The Fascinating perspective of Geometric Algebra
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- What's actually a magnetic monopole? Here we take a look at the mathematics of Electromagnetism and Gravitoelectromagnetism to see what kind of answer we can give to that question.
Links:
#SoMEpi #SoMEπ result:
some.3b1b.co/e...
Magnetic monopoles + duality transformation:
en.wikipedia.o...
Gravitoelectromagnetism:
en.wikipedia.o...
Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field:
en.wikipedia.o...
Great introduction to Geometric Algebra:
• A Swift Introduction t...
Excelent answer about Geometric Algebra:
math.stackexch...
Excelent answer about duality:
physics.stacke...
Music:
Cool Revenge - Jeremy Blake
VO:
fliki.ai/
Errata: From 13:33 to 13:59 I forgot to multiply by c both magnetic fields in the geometric representation.
What would that look like?
They would look like this: ∇(G + icB) = J and ∇(E + icB) = J ... I forgot those "c"
Got it, thanks.
@@padraiggluck2980 glad you've got it. I'm still on wondering if squaring a speed (one scaler divided by another) is not making c vec 2 into a two dimensional scalar, something hardly visualisable in equations where it is necessary.
@@richardchapman1592 i was referring to the missing factor c.
Amazing!!! Loved the take on the GEM!
Just a useless suggestion: make sure you write \cos and \sin instead of cos and sin directly in LaTeX. Otherwise they’ll look italicized and unaligned vertically.
OMG 🙆 great tip, thank you so much ... I'm happy you liked the video
@@math.101 no problem! And yeah!! It’s amazing to see how these things come up together! I would love if you could make a video on how to visualize the bivectors in specific situations, like the magnetic field bivector in a circular loop! Even add to that the “geometrical” meaning behind F = E + icB 😃
Yeah, I've been thinking about that ... I tried a few things but it's easy to flood the screen with bi-vectors and everything becomes a mess real quick, I would have to spend more time on this, yep
Indeed it is! Well, regardless, once more, thank you for the video! The next few days I will be pondering on the material you presented here! Fun awaits 😂
The change in the field is equal to the source density.
In further branches of Geometric Algebra, "paravectors", which are grade 1 elements added to grade 2 elements, tend to be discouraged in favor of going up a dimension. This turns the electromagnetic version of the equations from a relation between a grade 1 field added to a grade 2 field with a scalar plus a grade 1 field, and into a relation between just a grade 2 field and a grade 1 field in 3+1D space-time.
I'll need to rewatch to check if the gravitational+electromagnetic version uses complex scalars, or if it was just a conversation factor. If it's the former, it should still be possible to turn it into a version with Real scalars and single-grade elements, but it would be trickier.
A full 3D multivector would be a paravector with complex coefficients, right? I'm not good at names
These equations imply that magnetic monopoles would carry a mass of ~m_S (the Stoney mass), and thus a quantum field of said monopoles would have a maximum interaction distance of hbar/(m_S * c) = L_P /(srt(alpha_EM)) = ~11 Planck lengths. Such a small field interaction cross section implies the half life of such monopoles would be ~12 Planck times, which is highly unstable to say the least. Such a quantum field would get lost in the quantum vacuum foam if it exists at all
Thank you for showing where the elusive monopoles are hidden, in the plank level transients 😅
I didn't know about Stoney mass
@@math.101 Stoney units are a relatively obscure unit system from the late 1800's that was replaced by the Planck unit system after the development of QM. The unique mass you're proposing in this video (M= m + iq/srt(4piepsilonG)) is roughly equivalent to the Stoney Mass (with the exception that it's an imaginary component of a complex mass).
This is exactly what I have wanted to know for a few months! It accelerated my interest in gravity much more. Thanks for this greatest video!!!
But, yeah. I have to deal this problem with care. I yet know whether the gravitomagnetic field of its kind even exists. And, if so, there should be the limit of this theory.
@@sinuture “whether the gravitomagnetic field of its kind even exists” - in the narrow, classical relativistic sense, it does indeed: the relativistic total energy of a body, besides its rest mass, includes both intrinsic energy (e.g., a cup of hot tea is more massive than the same after it cools down; a compressed string is more massive than the same uncompressed) and its energy arising from interaction with external fields - and, classically, in practise there's only the EM field to take care of. I'd rather shorten it to "graviEM theory", not forgetting the "electro" part of EM while avoiding the risk of ending up with "geometromechanoelectromagnetodynamics" à la Wheeler, which (the term, not Wheeler) certainly won't fit in your mouth without causing a severe injury to it.
In a wide sense, nothing "exists" until we _write down an internally consistent theory_ that in turn would _carve objects out of reality_ and tell us how these objects interact, if you won't mind taking the well-trodden reductionistic path. The _theory yields models_ that predict things we can verify. So in this, wide sense, objects exist if it makes sense to introduce them. Your choice. Of course, this choice is not arbitrary, it's restricted by Nature; otherwise you'll get models that have nothing to do with reality and fail the predictive power test. But there could be multiple fine theories describing specific aspects of Nature. Cf. Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity: in the weak field limit, their models give all the same predictions to any practically significant precision (GPS being perhaps the only practical exception).
“[T]here should be the limit of this theory.” - It's classical to begin with, so it would break at quantum scales indeed. That's certainly a lower bound. But we have no limitless theories anyway. 🙂
Very exciting to someone who has had an exposure to Telecommunications and Electromagnetism and then moving on to his dream of Astrophysics. Nice..
Very high quality in this video. Goes to the point. Explains a lot. Thank you for this master piece
Thank you very much
I was literally watching your videos last night and was thinking when is the next video
Bro this is so good it almost seems forbidden math
Geometric algebra is a wonderful topic. I did it for one of my postdocs.
The voice works really well!
This was mind-blowing, but where can we get a physicist's explanation of what is happening so that someone still learning physics can understand how we get to electromagnetism from gravity? (or is it the other way around?)
Hi, I'm super glad you enjoyed it ...
Let me try to give you a short answer. It's equivalent to go from gravity to electricity or the other way around. One can always get 2 sets of equations from a generalized set of equations (min 13:21).
And in this video we identify them with GEM and Maxwell's equations because everything seem to match, but that's arbitrary and it's not a reason to assert anything.
Yes, it's a great thing to think about, but Physics is not just math
Thank you very much for being interested. Do you need a better explanation?
@@math.101 That’s the answer we usually get. But my lizard brain is telling me that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flaps its wings like a duck, behaves like a typical belligerent duck, lays eggs like a duck, floats on water like a duck, cleans its feathers like a duck, is the same general size and weight of a duck, and constantly quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Never without skepticism, but yeah, I share that line of thinking ... thank you
One of them is a much larger duck
Lookup TT Brown’s asymmetric capacitors if you want to see the connection between gravity and electromagnetism. It’s considered alternative physics or some would say suppressed physics.
