neuerwind Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 Bring back quaternions into the original Maxwell theory, and you will see a whole new world opening. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiet Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Bring back quaternions into the original Maxwell theory, and you will see a whole new world opening. Yes, I read some of that out of the mainstream. Some articles of that kind have been written by scientifically prepared people, even by university professors. All agree in denouncing the interested suppression of an essential part of the first publication made by Maxwell. They also reject the compact form Heavside gave to the theory, replacing the original 20 quaternion equations with 4 vector equations. I've only read out of curiosity. I have not delved into the subject. You do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, quiet said: Yes, I read some of that out of the mainstream. Some articles of that kind have been written by scientifically prepared people, even by university professors. All agree in denouncing the interested suppression of an essential part of the first publication made by Maxwell. They also reject the compact form Heavside gave to the theory, replacing the original 20 quaternion equations with 4 vector equations. I've only read out of curiosity. I have not delved into the subject. You do? Me neither. I am not a mathematician. As the magnetic field is a rotating body in itself, it is absolutely reasonable to apply the quaternion algebra to it. The reason why I believe it is the key: I have gathered certain evidence that proves the incompleteness of our current EM field theory. If you are using vector algebra, that is sub-par to quaternions, you are missing some parameters of the field in question. Edited August 25, 2018 by neuerwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiet Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, neuerwind said: I have gathered certain evidence that proves the incompleteness of our current EM field theory. I would like to have access to the evidence you have gathered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Just now, quiet said: I would like to have access to the evidence you have gathered. Please e-mail me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiet Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Please e-mail me. I recently joined the forum and I do not know where to find your email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Just now, quiet said: I recently joined the forum and I do not know where to find your email. Let me PM you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 1 hour ago, neuerwind said: The reason why I believe it is the key: I have gathered certain evidence that proves the incompleteness of our current EM field theory. If you are using vector algebra, that is sub-par to quaternions, you are missing some parameters of the field in question. Yes this is true as some quantities are pseudovectors, not vectors. This is, as you say, correctly handled by using quaternions. Mathematically quaternions were superceeded by tensors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind2 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 34 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said: The modern formalism of the Maxwell equations uses differential forms. This formalism is fully covariant, and all of classical electrodynamics reduces to two very simple statements: dF=0 d⋆F=4π⋆J These statements are more than simple: they are primitive. As I said, the magnetic field is a rotating body. Instead of having Rot and Div operators in two-dimensional space, science could employ a fully three-dimensional representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 3 hours ago, neuerwind2 said: These statements are more than simple: they are primitive. As I said, the magnetic field is a rotating body. Instead of having Rot and Div operators in two-dimensional space, science could employ a fully three-dimensional representation. What I wrote there isn’t primitive - it’s the full covariant Maxwell equations in 4-dimensional spacetime. It encompasses all of classical electrodynamics. Also, the curl and divergence operators are defined in 3-dimensional (Euclidean) space, they are not 2-dimensional. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 On 8/26/2018 at 3:18 AM, quiet said: I would like to have access to the evidence you have gathered. On 8/26/2018 at 3:18 AM, neuerwind said: Please e-mail me. On 8/26/2018 at 3:20 AM, quiet said: I recently joined the forum and I do not know where to find your email. On 8/26/2018 at 3:20 AM, neuerwind said: Let me PM you then. This should prove interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 12 hours ago, beecee said: This should prove interesting. There is no doubt. Would you like to know more? 23 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: What I wrote there isn’t primitive - it’s the full covariant Maxwell equations in 4-dimensional spacetime. It encompasses all of classical electrodynamics. Also, the curl and divergence operators are defined in 3-dimensional (Euclidean) space, they are not 2-dimensional. No, they are. Vector algebra stipulates that we analyze rotary motion by projecting it on flat surfaces. On the contranry, the quaternion is a perfect mathematical representation of a rotating body per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Vector algebra stipulates that we analyze rotary motion by projecting it on flat surfaces. Why do you think that? Do you believe that vectors can only represent two dimensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Strange said: Why do you think that? Do you believe that vectors can only represent two dimensions? Because these are two different types of calculus. For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275832913_Polar_and_axial_vectors_versus_quaternions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 47 minutes ago, neuerwind said: There is no doubt. Would you like to know more? The ball's in your court, though all that is evident so far is empty rhetorical claims that any Tom, Dick or Harry can make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, beecee said: The ball's in your court, though all that is evident so far is empty rhetorical claims that any Tom, Dick or Harry can make. I would rather not bring it to the public. Edited August 27, 2018 by neuerwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Because these are two different types of calculus. For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275832913_Polar_and_axial_vectors_versus_quaternions That doesn’t really answer the question. Why do you believe that “Vector algebra stipulates that we analyze rotary motion by projecting it on flat surfaces” ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, neuerwind said: I would rather not bring it to the public. Of course not! How naive of me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, neuerwind said: I would rather not bring it to the public. Then why are you discussing it on the Internet!? If you are not prepared to justify your assinine claims, stop making them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, beecee said: Of course not! How naive of me! Have you been banned from PM'ing me? 12 minutes ago, Strange said: Then why are you discussing it on the Internet!? If you are not prepared to justify your assinine claims, stop making them. Because I wish to do so. Stop bossing me around, you look funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 1 minute ago, neuerwind said: Have you been banned from PM'ing me? Why would I do that? This is a public forum for discussion. Either put up or you know what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, neuerwind said: Because these are two different types of calculus. For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275832913_Polar_and_axial_vectors_versus_quaternions Thank you for that link, I had not seen it and it is a well balanced article. +1 However the two types of calculus you are referring to are not diferences between quaternions and vectors (Professor Weatherburn's texts had a good discussion of both if I remember rightly, I will have to look them up again) Marcus referred to the star operator. The differences are due to what are known as Clifford algebras and the Exterior v the Interior calculus. This is equivalent to the use of Dual spaces in vector algebra (=linear algebra as vector spaces) In such spaces, tensors (which I mentioned before and you didn't respond to) are vectors. An even more mixed up mahtmatical notation. Edited August 27, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Because I wish to do so. Stop bossing me around, you look funny. You DON'T make non mainstream claims in the mainstream sections...PERIOD, particularly hypothetical unsupported nonsense which you have appeared to have done so far. Read the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neuerwind Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, studiot said: In such spaces, tensors (which I mentioned before and you didn't respond to) are vectors. Unfortunately, I'm lacking proper mathematical background to discuss all pros and cons of tensors vs. quaternions. My point: if you'd like to obtain new results, you should use the new maths. And quaternions are not exactly 'new' to this field, as Maxwell tried to employ them, too. 2 minutes ago, beecee said: You DON'T make non mainstream claims in the mainstream sections...PERIOD, particularly hypothetical unsupported nonsense which you have appeared to have done so far. Read the rules. Well, I shall abide by the rules and keep dead silence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, neuerwind said: Unfortunately, I'm lacking proper mathematical background to discuss all pros and cons of tensors vs. quaternions. My point: if you'd like to obtain new results, you should use the new maths. And quaternions are not exactly 'new' to this field, as Maxwell tried to employ them, too. Here is an extract from Artzy : Geometry an Algebraic Approach, if you want more to see how quaternions have been brought into the fold of modern algebra. Note the next one up is the octave algebra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts