Part 10 of the 4D basics: The 4D imitators of i rotate everything by 90 degrees.

4D complex numbers

This is a short and simple update that nicely fits into the series of the basics of 4D complex numbers. It is only 3 pictures long and all we do is multiply a 4D complex number A by one of the imitators of i and after that calculate the inner product between A and A times the imitator of i.

Compare it to the complex plane: Take a 2D complex number z from the complex plane, write it as a vector and also write iz as a vector. Take the inner product and conclude that it is zero so that z and iz are perpendicular to each other.

That’s all we do in the space of 4D complex numbers:

I hope this was basic enough…  See you in the next post.

A few numerical results related to the 4D sphere-cone equations using the four coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve.

4D complex numbers, Exponential circle, Exponential curves

This is Part 9 in the basics to the complex 4D numbers. In this post we will check numerically that the 4D exponential curve has it’s values on the 4D unit sphere intersected with a 4D cone that includes all coordinate axes. In 3D space the sphere-cone equations ensure the solution is 1 dimensional like a curve should be. In 4D space the sphere-cone equations are not enough, there is at least one missing equation and those missing equations can be found in the determinant of a matrix representation M(Z) for a 4D complex number Z.

But we haven’t done any determinant stuff yet (because you also need a factorization of the 4D determinant in four variables and that is not a trivial task). So this post does not contain numerical evidence that the determinant is always one on the entire exponential curve.

If you want to compare this post to the same stuff in the complex plane:
In the complex plane the sphere-cone equation is given by x^2 + y^1 = 1 (that is the unit circle) and if you read this you probably know that f(t) = e^{it} = cos t + i sin t.

You can numerically check this by adding the squares of the sine and cosine for all t in one period and that is all we do in this post. Only it is in 4D space and not in the two dimensional complex plane…

This post is seven pictures long (all of the usual size 550 x 775).

All graphs in this post are made with the applets as found on:

WIMS https://wims.sesamath.net/wims.cgi?lang=en

For the two graphs from above look for ‘animated drawing’ choose the 2D explicit curves option. There you must use the variable x instead of time t.

Here is the stuff you can place in for the sphere equation:

(cos(pi*x/2)*cos(pi*x/4))^2 +
(0.707107*(cos(pi*x/4)*sin(pi*x/2) + sin(pi*x/4)*sin(pi*x/2)))^2 +
(-cos(pi*x/2)*sin(pi*x/4))^2 +
(0.707107*(cos(pi*x/4)*sin(pi*x/2) – sin(pi*x/4)*sin(pi*x/2)))^2

If you just ‘cut & paste’ it should work fine…
That should save you some typo’s along the way

Ok, that is what I had to say on this numerical detail.

On a possible model for solar loops: rotating plasma.

4D complex numbers, Magnetism, Matrix representation

Yes that is all there is: spinning plasma… At the end of last year’s summer I had figured out that if indeed electrons have far more acceleration compared to the protons, if on the sun the solar plasma starts rotating this caused a lot of electrons flying out and as such the spinning plasma would always be electrically positive.

But at the time I had no clue whatsoever about why there would be spinning plasma at the surface of the sun but lately I found the perfect culprit: The sun spins much faster at the equator compared to the polar regions.

This spinning plasma is visible at the surface of the sun as the famous sun spots and it is known these sun spots are places of strong magnetic fields.

There is a bit of a weak spot in my simple model that says all spinning plasma creates a strong magnetic field because if the solar spots are at there minimum none of them are observed for a relatively long time. The weak spot is: Why would there be no tornado like structures be made during this minimum of solar spots? After all the speed difference is still there between the equator regions and the polar regions.

Anyway the good thing is that my simple model is very falsifiable: If you can find only one spinning tube-shaped or tornado-shaped plasma structure that not makes magnetic fields, the simple model can be thrown into the garbage bin.

The simple model is found in Reason number 65 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles on the other website:

Reason 65: A possible model for solar loops going between two solar spots.
http://kinkytshirts.nl/rootdirectory/just_some_math/monopole_magnetic_stuff03.htm#22July2018

The main feature of the solar loops is that before your very own eyes you see all that solar plasma accelerating while according to the standard model of physics this is not possible.

Now there are plenty of physics professors stating that electrons can be accelerated by a magnetic field but if you hear them saying that you know they have never done the calculations that make it at least plausible that non constant magnetic fields are the main driver of electron acceleration.

Here are two nice pictures of what I am trying to explain with my simple model.

The above picture is in the UV part of the spectrum.

After having said that, the next post is like planned about numerical evaluations related to the four coordinate functions of the new found exponential curve f(t) for the 4D complex numbers. I hope to finish it later this week.