This is really good but as I said in another video: rhô,J (4-mass current) is not Lorentz invariant... But gamma (rhô,J) is, it is the four momentum, with gamma lorentz factor. Did you try some computations of GR tests with the 4-momentum as a source ?
What I say is just replacing the rhom et Jm by gamma rhom and gamma Jm, but I have no idea of the results because I did not try to compute it 😅
Im doing a PhD on physics and I love your video! So Beautiful, Thanks !
Thank YOU so much
I enjoyed this presentation very much. Well done. ⭐️
Thank you so much
Just wondering, is there a reason why you didn't use the wedge/outer product to replace i times the cross product?
yes, it's just a shortcut, 100% for animation purposes, so that I skip a step when dealing with Maxwell's equations
The electrostatic force can be written as [Fe=(1/4.π.e)(Q^2/R^2).G/G=G.(Q/√(4.π.e.G))(Q/√(4.π.e.G)(1/R^2)], where mass M=∆Q/√(4. π.e.G) and gravitational force as [F=(G.M.M/R^2).(4.π.e/4.π. e)=(1/4. π.e)√(4.π.e.G)M.√(4.π.e.G)M(1/R^2)], where charge is equal to Q=√(4.π.e. G)∆m and ∆m can be the particle's mass loss or the binding energy between the charge and the particle ∆E=c^2.Q/√(4.π.e.G)=∆m.c^2
It seems like you've read some of the papers but not bothered with the rest. The STA has an even more mind-blowing perspective on EM, but instead of extending to 4 dimensions, you've decided to first go visit Newtonian gravity, which we all know:
- Isn't all of the forces.
- Does not really work.
Don't think about gravity just yet. I know it has an inverse square law, and it seems like a weird coincidence, but please believe me, there's so much more out there. Study STA (G(1,3)) and see how much more beauty there is in E&M - they're just one thing! Then you will have the framework to explore the Dirac equation and begin to apply GA to modern physics.
That's something I would really like to do for a future video 😊 ... I hope you enjoyed this one anyways. Thank you very much for the advice.
Beautiful exercise, and wonderfully conveyed
Thank you so much!
I am suspicious of the complex mass object, but the math of Maxwell's equations and this approximate gravity are the same, so I understand the relation. I also wonder what the full E^2 = p^2 +(mc^2)^2 equation would be in this form.
Suspicious is good ... E=mc² is still the expression for rest energy ... here I just make m complex ... thus, momentum would be also complex leading to E=ɣmc² , being ɣ the gamma factor and 'm' just a complex number
Thank You
Have you updated the GEM wiki page yet?
I never thought about that ... I suspect it wouldn't have general acceptance 🤔
@@math.101 just need to add a section with your contribution and reference your paper.
I really like your video and it inspired me to study gravitoelectromagnetism. A question, how did you obtain the mass in complex form M=m+(\frac{q} {\sqrt(4 \pi \epsilon _{0} G)}) i. That makes me very curious.
Hi, I'm super glad you like it ... Long story short, I came across a silly integral that kind of took me there 😄 ...
Where is the silly integral in order to reading
Oh wow wow wow wow wow! I am a physicist, I mastered in GR, I understand the duality property, I've happened at bivectors more often than once and every time thought, "uh, interesting thing, I should perhaps grasp the thing, it looks like it may be useful". The bivectors describe an area, and the Ricci tensor on the left side describes a constant volume, absent sources on the right; I felt a connection there. But the stuff like complex‒valued mass has always looked suspicious to me. I'm not quite comfortable even with the negative mass that pops up on the cosmological scale in the effective field on the right side. Your vid packs a whole hour-long lecture! It's a good thing that you rolled it so quickly that I went full 🤯, pausing and rewinding oftentimes. I'll be working on your presentation today, explicitly writing down all derivations, and I won't be surprised at all if I end up with a full notebook of the elaborated lecture notes. And I'm so very much not 30 any more… So true were saying the Romans that growing a beard doesn't make one a wise man: why didn't I pick up this tool for my toolbox before! Thank you so very much for this quick intro, I now understand how useful the multivectors may be!
Hi, I'm very glad you liked it ... Geometric Algebra is awesome, it makes things so easy to understand and manipulate ... could you share your notes, I'm very curious about what people can take out of it
@@math.101 I certainly will! -Do you have the email or Xwitter DM in your profile? YT isn't kind to links to private stuff, even if it's on Google Drive...- Found your e-mail in the profile. Is it the best one to send stuff to?
@@cykkm profile email, yep
Interesting video. I've been thinking about looking into kaluza klein for a while. Definitely a rewatcher for sure.
Thank you so much, I'm glad you like it
Very interesting. Thank you for making this video
My pleasure!
With luck and more power to you.
Hoping for more videos
Thank you very much, indeed
How does this relate to the GEM theory of John Brandenburg, which uses one extra dimension (Kaluza-Klein theory)?
no idea 😊, yet many people point this out ... so perhaps there is a connection, if you come across with something, let me know, I would be happy to hear about it
How can I start studying geometric algebra? I am at the second year of physics at uni, and this seems quite important and something that should be taught, but isn't
yeah, they should ... I've learned about it from the internet ... there is a good introduction in the description ... there is also a good book called Doran, Lasenby - Geometric Algebra for Physicists (2003)
Correct me if I’m wrong, please:
The only requirement for the “i” we are using is that its square is -1, correct? which means it could be a 4-vector, yes?
Yes, and in SpaceTime Algebra (STA), it is one. The square however is not the _only_ required property, since it also provides a duality conversation (between grade 1 and 2 elements in VGA, or between different grade 2 elements in STA), which restricts it to something that can act as a "pseudoscalar".
There is two approaches, the first is to include a time vector that squares to minus one, t² = i² = -1, but see if that is done, you have to deal non-commutative imaginary units, given by the wedge product i = txyz. The other path is to do a direct sum of ℂ (scalars and trivectors/pseudoscalars) + ℂ³ (vectors + bivectors/pseudovectors), in this algebra i = xyz, which instead commutes with every element, so you have a 1D+3D complex-vector. That latter option seems more easy to grasp and operate, also, if you get (A) vector + trivector or (B) scalar + bivector, you get Minkowski's Space-Time for free in your favorite metric signature: η_A = diag(-1,+1,+1,+1) or η_B = diag(+1,-1,-1,-1).
