math professors will keep on telling total crap when it comes to complex numbers. Why am I wasting my time on explaining math professor behaviour? Better go to the five pictures of our post. Here we go & bye bye math professors.

May be I should write some posts about general complex number theory on spaces of arbitrary dimension. On the other hand I found the 3D complex numbers back in the year 1990. So if after all those years I will once more try to write some general theory one thing will be clear: Math professors will keep on trying to convince you of the beauty of quaternions or that garbage from the Clifford algebra’s.

Why, as a society, do we keep on wating tax payer money on math professors? Ok, they do not everything wrong but all in all it is not a great science or so where the participants are capable of weeding the faults out and grow more of the good stuff.
Let me end this post and thank you for your attention.

Correction: My spinning plasma model for sun spots is likely not correct.

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’.

Solving the ‘Speed = the Square’ equation on the space of 4D complex numbers.

Unavoidable I had to write some post after the video on the quaternion from Hamilton. Now my 4D complex numbers commute so they are very different from the standard version of quaternions. Just like in the complex plane the multiplication is ruled by the imaginary unit i that has the defining property of i^2 = -1. On the space of four dimensional complex number I mostly write l for the first imaginary component, the defining property is of course that now the fourth power equals minus one: l^4 = -1.
In 2018 I wrote about 20 introdutionary posts about the 4D complex numbers. That is much more as you would need for the quaternions of Hamilton but on the quaternions you can’t do complex analysis and that explains almost all of the difference.
You can view the quaternions as three complex planes fused together by the common use of the real line. My 4D complex numbers can be viewed as a merge of two complex planes in the sense that there are two planes clearly ‘the same’ as a complex plane.
This post is once more one of the ‘Speed = the Square’ equations and just as on the other spaces we looked at we choose the initial condition such that it is the first imaginary unit l. As such our solution is easily found to be f(t) = l / (1 – lt) because if you differentiate that you get the square. So from the mathematical point of view this is all rather shallow math because all we have to do is find the four coordinate functions of our solution f(t). For that you need to calculate the inverse of 1 – lt and to be honest after so much years I think almost all math professors are just to fucking stupid to find the inverse of any non real 4D compex number Z let alone if you have something with a variable t in it like in 1/(1 – lt).

I did my best to write this as transparant as possible while also keeping it as short as possible. For an indepth look at how to find the inverse of a 4D complex number, look for Part 17 in the intro series to the 4D complex numbers. (Just use the search function for this website for that.)

This post is just three pictures long so lets hope that is inside your avarage attention span. And it’s math so without doubt a lot of people will digest this with a speed of one picture a week! No I am not being sarcastic or so, I just like as how I evolved to the math place I am now. Often that also goes very slow but it has to be remarked the math professors are much more slow slow slow because they could not find the 3D complex numbers in all of human history.
Let’s dive into the picture stuff:

One of the funny things of the math of this post is that on the one hand it is very simple: You only need high school math like the quotient rule for checking my claims are true and differentiation mimics the multiplication on the 4D complex numbers. On the other hand you have those math professors likely not capable of finding these easy coordinate functions for themselves.
But this post is not meant as an anti math professor rant but more upon the beauty of simple math you can do on say the space of 4D complex numbers.
See you in the next post.

Why could Hamilton not find the three dimensional complex numbers?

This very short post was written because of a video from the video channel Kathy loves physics. It is one of those “Quaternions are fantastic” video’s. And Kathy just like a lot of other physics people think indeed that quaternions are fantastic. But you cannot differentiate or integrate on the quaternions so I guess this stronly limits it’s use in physics.
But quaternions are very handy in describing rotations in 3D space, I never studied the details but it was said that on the space shuttle it was used for nagvigation. And because of these rotation properties at present day they are used in the games industry.