Now we are talking about cute numerical results anyway, in the next picture you can see numerical validation that the number tau in the 4D complex space is invertible because the determinant of it’s matrix representation is clearly non-zero.

You might say ‘so what?’.  But if the number tau is invertible on the 4D complex numbers (just like the complex plane i has an inverse) in that case you can also craft a new Cauchy integral representation for that!

Again you might say ‘so what?’. But Cauchy integral representation is highly magical inside complex analysis related to the complex plane. There is a wiki upon it but the main result is a bit hard to swallow if you see it for the first time, furthermore the proof given is completely horrible let alone the bullshit after that. Anyway here it is, proud 21-century math wiki style:

Cauchy’s integral formula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_integral_formula

Ok, let’s leave it with that. Till updates my dear reader.

Part 8 of the 4D basics: Wirtinger derivatives.

4D complex numbers, CR equations, Laplacian

This is the 91-th post on this website so surely but slowly this website is growing on. This post was more or less written just for myself; I don’t know if the concept of Wirtinger derivates is used a lot in standard complex analysis but I sure like it so that’s why we take a look at it.

The idea of a Wirtinger derivative is very simple to understand: You have some function f(Z) and by differentiating it in the direction of all four basis vectors you craft the derivative f'(Z) from that.

At the basis for all the calculations we do in this post are the Cauchy-Riemann equations that allow you to rewrite the partial derivatives we put into the Wirtinger derivative.

The main result in this post is as follows:
We take our Wirtinger operator W and we multiply it with the 4D complex conjugate of W and we show that this is a real multiple of the Laplacian.

The 4D case is more or less the same as on the complex plane, that is not a miracle because in previous 4D basics we already observed two planes inside the 4D complex numbers that are isomorphic to the complex plane. So it is not much of a surprise the entire 4D space of complex numbers behaves in that way too; all functions are harmonic that is the Laplacian of such a function is zero.

This post is ten pictures long, most of them are size 550 x 775 but a few of them are a bit broader like 600 x 775 because the calculations are rather wide.

On the scale of things this post is not ultra important or so, it is more like I wrote it for myself and I wanted to look in how much this all was different from the three dimensional case.

Here are the pics:

Further reading from a wiki (of course that is only about 2D complex numbers from the complex plane):
Wirtinger derivatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtinger_derivatives

Ok, that was it. Till updates.

Planning of posts + small magnetic update.

4D complex numbers, Magnetism

The next post is about so called Wirtinger derivatives for functions defined on the space of 4D complex numbers. That would also be part 8 in the basics of complex numbers but you can ask yourself if it looks like this is it basic?

It looks like you can rewrite these horrible looking operators always as the Laplacian.
It’s amazing. So that will be the next post.

After that, for the time being it is in the planning, a few numerical results from the sphere-cone equation for 4D complex numbers. That could serve as another post.

In another development I decided to skip all possible preperations for an ‘official publication’ when it comes to electron spin. The bridge between what I think of electron spin (a magnetic charge) and the official version (magnetic monopoles do not exist) is just too large. As such the acceptance in a peer reviewed scientific journal are not that high given the ‘peer review hurdle’.

Beside this hurdle there are much more reasons that I throw this project into the garbage bin. I just don’t feel good about it.

May be in five or ten years I will change my view on this, but I think it is better for every body that the official standpoint on electrons just stays as it is:

Electrons are magnetic dipoles.

No, why should I try to get into some physics scientific journal saying it ain’t so?

Until now all experimental evidence I have is this lousy picture that I made with an old television set, it is from April 2016:

Once more it is very hard to explain this away with the Lorenz force only. By all mathematical standards the Lorentz force is continuous when it comes to electron velocity and the applied magnetic field.

What we observe with this old 12 € television is that the electrons behave not that way; they behave discontinuous…

Let’s leave it with that. Till updates.

Calculation of the four coordinate functions for the 4D exponential curve (complex version).

4D complex numbers, Exponential circle, Exponential curves

Like promised in this post I will show you in the greatest detail possible how to find those rather difficult looking four coordinate functions.

I had thought about crafting these four coordinate functions before but the method I had in mind was rather labor some so I balked a bit at that. Not that I am lazy but I also had to work on the basics for the 4D complex numbers like in the last posts…

So one day I decided to look into the specific details of what I name ‘imitators of the number i’ and I was very surprised by their behavior. As a matter of fact these imitators imitate i soo good that you can make exponential circles of them.
And I wrote down the two exponential circles, I looked at them and realized you can factorize the 4D exponential curve with it and as such you will get the four coordinate functions…

That was all, at some point in time on some day I just decided to look at the imitators of the number i from the complex plane and within 5 at most 10 minutes I found a perfect way of calculating these four coordinate functions.