That means, in the metric η_B, quadvectors are actually quaternions in disguise.
@@angeldude101Sweet, thanks g
@@linuxp00Thank you too bro. I agree that the second approach works much easier for calculation-based approaches and the Minkowski metric makes special relativity calculations better. But the first approach seems to generalize to GR much easier and naturally incorporates infrastructure for curved spacetime, which is what I’m seeking.
@@monkeyemperor1223 yeah, it seems more doable for covariant calculations in curved manifolds. It seems that the first one is a coordinate frame (curved space) while the second is a proper frame (tangent space). Though, I haven't gone far into it yet.
Great video. Allowed me to finally grok a few key concepts. Please keep this up!
Thank you so much, I'm happy to hear about someone learning something from my videos. 🤗 I'll do my best to keep going
I have seen videos in which Maxwell's equations were reduced to a single equation in geometric algebra - if I'm not mistaken, it was specifically the G^(3,0,0) algebra, i.e. the one of 3D space where all 3 basis vectors square to the scalar +1. ...sooo - do I understand it right that by allowing the scalars and multivector components in G^(3,0,0) to be themselves complex numbers, we can also incorporate gravity? I guess, the whole algebra could then be seen as a nesting or composition of G^(3,0,0) and G^(0,1,0) where the latter is isomorphic to the complex numbers (it has one basis vector that squares to -1)? I'm using the notation of writing the signature of the algebra as G^(a,b,c) where a is the number of basis vectors that squares to +1, b the number of basis vectors that squares to -1 and c the number of basis vectors that squares to 0. By "nesting" or "composition" of geometric algebras, I mean to let the multivector components of one geometric algebra be themselves multivectors from another geometric algebra. Does that make sense...or am I just talking nonsense?
Ye, G(3,1)* is usually what's used and is referred to as spacetime algebra (space-like vectors square to 1, time-like vectors square to -1). The scalars aren't quite being used as complex numbers, but rather you have (in 4d spacetime) the vectors (a*t+b*x+c*y+d*z) and tri-vectors (a*xyz+b*tyz+c*txz+d*txy) which can be converted into each other by using the product of all the base vectors (txyz). When people talk about the imaginary unit in the context of geometric algebra, they usually mean this product.
Basically, it's theming off of the fact that because gravity attracts like 'charges' and electromagnetism repels like charges, you can package the two forces in a way where either the vector or trivector gives the desired final sign.
GEM is a limited model of gravity, though, and it's mainly useful for weak gravitational fields with non-relativistic objects.
*ETA: It's usually G(1,3)
@@eliyahzayin5469 Is G(3,1) the same as (I guess, I should say isomorphic to) the composition of G(3,0) and G(0,1)? "Composition" as in using the multivectors of the inner algebra as scalars and multivector components of the outer algebra? Or does such a composition of geometric algebras even make sense at all? ...I never encountered the idea before seeing the video and I'm not really sure if that is even the right interpretation or if I'm not understanding it right.
@@MusicEngineeer There might be a way to do it, but I'm not sure. I imagine it would involve going into a higher dimensional space and then restricting it to a subset of the vectors plus an extra multivector.
@@eliyahzayin5469 Yeah - I need to figure that out. Maybe in general, the nesting of G(i,j,k) and G(l,m,n) is isomorphic to G(i+l,j+m,k+n)? That would be a pretty cool result, wouldn't it? But at the moment, this is just my personal wild speculation. ...if that is indeed true, it's probably already well known, though. It would also imply that nesting of geometric algebras would be a commutative operation (up to isomorphism).
@@MusicEngineeer Douglas Lundholm discusses some GA isomorphisms in his Master's thesis titled "Geometric (Clifford) algebra and its applications". Notably, G(s,t) = G(t+1,s-1). What you mean by "composition" is known as the tensor product and he has some of those as well, for example G(s+1,t+1) = G(s,t) ⊗ G(1,1).
GEM is outrageous! Truly, truly, truly outrageous!
Nice Taric reference
Yet, they are Maxwell's equations just under a dual transformation , so 🥸
@@dantefernandez2455 Who? I was just making a Gen X reference to the old Jem cartoon.
I thought it was an actual complain against GEM equations 🤦😊
@@tomkerruish2982 Ah, my bad. Taric is a character in League of Legends who has a things for gems and says this line as a reference to what you referred to. I just wasn't cultured enough to get the original reference, haha.
nice video
If you expand M1M2, you will get m1q2 and m2q1 terms, how do you interpret those two imaginary terms?
That's a good question, for one side the imaginary part of a vector is interpreted as a bi-vector which is often associated with rotations in the perpendicular plane, so it wouldn't modify the distance between the objects ... on the other hand that multiplication is similar to the Dirac quantization condition take a look here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole which is associated with angular momentum ...but honestly, I don't know at this point 😊 ... yet I find the whole thing quite interesting ... I hope you enjoyed the video, thanks for taking the time to write a comment ...
I'd love to see this video revisited with general relativity and electroweak theory.
yeah, I don't know exactly what, but a future video is gonna be about something around those lines
Too quick for me as an amateur observer, but also an obvious aspect-version of Singularity-point/functional i-reflection vortex-vertex containment in Polar-Cartesian self-defining vector-value e-Pi-i @1-0-infinity coordination-identification positioning system.
Excellent Teaching Observations.
too quick 🤔 yep, I have to improve that aspect. When you are making the video it feels like an eternity 😅 thank you so much
Very good 👍👍👍
Thank you very much
geometry is all you need. nature tells all her secrets, you just gotta look deep.
Whoa, I never thought about combining electricity and gravity like that, and hadn't come across multivectors before!
yeah, they are such a tool
Gonna confuse us with electro gravitational puns now as well as sonic ones?
@@richardchapman1592 Just like two magnets attracting each other, you gotta' go fast!
@@PunmasterSTP can hardly be magnamaneous to that.
@@richardchapman1592 That’s a pretty heavy thing to say.
Superb!!!❤❤
Thanks 🤗
This is nice. Thank you.
Thank you too!
Excellent presentation!
Glad you liked it!
GEM equations describes Netwonian mechanics which are classical. Like Maxwell’s equations, can’t they be quantized twice to arrive a quantized theory of gravity similar to quantum electrodynamics?
Einstein’s equations of general relativity predicts Newtonian gravity so this does suggest Einstein’s gravity can be considered in a quantum way. This could possibly could be done by considering a generalization of Maxwell’s equations called Yang-Mills theory and their relation to Einstein’s equations with Einstein-Yang-Mills theory.
Quantization of Yang-Mills theory is difficult with problems such as the mass gap predicted which is a millennium prize problem.
