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.

A new page on magnetics covering this year 2018.

Magnetism

After a little bit of thinking I decided to open another page on magnetic, mostly the tiny fact that electrons carry magnetic charge and are not magnetic dipoles, covering stuff as it is found in the year 2018.
Of course I will not push that idea for an infinite amount of time but this is about year number four and I still like it to look into the details of all things wrong with the official version of electron spin.
Likely this year will be as the previous years; total 100% silence from all physics professors, you can view that kind of behavior as a combination of being stupid and coward at the same time. This is known as a super position of cowardice and stupidity…
Also this year I will never ever try to attempt to write an official publication on the subject of electron spin, I still estimate the likelihood of rejection above 90% and on top of that I do not like it to be judged by some coward dumb ass.
No, the year 2018 is just another year of strong separation between me and all those university people.
__________
After having said that, here is the link to the new page three:

http://kinkytshirts.nl/rootdirectory/just_some_math/monopole_magnetic_stuff03.htm

This year I posted four more reasons as why electrons cannot have magnetic dipole properties of their own, basically most stuff observed like the electron pair in chemical bonding is not based on two magnetic dipoles doing ‘mysterious stuff’ but the pair is a sole reflection of the fact the pair has opposite magnetic charges.

Here is a screen shot from where I am now:

A very short description of the content of the four new posted reasons:

Reason 53: It was observed that in the IBM attempts to craft so called magnetic racetrack memory, the domain walls could not be moved by magnetic fields in those nano structures. Very boldly I simply claimed that in all metals with magnetic domains, the domain walls contain (much) more electron pairs…
This was very bold but if you want to shoot my theory out of the sky, the professional professors have to prove that the magnetic properties of the unpaired electron are more or less the same as the electron pair while at the same time upholding the Gauss law for magnetism (no magnetic charges do exist).

Reason 54: The circular magnetic field around circular (copper) wires when they transport electrical current. In my view, dependent on the magnetic charge of the individual electrons they will spiral at the surface of the wire into two different kind of spirals.

Reason 55: If what the video says is true and this is how the electron spin valve works, that is one more contribution to the simple fact electrons carry magnetic charge. It all boils down to the idea that opposite charges attrack while like charges repel.
That is the way such spin valves work.

Reason 56: After watching a lot of so called ‘spin torque transfer’ video’s I was so completely fed up with these people who only do theoretical blah blah blah but never ever in their lives as perfumed princes touch things like a screwdriver, I decided to do a simple experiment that debunkes a lot of that theoretical ‘spin torque transfer’.

Here is picture number two of my very simple experiment that shows there is no spin torque tranfer observed in a time frame of about 25 hours:

It is not observed: The strongest magnets possible in this year against the weakest macroscopic magnet still in my possesion, no spin torque transfer observed…..

__________

Ok, end of this post. Thanks for your attention.

I am innocent, I did not do it. I just found the numbers tau in the Schrödinger equation your honour…

3D complex numbers, Exponential circle, Exponential curves, Matrix representation, Quantum mechanics

Judge: But you were caught red handed placing the number tau in a Schrödinger equation while you do not qualify for being a member of the most bright and enlightened persons in our society: The PHYSISCS PROFESSORS.

Reinko: But Judge I can explain, it was that evil guy that Gerard ‘t Hooft who did it. I can prove that because it is on video.

Judge: Yes you already told that into the statements you made after arrest by the police. So we took the freedom and ask Mr. Gerard ‘t Hooft himself about the evil you have done with molesting the Schödinger equation. Mr. ‘t Hoofd said it had to be Hermitian and although I do not know what that means he said that by using anti-Hermitian matrices you, Reinko Venema, you are nothing more as some sadistic pedophile piece of shit.

Reinko: But judge, it is not Hermitian, that is only a trick. You see if you multiply it by the number 1 like 1 = – i squared you see it is not Hermitian.

Judge: Do you think we get complex analysis in law school? We don’t, we asked some experts and all agreed that Gerard is right and you are wrong and right now rewarded by your own evil deeds to 75 years in prison in a maximum security facility.

__________

After this somewhat strange introduction I repeat I was innocent. I was just looking at a video of a guy that is just like me old and boring.

And that guy, Gerard ‘t Hooft, was able to give me three nice punches in the face.
That is what this post is about; Three punches in the face as delivered by Gerard.

It is the very first time I observe professional physics professors using the number tau while claiming the stuff has to be Hermitian to make any sense.

I was devastated because in my little world of mathematics it had to be anti Hermitian so at a first glimpse it looks like a simple shootout between Gerard and me: Only one can be right…

Let me first show you the Youtube video where right at the start Gerard succeeds to bring my small sack of human brain tissue into an exited state and after that I am rewarded with finding the number tau into the famous Schrödinger equation.

Let me also temper the enthousiasm a little bit because at present date 26 Feb in the year 2018 I only know of one example where three quantum states are rotated into each other:
That is the transport of the color charges as it is found on the quarks inside the proton and neutron…

Here is the video, after that the nine pictures that make up the mathematical core of this new post:

Gerard ‘t Hooft – How Quantum Mechanics Modifies the Space-Time of a Black Hole (QM90)

Let me spare you a discussion on the entire video but only look at what you can find on the very introduction as shown above because all of the three punches at my face are already found there.