It always amazes me that often a particular calculation takes a short amount of time, like 10 or 20 minutes, and after that you always need hours and hours until you have a nice set of pictures explaining the calculation…

Anyway, this post is five pictures long and as such it contains also Part 6 and 7 of the Basics to the 4D complex numbers.

I hope that in the long run it will be the result in this post that will make 4D complex numbers acceptable to the main stream mathematical community.
But may be once more I am only fooling myself with that, after all back in the year 1991 I was only thinking stuff like ‘If you show them the 3D Cauchy-Riemann equations, they will jump in the air from joy’.
They (the math professors) never jumped from joy, no significant change in brain activity was ever observed by me. So when I write ‘in the long run’ as above, may be I should more think like a geological timescale…
__________

But let’s not complain because once you understand the factorization, it is so beautiful that it is hard to feel angry or whatever what.
Here are the five pictures:

 

Ok, that is how you calculate the four coordinate functions.

Till updates.

The basics of 4D complex numbers.

4D complex numbers, CR equations, Exponential curves, Matrix representation

In the previous post on 4D complex numbers I went a little bit philosophical with asking if these form of crafting a 4D number system is not some advanced way of fooling yourself because your new 4D thing is just a complex plane in disguise…

And I said let’s first craft the Cauchy-Riemann equations for the 4D complex numbers, that might bring a little bit more courage and making us a little bit less hesitant against accepting the 4D complex numbers.

In this post we also do the CR equations and indeed they say that for functions like f(Z) = Z^2 you can find a derivative f'(Z) = 2Z. So from the viewpoint of differentiation and integration we are in a far better spot compared to the four dimensional quaternions from Hamilton. But the fact that the CR equations can be crafted is because the 4D complex numbers commute, that is XY = YX. And on the quaternions you cannot differentiate properly because they do not commute.

So crafting Cauchy-Riemann equations can be done, but it does not solve the problem of may be you are fooling yourself in a complicated manner. Therefore I also included the four coordinate functions of the exponential 4D curve that we looked at in the previous post.

All math loving folks are invited to find the four coordinate functions for themselves, in the next post we will go through all details. And once you understand the details that say the 4D exponential curve is just a product of two exponential circles as found inside our 4D complex numbers, that will convince you much much more about the existence of our freshly unearthed 4D complex numbers.

Of course the mathematical community will do once more in what they are best: ignore all things Reinko Venema related, look the other way, ask for more funding and so on and so on. In my life and life experiences not one university person has ever made a positive difference, all those people are only occupied with how important they are and that’s it. Being mathematical creative is not very high on the list of priorities over there, only conform to a relatively low standard of ‘common talk’ is acceptable behavior…

After having said that, this post is partitioned into five parts and is 10 pictures long. It is relatively basic and in case that for example you have never looked at matrix representations of complex numbers of any dimension, please give it a good thought.

Because in my file I also encountered a few of those professional math professors that were rather surprised by just how a 3 by 3 matrix looks for 3D complex numbers. How can you find that they asked, but it is fucking elementary linear algebra and sometimes I think these people do not understand what is in their own curriculum…

Ok, here are the 10 pictures covering the basic details of 4D complex numbers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, that was the math for this post.

And may be I am coming a bit too hard on the professional math professors. After all they must give lectures, they must attend meetings where all kinds of important stuff has to be discussed until everybody is exhausted, they must be available for students with the questions and problems they have, they must do this and must do that.

At the end of the day, or at the end of the working week, how much hours could they do in free thinking? Not that much I just guess…

Let’s leave it with that, see you in the next post.

A nice teaser picture about 4D coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve (complex version).

Exponential circle, Exponential curves

Lately I have been working on the next post about the basics of the 4D complex numbers. You simply need those basics like matrix representations because later on when you throw in some 4D Cauchy-Riemann equations, it is very handy to have a good matrix representation for the stuff involved.

The next post covering the basics had five parts, let’s not dive in all kinds of math details right now but go straight to part five with the four coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve:

These four coordinate functions are also time lags of each other.

This new baby number tau keeps on looking cute…

Let me leave it with that, till updates.

Calculation of the 4D complex number tau.

4D complex numbers, Exponential curves, Matrix representation, Quantum mechanics

It is about high time for a new post, now some time ago I proposed looking at those old classical equations like the heat and wave equation and compare that to the Schrödinger equation. But I spilled some food on my notes and threw it away, anyway everybody can look it up for themselves; what often is referred to as the Schrödinger equation looks much more like the heat equation and not like the classical wave equation…

Why this is I don’t know.