That's a big question 😄
@@Jaylooker I've been studying this for years now and am convinced that the only way to get to quantum gravity is to dump quantum fields altogether. They are an assumption that seem to hamper more than help.
Starting from infinitesimal particles, working constructively, instead of regressively, I have been able to simulate gravity (as existential [instantaneous]) and gravitational field effects (with parallax mesh holography). I have been investigating the relationship of gravity to electromagnetism (This video is a great help and I'm going to use its info) as well as the wave effect generated by a photon, which I have come to believe is two particles moving back and forth at right angles to generate a wave motion. I am close to proving that all bosons are variations of photons (2 primary particles moving back and forth) and that all fermions are variations of electrons (3 primary particles moving back and forth). Einstein also showed that the wave is inseparable from gamma.
So my goal is to reconcile all this. But I'm not yet good enough with higher math at the moment to establish these things.
Point being that waves are a remnant of classical mechanics, thus Quantum Mechanics needs to purify, focusing on particles as fundamental, and stop relying so much on probabilities, which will only ever see a collection of particles as fuzzy fields, which is antithetical to Relativity.
My theory is that particles are fundamentally massless and gain mass by velocity just as Einstein's equations show and gain other effects (forces) by their dimensional interactions (dimensions being compounded movements rather than plains of existence).
(As a side note to complete all this, I believe I have also found that time, rather than being emergent, is actually the only thing that exists. Every physics equation requires a time component down until all that is left is time; even infinitesimal particles themselves. E=mc² screams it.)
I think maybe that if I sift through the equations in this video carefully and find where gamma is hiding, I can bridge the gap to the dimensional aspects.
@@Dismythed Why are quantum field theories hampering? A 0+1 QFT describes quantum mechanics. Also, QFTs are used to describe the standard model of particle physics.
I’m not exactly following the hologaphy other than as an experiment to test the holographic principle? It seems difficult to make any experimental observation.
If you looking for more on the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism consider the Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) equations considered here and Kaluza-Klein theory.
That sounds very similar to anyons predictions made by Lienaas and Myrheim in 1977. That considers symmetry of two electrons approaching each other as a way to describe both bosons and fermions and their spins. Electrons are fermions but I’m not sure about the converse. There are neutrinos which are also fermions, too.
I’m not sure what you mean by the wave is inseparable from gamma. If you mean gamma as the Lorentz factor then I still don’t follow.
There are lecture notes, videos, and books to help with learning more about advanced math. I like Milne’s notes on different topics and lecture notes by Kedlaya to name a few.
At least following the wave-particle duality either is valid in describing quantum effects. You can consider S-matrices theory if you are looking to describe things just using particles and the way scatter. Probabilities are used because they match predictions like with the double-slit experiment. Certainly, it can be unintuitive at first because it doesn’t follow our classical understanding of the world like with Newtonian mechanics (not on the quantum level).
From what I remember, the strong nuclear force accounts for most of mass of objects. Einstein field equations of general relativity do have velocities in them by stress-energy tensor with its momentum (p = mv) but these field equations tell spacetime how to curve and how matter or energy to move through that space. I’m not sure what you mean by dimensional interactions other than maybe Feynman diagrams which I think still make sense even if they get thickened to higher dimensions.
Time being there may because of Noether’s theorem which states that every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law. This action is the stationary action of a Lagrangian. These conservation laws describe a quantity that does not change in time. Conservation of mass-energy is given by E = mc^2. Energy being conserved as a result of Noether’s theorem can derived be given the postulate that the laws of physics do not change over time.
The Lorentz gamma factor should not really be hidden anywhere since GEM equations are not Lorentz (transformation) invariant. Maxwell’s equations are Lorentz invariant though.
@@Jaylooker I’m glad to find someone willing to put my statements to the test. I will have to break this up according to headings.
HIGHER MATH
I appreciate the offer, but I have found all the easiest resources I need to learn higher maths, but I’ll keep your suggestions in my files in case I need them. I just have to find a way to keep the numbers, symbols and numerical theorems in my head. I’m like a leaky vessel these days. I did not have the honor of higher math classes in high school. I started studying physics and higher maths in my late forties in order to explore my construction theory that I had been thinking about for a decade before. (I was working with that method before Constructor Theory was published). I’m now in my fifties and not getting any younger, but I’m determined to get it all down.
Much of the problem is that I question the reason for everything and cannot adopt the math until I fully understand it backwards and forwards. For me, there is no such thing as “Shut up and calculate.” (Otherwise I would not be prepared to challenge the status quo.) So I just have to keep going back through it again and again until it becomes second nature to me. Physics is far easier to understand than the mathematics used to describe it.
Thankfully, half the math is linear algebra or lower. I get calculus, but the fuzziness of limits and integrals turn my reasoning brain into knots. (I can understand it when I read it, and I accept the results, but I cannot do it myself at present.) I thought I understood them twice before, but neither time stuck. Numerical fudge is like trying to hold onto a hot potato. To compensate, I’ve been working on a way to calculate a curve accurately and speedily using simple math and geometry. Even if I figure out calculus first, I’ll keep working on the simpler way.
Before anyone says “physics IS math,” did you know that the wave-particle duality of the photon (du Chatelet) and the electron (Laming) were both discerned by reasoning on experimental data alone, without a single calculation? I firmly believe in this method of discernment. It has proved more accurate than QFT and it has served me well in predicting many discoveries that have reinforced my model of particles.
QFT
That something based on quantum mechanics can describe quantum mechanics is like saying you wrote a paper describing a typewriter while using a typewriter. It holds no meaning for me.
The electron was discovered well before QFT. The double-slit experiment was also performed long before the birth of quantum mechanics.
I challenge anyone to present where three QFT papers accurately predicted different things without any prior experimentation making it clear in the data, does not depend on renormalization or plugging in a quantum version of prior classical math (a.k.a., “quantizing the data”), and at least one of which must be a particle other than quarks (Gell-Mann) or the Higgs (Their disqualifications discussed below).
QFT is non-verifiable. It has never made a prediction on its own. It requires prior experiments and other maths to get to a point that they can plug in a QFT version of the equation (0+1 QFT is a prime example of this; the QFT aspect only arises after “quantization”). They can’t even solve the Schrodinger equation for more than the hydrogen atom. Schrodinger created the equation to mock the use of probabilities as a means of prediction and he was right to do so. QM is in a state of crisis right now for the very reason that it relies on probabilities. (Mind you, it has its place, but predictions are not what it is good at.)