Anyway in the video Kathy explains that Hamilton did try for a long time to find the three dimensional complex numbers. And he never succeeded in that. Of course I know this for decades right now but in the past I never looked into a tiny bit more detail in what Hamilton was actually doing.
And he was looking at complex numbers of the form X = x + yi + zj where the imaginary components both equal to minus one: i^2 = j^2 = -1.

If you check the easy calculations in this post for yourself, it is amazing how much it already looks like the stuff as found on the quaternions. As such it is all of a sudden much less a surprise that Hamilton found the quaternions. As a matter of fact it was only waiting until he would stumble across them. But at the time the concept of a four dimensional space was something that made you look like a crazy lunatic, there were even vector wars and lots of crazy emotional stuff.

At present day it is accepted that 3D complex numbers do not exist, in my experience the professional math community is still emotionally laden but now into the direction of total neglect. Stupid shallow thought like “If Hamilton could not find them, they likely don’t exist”.

Back in the 19-th century they were always looking for an extenstion of the complex plane to three dimensional space. Of course they failed in that attempt because it is a fact of math life that you cannot solve the equation X^2 = -1 on the space of 3D complex (and also circular) numbers.

The content of this post is just two pictures, after that two more pictures as I used them on the other website and after that you can finally dive into the Video from Kathy. If you are interested in physics and also the history of physics, Kathy her channel is a thing you should take a look at if you’ve never seen it. Here we go:

YES, that is what he should have done. Hamilton tried for about one decade to find the numbers that form the title of this very website, so may be he tried this kind of approach. I don’t know, but the 3D complex numbers are not some extension of the complex plane because 2 is not a divisor of 3. You know that prime number stuff is going on here.
But the math professors are not interested in that kind of stuff.

Here is how I used it on the other website:

As you see in the above picture I was already working on the previous post because if you differentiate the three functions that mimics the 3D circular multiplication. You can also mimic the multiplication on the complex plane, that is in the next picture:

At last you can view the famous video of Kathy! It’s only 30 minutes or so but if you see too many so called TIKTOK videos that is infinitely long: Wow 30 minutes long looking at just one video?

End of this post, likely the next post is about 4D complex numbers.

Solving the ‘Speed = The Square’ equation on four different spaces.

With ‘speed = square’ I simply mean that the speed is a vector made up of the square of where you are. The four spaces are:
1) The real line,
2) The complex plane (2D complex numbers),
3) The 3D circular numbers and
4) The 3D complex numbers.

I will write the solutions always as dependend on time, so on the real line a solution is written as x(t), on the complex plane as z(t) and on both 3D number spaces as X(t). And because it looks rather compact I also use the Newtonian dot notation for the derivative with respect to time. It has to be remarked that Newton often used this notation for natural objects with some kind of speed (didn’t he name it flux or so?).
Anyway this post has nothing to do with physics, here we just perform an interesting mathematical ecercise: We look at what happens when points always have a speed that is the square of their position.

On every space I give only one solution, that is a curve with a specific initital value, mostly the first imaginary component on that space. Of course on the real line the initial condition must be a real number because it lacks imaginary stuff.

If you go through the seven pictures of this post, ask in the back of your mind question as why is this all working? Well that is because the time domains we are using are made of real numbers and, that is important, the real line is also a part of the complex and circular number systems.
The other way you can argue that the geometric series stuff we use can also be extended from the real line to the three other spaces. To be precise: we don’t use the geometric series but the fractional function that represents it.

Ok, lets go to the seven pictures:

That Newton dot notation just looks so cute…
The words ‘Analytic continuation’ are not completely correct…

Remark: This post is not deep mathematics or so. We start every time with a function we know that if you differentiate it you will get the square. After that we look at it’s coordinate functions and shout in bewilderment: Wow that gives the square, it is a God given miracle!

No these are not God given miracles but I did an internet search on the next phrase of Latex code: \dot{z} = z^2. To my surprise nothing of interest popped up in the Google search results. So I wonder if this is just one more case of low hanging math fruits that are not plucked by math professors? Who knows?

End of this post, thanks for your attention.