Here are the nine pictures for this new post:

For readers who have found themselves lost on what a Hermitian matrix is, here is a wiki:

Hermitian matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_matrix

And for readers who have found themselves lost on finding an ‘analytic handle’ about how to calculate matrices like in picture 09, a good starter would be about the calculation of the 7D number tau:

An important calculation of the 7D number tau (circular version).

That’s it, till updates.

Oops; CERN did not find magnetic monopoles.

Magnetism, Quantum mechanics, Uncategorized

It has to be remarked that the physics folks are very persistant to keep on trying to find the so called Dirac monopole. How this has come to be is still a miracle to me. After all if the electron has one electric charge and for the rest it is a magnetic dipole, it would look naturally to look for a particle that is a magnetic monopole and an electric dipole at the same time…

But I have never heard about such an investigation, it is only the Dirac magnetic monople and that’s it.

Here is a quote from sciencenews dot org:

If even a single magnetic monopole were detected, the discovery would rejigger the foundations of physics. The equations governing electricity and magnetism are mirror images of one another, but there’s one major difference between the two phenomena. Protons and electrons carry positive and negative electric charges, respectively, but no known particle has a magnetic charge. A magnetic monopole would be the first, and if one were discovered, electricity and magnetism would finally be on equal footing.

Source:

Magnets with a single pole are still giving physicists the slip
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/magnetic-monopoles-single-pole-physics

Comment on the quote: Because in my view I consider the electrons having one electrical charge and one of two magnetic charges, I think we have a nice equal footing of electricity and magnetism… (End of the comment.)

__________

Back to CERN and stuff. Last month it came out that the MoEDAL experiment has failed in the sense that no magnetic monopoles were observed. Here is a small screenshot from the preprint archive stuff:

Comment: No idea what these people are talking about when they talk about 68.5 times the electric charge… Are they talking about electric charge or magnetic charge?
(End of comment)

Source of the content of the picture above:

detector in 2.11 fb−1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions at the LHC.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.09849.pdf

After a bit of searching I found back this beautiful video, coming from CERN, explaining how to find magnetic monopoles. It is clear they never ever studied the electron.

Yeah yeah my dear average CERN related human; what exactly is a magnetic monopole?

Does it have electric charge too and why should that be?

In my view where the electrons carry both electric and magnetic charge, a magnetic monopole with zero electric charge just does not exist.

__________

Ok, let me bring this post to an end by observing that at CERN they were not capable in the year 2017 of detecting the magnetic monopole as it should exist following the lines of thinking like Paul Dirac once did.

So that is a good thing because after thinking about four years about magnetism it would be horrible for me to find that at CERN they had a major discovery about magnetic monopoles…

Sorry CERN folks, your failure to find magnetic monopoles your way does not prove that electrons are indeed carrying magnetic charge. It just makes it a little bit more plausible that they do…

So my dear CERN folks, thanks for publishing your failure because for me it is another tiny quantum move into the direction of accepting the electron as it is.

__________

End of this post.

More on the Majorana equation.

Magnetism, Quantum mechanics

Yesterday I finally looked into the so called Majorana equation and it is easy to find where the Dutch universities have gone wrong. At the technical universities in Delft and Eindhoven they use electrons together with a hole that supposedly has a positive electrical charge so that the overall combination of electron and hole is electrically neutral.

And it is very easy to explain: If I am in the right and electrons also carry magnetic charge, the above constellation of an electron and a hole is not magnetically neutral like, for example, the Cooper pairs of electrons in super conductivity.

They want unpaired electrons because the Cooper pairs live there in the nano wire where the super conductivity is so they do not consider an electron pair together with two holes because that is both magnetic and electrically neutral…

No, I do not think that in Delft they found the elusive Majorana fermion. But time will tell because if this way of quantum computing will keep on failing or never get anywhere, I can use that as a future reason of why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.

Here is a wiki about the Majorana equation, already at equation number 2 I am lost in the woods because the mass m suddenly goes to the other term in the equation.

Majorana equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_equation

And here is a short video from Youtube where the technical university of Eindhoven explains how they will try to prove the existence of the Majorana fermion as a quasi particle. The video is from 23 August 2017, that is only four and a half months ago.

From the wiki we have this information, what the differential operator with the ‘Feynman slash’ does is actually not important at all. The nice thing here is to understand what they try of find here:
A particle (or a collection of particles, the quasi particles) where all charge is compensated. Apperently the mass related to charge comes in with opposite charge and indeed if you can find solutions to such a wave equation you might hope to find it one day.

Yet in Delft and Eindhoven they hang on to the opinion that electrons are magnetic dipoles and as such they never had a need to put the ‘anti part’ of the magnetic dipole into the problem…

That was more or less what I had to say about the Majorana equation.
Of course I also wish you a happy new year! Till updates.