This post is a continuation from the 26 Feb post that I wrote after viewing a video from Gerard ‘t Hooft. At the end of the 26 Feb post I showed you the numerical values for the  logarithm of the 4D number tau. This tau in any higher dimensional number system (or a differential algebra in case you precious snowflake can only handle the complex plane and the quaternions) is always important to find.

Informally said, the number tau is the logarithm of the very first imaginary component that has a determinant of 1. For example on the complex plane we have only 1 imaginary component usually denoted as i. Complex numbers can also be written as 2 by 2 matrices and as such the matrix representation of i has a determinant of 1.
And it is a well known result that log i = i pi/2, implicit the physics professors use that every day of every year. Anytime they talk about a phase shift they always use this in the context of multiplication in the complex plane by some number from the unit circle in the complex plane.

In this post, for the very first time after being extremely hesitant in using dimensions that are not a prime number, we go to 4D real space. Remark that 4 is not a prime number because it has a prime factorization of 2 times 2.

Why is that making me hesitant?
That is simple to explain: If you can find the number i from the complex plane into my freshly crafted 4D complex number system, it could very well be this breaks down to only the complex plane. In that case you have made a fake generalization of the 2D complex numbers.

So I have always been very hesitant but I have overcome this hesitation a little bit in the last weeks because it is almost impossible using the complex plane only to calculate the number tau in the four dimensional complex space…

May be in a future post we can look a bit deeper in this danger; if also Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied in four real variables, that would bring a bit more courage to further study of the 4D complex number system.

__________

After the introduction blah blah words I can say the 4D tau looks very beautiful. That alone brings some piece of mind. I avoided all mathematical rigor, no ant fucking but just use numerical results and turn them into analytical stuff.

That is justified by the fact that Gerard is a physics professor and as we know from experience math rigor is not very high on the list or priorities over there…

That is forgiven of course because the human brain and putting mathematical rigor on the first place is the perfect way of making no progress at all. In other sciences math should be used as a tool coming from a toolbox of reliable math tools.

__________

This post is seven pictures long, all are 550 by 775 pixels in size except for the last one that I had to make a little bit longer because otherwise you could not see that cute baby tau in the 4D complex space.

Here we go:

Just take your time and look at this ultra cute number tau.

It is very very hard to stay inside the complex plane, of course the use of 4 by 4 matrices is also forbidden, and still find this result…

I am still hesitant about using dimensions that are not prime numbers, but this is a first result that is not bad.

End of this post.

What is the inverse Pythagoras theorem?

Pythagoras stuff

It is already late in the evening, actually it is past midnight so I will keep the text of this post short. It was a nice day today and this evening I brewed the 23-th batch of a beer known as ‘Spin half beer’. (I name it that way because it contains only half of the dark malts I use in the beer known as dark matter…;) so it has nothing to do with electrons).

This is a very basic post about some ‘inverse Pythagoras theorem’ as came flying by in some math video. I was rather surprised that I have not seen it before but there are so many theorems out there using that old fashioned Euclidian geometry that I might have forgetten all about it.

Within 10 minutes I had a good proof for the 2D version of this ‘inverse Pythagoras theorem’. You can find it in the first picture below.

One day later when I was riding a bit around I tried to find the higher dimensional analog of that easy to understand 2D statement or theorem. And as such it crossed my mind the important role a distance number d played in my proof for the general theorem of Pythagoras that acts on simplexes that are the higer dimensional analog of 2D triangles.

Coming home it was easy to write out the details, but for me it was all so simple that does this stuff deserve the title ‘theorem’? Well make up your own mind about that, but if it is not a real complicated theorem it is still a nice and cute result…

This post is six pictures long (all 550×775 pixels beside the last one that needed a bit expansion because the math did not fit properly so that one is 600×775 pixels).

At times it might look difficult but this is only because it is in a general setting when it comes to the number of dimensions, the basic idea’s are all simple things like taking an inner product with a normalized normal vector.

Here are the six pictures:

That is a cute result but for me the normal vector is just as cute but only a bit harder to write out because that part deals with general setting where the dimension n is not fixed.

For the time being is this the end of this post. See you around my dear reader.

__________

Addendum added on 30 March 2018: In the previous post I forgot to place a link to the proof of the general theorem of Pythagoras as I crafted it once a long time ago.

Before this link I would like to show you once more how to prove the general theorem of Pythagoras for the 3D case using only the 2D theorem.

After all, that is the first basic step in my proof for the general theorem of Pythagoras…

Here are the two addendum pictures outlining how this basic step from the two dimensional plane to the 3D space goes:

Here is the link to the proof of the general theorem of Pythagoras:

The general theorem of Pythagoras (second and final post).

The general theorem of Pythagoras (second and final post).

Ok that was it, till updates.