Even relying on other math, QFT has NEVER provided a single accurate prediction. It is cloud chambers, water tanks and particle colliders that got us where we are. Physicists have tried since the 80’s to say that it has the best history of predictions, but it actually has the worst. They use renormalization to chase down what is really happening, which is to say that the calculations that got them 4 whole numbers off the mark are erased and replaced with more accurate data from measurements. It is only after hundreds, sometimes thousands of measurements, and a dozen or more papers chasing the correct value that they finally find it. By that time they have created a whole mythology around the measurement that guides its interpretation from that time forward.
The Higgs boson is a prime example of this. Did you know it recently got correctly diagnosed by Fermilab as just a z-boson-photon pair? Whoops. When it was first discovered, they had to break accepted standards of evidence to claim it to be the predicted Higgs.
Also, it is not the mass carrier the original theory claimed it was. The original theory claimed that the Higgs was responsible for all the mass of the atom and granted mass to all other particles, but now it is known to be responsible for less than 1% and doesn’t grant any mass to any other particle. Yeah, great prediction. The particle doesn’t actually exist and the z/γ pair does nothing that was predicted about the Higgs.
Now physicists have been doubling down on it for so long that they can’t even backtrack on it, still calling it the “mass-carrying particle” and I have only seen one science communicator mention it. Before that they were saying that their model of the Higgs is approaching 7 sigma of certainty. Sure was, but that’s not where they started. It could be argued that they were sure there was something there, but that is only because a supersymmetrical diagram told them so. In other words, they relied upon the equivalent of astrology (as supersymmetry has never panned out in the least and is responsible for the current list of pseudo-particles in the Standard Model).
You know what prediction about the Higgs did come true? My own with 100% accuracy. I predicted in 2013 that it was eventually going to be shown that nothing they said about it was true and that it was going to turn out to be two known particles because that was what the data showed. I hadn’t even studied physics yet and I could see that plain as day in the graphical data. The resulting circus of physicists bending over backwards to make it work for the past nearly twelve years has been quite a site to behold.
I am not saying that quantum fields are not a description of the effect, but rather that such descriptions are pointless and hamper investigation, hiding, rather than revealing, the reality. It’s like trying to study the stars with a cheap kid’s telescope that has a dirty lens during daylight on earth on a cloudy day. No wonder they need astrology.
Quantum Mechanics lost the plot the second they abandoned a particle model and started chasing probabilities to solve all their problems. Einstein coined the term “quanta” to indicate that existence is particles all the way down. He did not believe that particles and space were connected in any way in a field, but were two different substances. QFT completely disregards particles all the way down in a desperate last grasp to hold onto some variation of aether theory.*
* (Einstein is largely to blame for this, referring to space as a “fabric” because he never really disregarded the aether as evidenced by his later chasing the vacuous theory of “New Ether”. The idea of a “fabric” space undermines Relativity by contradicting what holonomy clearly says about it. Not one thing based on the idea of space as a fabric has ever panned out or else can be explained simply by flat geometric relations. Go ahead, name something.)
Planck’s use of probabilities to explain black body radiation was a very specific use for describing the inverse curve between two conflicting energy states. He didn’t need renormalization to make this prediction.
I could go on about antimatter, nucleon decay, and so much more, but this is long enough.
Quantum fields do not describe the Standard Model of particle physics. It is an explanation of how the particles interact, and I contend a poor one. It creates divisions rather than unification. QM has literally (not figuratively) tied itself in knots trying to make QFT work.
What I advocate for is QM in its purest form: particles all the way down to true indivisible infinitesimal particles. (“Indivisible” meaning not made of waves and “infinitesimal” meaning having no measurable qualities.) Mathematical fields, probabilities and fudging have their place, but they are rarely conducive to describing reality.
So S-matrices will not help me. Probability is a tool that should be used sparingly, but is used with careless abandon in modern QM. I will not abandon QFT only to repeat its mistakes. It’s all or nothing for something with such an abysmal record.
@@Jaylooker continued ...
PARALLAX MESH HOLOGRAPHY
Yes, I was referring to A holographic principle, but not Hawking’s string theory-based holographic principle, though they are somewhat related. His was limited. First, it relied on QFT and string theory (I’m not into eternally resurrecting a dead horse) and simply related one qubit to the next. He claimed that gravity is not present, but that it arises in the equations. I assert that he was wrong. His equation is dsize/dr = mg and thus momentum = size. I say he got this backwards. Gravity is the only thing that factors in. It is a mesh because it crisscrosses with every other infinel in the universe as an existential norm, not just the next qubit in a chain. (That is to miss the trees for the forest.) This means every single infinel (herein as a libfix portmanteau of “infinitesimal particle”) has up to 10⁸⁵ connections, but some stronger than others.
This is because gravity is inversely proportional to the distance, meaning that the gravity affecting any particle weakens over distance. This is due to parallax between particles in all directions, generating comparative measurement and particle velocity. However, this field is not a description of space itself, which, as I mentioned, is time alone.
Gravity is existential in that particles seek to close the anti-existential gap (lack of existence; “Nature abhors a vacuum.”) between them, but all the other particles disrupt this, causing them to miss each other.
Gravitational holography in general is not conducive to experiment due only to the lack of sensitivity of current measuring devices. If a single line of gravitational attraction between two infinels could be detected, we would know they are there and how they behave. So in lieu of this, I will have to be satisfied with discerning their presence by their physical behaviors within known particles in some way, even if just by matching models of their behaviors to the observed behaviors of larger particles. Or perhaps femtosecond physics (or higher sensitivity) will allow us to detect them in space. There are many ways to experiment to find them if, and only if, we discard QFT.
ELECTRONS AND PHOTONS
The muon and tau we know have an electron base with other particles because electrons are what they decay into. (I herein purposefully conflate electrons and positrons and sometimes electron neutrinos by calling them "electrons" for reasons that will become evident). Likewise, the muon neutrino and tau neutrino have an electron neutrino base coupled with bosons (see below for their electron base) or pions (quarks). The lifespans of muon and Tau particles of either type are too brief to even qualify as legitimate particles in my opinion.
The same goes for quarks, which decay into electrons and/or electron neutrinos and their anti-particles. (I believe positrons and antielectron neutrinos are just electrons and electron neutrinos in modified states evidenced by the fact that a muon can decay into an electron OR positron.) I believe neutrinos are just neutral charged electrons, which suggests they have an even number of infinels. Basically, protons and neutrons are just collections of electrons in one form or another.
After reviewing boson decays, I have to revise my statement about all bosons being photons (I based that solely on their spin number. I had never considered boson decay before. I just assumed they decayed into photons.) Gluons are not true bosons. They decay into quarks that decay into electrons. The ±W boson likewise decays into both an electron and electron neutrino. The z boson decays into a ψ meson (quarks) and a lepton-antilepton pair (electrons), meaning electrons all around as I described.
Thus the photon is the only true boson. Photons and electron variants are the only particles that do not decay into other particles by any means. Thus they are the simplest possible particles. Therefore the true standard model should only include a photon and the four electron variants (or else just the photon and the electron).
If all those other particles qualify for the standard model, then so should protons and neutrons as both hold together far longer than any of them, but they too are based on the electron.
I suspect the variations of the electron are due to electrons having photon orbitals as evidenced by their variable spin states. Which way photons spin around the 3 points of the electron easily creates a mirror image we call “spin up” and “spin down”. (See below for more details.)
INFINELS
As to anyons, no, they were referring to quasiparticles in a two-dimensional system compared to those of the three-dimensional Standard Model of the atom.
What I am referring to is deeper than that and has nothing to do with temporary particles. I am saying that two infinels vibrating back and forth at right angles to each other make up permanent photons and three make up permanent electrons. This is indicated by the fact that photons have full spins (the two vibrating particles create a circular motion like pistons turning a shaft).
Electron spin, on the other hand, exactly describes the intermediate axis theorem (a.k.a., “tennis racket theorem”), indicating a lack of central balance. Thus electrons are made of 3 infinels. I even deduced that 3 infinels can remain bound by compression of their gravitational field. Once locked in, it is essentially impossible to break them apart as the force holding them together is effectively infinite, rendering the 3-body problem inconsequential.
I believe positrons are either electrons missing their photon orbitals (for their reverse charge) or electrons traveling faster than photons can detect (for whatever reason) and electron neutrinos (originally posited by Pauli by simply examining data and discovered with water tanks) are destabilized electrons and antielectron neutrinos are destabilized positrons.
I want to learn higher maths so that I can learn to express these things in mathematical terms and help make distinctions. (Matrices and trigonometric functions will likely suffice for the 3-infinel compression, though I may already have matrices down for the most part; they’re fairly simple.)
LORENTZ GAMMA
I’m just stating what you already know: The higher the energy of the particle, the more the wave compresses (shifts blue). This is because the path of the particle shrinks relative to the observer due to length contraction. The wave is the length of the path of the traveler over the length of the path observed by someone in a different frame, a.k.a., γ=1/√(1-v²/c²). This compression creates the wave. This is stated in Einstein’s The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. It is the fundamental principle of electrodynamics.
You will note that my theory, by disregarding QFT, easily unifies all the disparate explorations of QFT by means of infinels in the purest form of quantum relations without an ever growing zoo of particle-generating fields. You might immediately jump to quantum entanglement, but that is resolved by the probability matrix of coin tosses which exactly match the distributions of entangled particles. Probability applies correctly here, but it is at the same time Einstein’s glove in a box. No actual entanglement, just correlation. Information conservation in a probability matrix. Math favors the preservation and propagation of information. So QFT is rendered meaningless and probabilities are properly subordinated to quantized particles rather than “quantization” describing particles subordinated to probabilistic fields.
But that is not to say that the infinels themselves do not arise from something deeper. As I mentioned, space seems to me to be just time, but so are infinels. Infinels may be the leading edge of a temporal pathway. It is certain that they are not “bundles”, but likely points of irreversible time under expansion in a single directional dimension of movement. It is impossible for them to retrace their movement because other infinels are connected to them by existential gravity. To the infinel, it has only ever traveled in one direction (though it appears to be moving back and forth) and everything else is moving around it.
Just because the current structure of an equation is not invariant doesn’t mean invariance cannot be pulled out of it. Invariance can be achieved by simple conversions. (That’s how they plug in quantum equations where they have worked classically. If they can be plugged in, they can also be unplugged.) That is precisely what I meant by “hiding”. Besides, math.101 transformed everything just fine in this video. It’s not a stretch. I have a big task ahead of me, though.
I mean, using E=mc² is kind of wrong, because we are always making the fundamental assumption that inertial mass = gravitational mass. The mass ypu talked about in the major part of the video is the gravitational mass, but the mass in E=mc² has nothing to do with gravity, but everything to do with kinematics, being actually inertial mass. That's why the final equation is so weird
good point, next video I'm gonna disclose that assumption ... yet, Einstein himself made use of this assumption to explain Mercury's perihelion precession, right?
@@math.101 Firstly, loved your video 👏👏🎉🥳🥳🎉🥰😍
But that inertial mass = gravitational mass is the strong relativity principle, and is basically taken as one of the most fundamental axioms in physics. Yet, there is no reason why the relation is linear, or why it should behave the same in extreme situations. He did use it for Mercury's Perihelion, but, then again, he (and everyone else) used that for everything else too. Only in MOND's (Modified Gravity Models) do we see, sometimes, speculations around the violation of that axiom. Many experiments are all the time trying to see if there is any distinction between the masses.
Obs.: m_inertial := mi, m_gravitational := mg
mi = k*mg, through a neat change of variables results in mi = mg (technically they are quantities of different units, the inertial kg and the gravitational kg, with a conversion constant of 1 kg/kg)
What physicists are looking for is weird stuff like mg=f(mi, v), with f(mi, 0)=mi
Thank you so much 🥰
Wonderful video!
Thank you very much!
Excellent video.
Glad you liked it!
I really prefer the way you draw the fonts, all at once, fade in. Yay. Also the difference in scale between gravity and electricity is why again?
thank you very much ... perhaps there is something buried into the maths of QM that points in that direction 🤔
At 12:01, you seem to be able to exchange the source terms which is in general not true unless the source terms are zero.
AI voice has gotten reaaallllyy good, daaaamn
beautiful
Thank you! 😊
I forget why a basis vector multiplied by itself is one. Why not 0? When you use the rule that flipping order flips the sign, shouldn't xx = -xx
Nevermind, I remember, silly me x is in the same direction as x, where two distinct basis vectors sit at right angles
There is a very good introduction to it in the description
How do you prove that black holes spin 3 times the velocity of light the other way relative to our galaxy the milky way. Otherwise it can't hold our galaxy. For example a flight is spinning at 1 Mac then to counter the effects you need 3 Mac the other way like breaking systems. 2 Mac to set it right and one for acceleration. Somewhat like 3 sticks to hold a heavy weight.
I have to watch this again. But I find it a bit unsatisfactory that you use exactly the same letter little i for both the pseudo-scalar in 3-space and the imaginary unit. It might be easier to follow if you used a different letter, e.g., capital I, as found in many works on geometric algebra. When you then write a thing like M = m + i q/sqrt(4pi epsilon_0 G), what is i in this case? Is it still the pseudo scalar or is now everything "complexified"? And does it matter? If it's the pseudo scalar and you compute densities, then we would get a scalar field plus a pseudo-scalar field. However, if i is the pseudo scalar throughout, then this is entirely a theory in the reals.
For me it is still not entirely clear whether in this elegant algebra the physical reality might get lost.
“whether in this elegant algebra the physical reality might get lost” - that has been my concern with stuff like complex mass for a while. But after this presentation, I'm finally at peace with it, and am now convinced it's a fantastic tool when applied correctly. Why are we the physicists so conservative, and demand physical meaning of any intermediate applied maths result, when we use only the machinery packaged for us by fundamental mathematicians? I think, we should just Vegas it, and don't worry about the intermediate unphysical stuff as long as what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
I'm reminded how Einstein had stubbornly avoided tensor algebra and calculus all the way up until 1913, trying to formulate GR in the old, tried and usual calculus. Mathematicians aren't like that. A historic example of the opposite is Cardano, who worked out the formula for a general solution of depressed cubic equations by _imagining_ that the numbers equal to √−1 and ∛−1 existed, without assumptions of their properties or relations to _real_ numbers, except, implicitly and w/o any proof that they adjoin the field ℝ. They cancelled out nicely later in the derivation of the solution formula. Of course he worked out only real solutions, but lore has it (plausibly) that the terms "imaginary" and "real" has stuck after his derivation had became known. This was the first application of a ring over the field extension, perhaps 350 years before rings and fields were even a thing.
So I also have a "common sense" kick against the imaginary mass, but as long as we don't end up with complex observables, we'll be alright.
Hi, In Cl(3) there is no difference
You gained a subscriber! :)
This only works for slow moving masses right?
Ok nvm this shit way too complex for me lmao
Gravity is always an attractive force, whereas electric charges can either attract or repel. Also, electromagnetic forces, carried by photons, do not affect gravity.
I don't get it ... do you think this video states otherwise?
Wouldn't it be great if all the forces were actually just the result of geometry from some common thing acting on spacetime
It would indeed, Kaluza‒Klein style, but without an extra 5th dimension and an additional scalar field, difficult to make physical sense of. Definitely try it.
This is precicely why physicists think in terms of symmetry and conserved quantities... you see all the similarities between gravity and electrodynamics but in one system, you have to conserve mass and in another charge... just a couple of scalar quantities right? What could possibly go wrong? However, the equations are not quite the same as the modes of the waves and excitations they permit are VERY different. Buried down in the quantum mechanics is the real physics that gets superimposed on a generic geometric framework used to calculate things about the kinematics and dynamics with a uniform prescription for deriving things about all these disparate systems. This is the intellectual hall of mirrors and graveyard where many would nobel laureates die gazing into distorted reflections their own perceptions and desires about the structure of reality. When playing at this level of abstraction, it's important to tread carefully as the representation of the physics in simple digestible statements is difficult. This is why physicists prefer to work with the vector potential equations (and a problem dependent gauge selection) and with second Quantization in Hamiltonian systems to actually calculate things down to the component level. You solve the problem via a careful set of deliberate mathematical choices when you state the problem... the delicate thing here comes down to the fact that infinitelt many provably mathematically equivalent statements can be used to identically describe a real problem, but only a handful of them can be solved using valid mathematical techniques (ie you may get the right answers but you can't PROVE any of them are correct let alone unique... and may God have mercy on your soul if you want an actual numerical answer from a finite precision computation when starting from a 100% valid but poorly chosen problem statement...).
It is a hall of mirrors indeed, good analogy ... I find this approach curious, so although I don't devote my life to it, I allow myself to play with it every now and then, even accepting my own biases. So if this leads to nowhere, I've been having fun. Thank you so much for watching and taking the time to write your thoughts, indeed. 😚
Didn't know before there is a problem about the ethics of asking logically well formulated questions. Is it similar to publishing in ways a perceived enemy can read.
Can you explain how an imaginary charge is a mass? I don't see how you arrived at that.
Short answer: think about what if it's not an imaginary quantity ... because the conversion from Coulombs to mass units is something so simple, that it's out of the question, right?
@@math.101 I'm still not sure I follow. A charge assembled to a certain distance is a certain amount of work or energy. But there are other units in there, to get an energy expression. I don't see how a charge can be dimensionally equivalent to an energy or a mass.
@@vwcanter Now I think I get you ... when you say "A charge assembled to a certain distance is a certain amount of work or energy" I think you mean potential energy, which is different from rest energy. This is a big part of this channel's topic, to ask something about electric charge contribution to rest energy.
great video! what program do you use to make these math animations?
I think it's manim, a python library that allows for this kind of animations
2nd year of faculty of mathematics in Belgrade, I understood nothing.
If only there was a way to integrate no hairless vector fields into a field calculation that is more accurate than m1m2/d^2
at one minute, it feels like an a^2+b^2=(a+b)^2 error
Epic! #4Percent
1:17 How? it's not incorrect M_1*M_2 is not m_1*m_2 + m_q1*m_q2. Where you lost m_1*m_q2 + m_2*m_q1 ?
hmm, perhaps I should've said more about that, yes (I thought it was clear that we can find both laws in the real part) ... I only say that "now its components wouldn't be just real numbers anymore" ... It's so difficult to come up with a good script without messing things up 🤔
Mathematically speaking, the ideas you presented in the video seems plausible. However, in terms of physics, there are a lot of misconceptions there. First, what is gravitational magnetic field? I have never heard of such thing. Second, the gravity is not actually a force like EM force, but a deformation in the spacetime. Gravity and electromagnetism are substantially different that the physicists are still struggling to incorporate the gravity to the standard model where EM belongs.
Unfortunately, your providing facts and mathematical manipulation does not depend on reality but rather, on standard rules that have been accepted; nor does making stuff up out of nothing change someone's mathematical manipulation when that is incorporated into said equations.
There is a gravito magnetic field in a Maxwell-like theory of gravitation with mass velocity as a source, but it does not fullfill all the general relativity tests. So you are right. That being said, metric tensor theory of gravitation is not complete also, it needs improvement for example to take into account "dark matter" effects.
But anyway, the mass separation with charge using complex number is pretty elegant and this video is really interresting.
It is good to manipulate original vectors like spherical spinor for instance, that you find in Dirac central field theory of the electron. It can give you new theories or new perpesctives.
Hi @mathoph26, thank you so much for thinking this is interesting ... Another point of view is to think about GEM simply as Maxwell's equations but just rotated, so, everything becomes diffuse at this point, because everything we can say about Maxwell's equations can be said about GEM (or call them differently), see my point ? ... a viewer called this a hall of mirrors 😅 (and it is)
@@math.101 you re welcome. Rotated in complex plane you mean ? Question: the couple (mu,J) you defined for the mass velocity field is a four-vector invariant by lorentz transform ? It should be the 4-momentum no? Personnaly, because I like the formalism of electromagnetism and Dirac equation, I would prefer a GEM version of gravity than a tensor version (which have a lot of ambiguities, and an ugly not-symmetrical form, personnal taste...). The thing is, did you try to check the 4 tests of relativity using 4-momentum as GEM source (with no charge, so no imaginary part of the current) ? Including the gamma factor, which make it non linear and maybe the minimal coupling (in equation of motion roughly replace v by v - a, a being the gravitomagnetic field) ? I did not check the biblio with such a current source. By the way great videos, interesting and bold subject: well done.
Rotated in the complex plane, yep ... so, we can say the same things about both sets of equations, right? ... the thing is that GEM has a bad reputation, but perhaps it's because we don't fully understand it, or perhaps despite being mathematically indistinguishable GEM and the rotated Maxwell's equations are describing 2 separate things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Thank you so much for considering it interesting.
Math 505 ?
almost 😊 ... love that guy
Interesting
Trying not to lie but if AI has been taught to lie in the name of security, we're struggling.
sorry, what?
@@math.101 would only try to induce sorrow on any person who's done damage to others so that they can come to a resolution of what they've been trained or forced to do that makes harm for others.
1000th like 😊
😚
Writing down M = m + iq allows you to do this beautiful mathematical effort but doesnt explain much physics. What does it even mean? A singular property of objects? Why is “m + iq” instead of “q + im”? What are the possible relations between G and E, B then? It was a great mathematical job here, but it left us with so manny metaphisycal questions so that the proposal is shallow… youtube is full of them!
Hi, thank you so much for finding this beautiful ... it is equivalent to go from gravity to electricity or the other way around. I cherry picked gravity's perspective just because of mc² being right there, it looks like what matters is their orthogonality, not much which one is the real/imaginary part.
So you think I should've said more about physics, that's fair, I owe you one
@@math.101 we are used to prior math and forget sometimes about physics, which is always more relevant. I’ll love to talk with u more about the physics of this math you did! For instance, what do you think it means to “mass and charge to be ortogonal?” (Ps: forgive me for my english, i’m from 🇧🇷😂😂)
hey, no worries, I don't speak English either ... that's a tough question, I don't think too much about its meaning but rather in where it can take you once you start toying with it, like in the video itself. I have some more things coming for future videos, perhaps they contribute to this question.
It _really_ doesn't help that you use the same synthetic voice that 'Spirit Science' does. 😮
🤦 is that about spiritualism? ... I couldn't find them
@math.101 Spirit Science talks about electric mass and stuff, using the same synthetic voice, but is complete nonsense. Sir Sic often debunks Spirit Science on his channel.
All this off topic if course, just a pity about the voice.
jaja, Sir Sic, is hilarious ... I've just discovered him, thanks 😅
I bet this video is probably pretty good. But the robot voice is a dealbreaker for me. Sorry
yeah, I'm not a fluent English speaker, sorry
@@math.101 i'll narrate the video for you
Thank you for considering it good anyways, I think I'll try next time 🤔
@@math.101 yesss, many people prefer a genuine voice over a robot, and the accent of the narrator just makes the video even more real and genuine
What the heck is the gravitomagnetic field?!
There was no way to make the AI say the word "gravitoelectromagnetic", so I went with gravitomagnetic 😊
🤍
Please use your voice again
Is this ai generated?
just the voice over
I mean, nope
??? This video is a lie I found a magnetic monopole in my backyard
If you’re using computer-generated voice you should disclose that
Why?
It's literally at the bottom of the video description. Not super up front, but by no means deceitful.
If you’ve got a fat dumpy you should disclose that
Voice mods are allowed, chill.
what would having that information change exactly?
you lost me
AI slop voice ruins the video
Me talking ... that would ruin the video 😄
All this formulas strolling around the screen just made me dizzy, I had no time to read them. Not a very useful videos, sorry
Honestly, I sub'd after seeing that. Made it easier to follow the concepts in each equation.
nope not a monopole. they are a physical impossibility.
Geometric phases wants to talk to you. Synthetic monopoles are a thing
@@mayatrash nope no monopole can be created. by trying to create a monopole you will always end up with the other side to the pair. There are only electrical and magnetic dipoles. This is a known result that magnetic monopoles cannot physically exist. Any mathematical framework that shows a monopole is making assumptions that do not exist in the real world.
@@kennethgee2004 Bro im literally a theoretical physicist. The only reason magnetic monopoles do not exist is because we have never seen them and assume that they don't exist ab initio from Maxwells equations. However, I'm at parts with you, you are correct, in a physical manner one can say they do not exist, but if other stuff can be described that way it makes everything more complicated. In a way we just use the best description we have, which never means we are faithful in our understanding. Synthetic magnetic fields to emerge in topological phases, which could be seen as an effective effect, but the same is true for quasiparticles or even virtual particles. At some point it just becomes descriptions and relating equations to the real word becomes diffusive.
@@kennethgee2004 and any mathematical framework that shows a gravitational singularity is making assumptions that do not exist in the real world, yet here we are observing black holes.
@@mayatrash but isnt the known maxwell equations actually a natural consequence of U(1) symmetry of the Dirac lagragian? then Gauss's law naturally emerge showing that the Divergence of the magnetic field really is zero.
What I want to say is that magnetic monopoles not existing is not anymore a matter of "not observing them" it is actually a fact due a deep principle of symmetry of the Universe. Isnt that correct?
Complex numbers is fake math and so is any equation containing the imaginary unit because
(1) the definition of a complex number contradicts to the laws of formal logic, because this definition is the union of two contradictory concepts: the concept of a real number and the concept of a non-real (imaginary) number-an image. The concepts of a real number and a non-real (imaginary) number are in logical relation of contradiction: the essential feature of one concept completely negates the essential feature of another concept. These concepts have no common feature (i.e. these concepts have nothing in common with each other), therefore one cannot compare these concepts with each other. Consequently, the concepts of a real number and a non-real (imaginary) number cannot be united and contained in the definition of a complex number. The concept of a complex number is a gross formal-logical error;
(2) the real part of a complex number is the result of a measurement. But the non-real (imaginary) part of a complex number is not the result of a measurement. The non-real (imaginary) part is a meaningless symbol, because the mathematical (quantitative) operation of multiplication of a real number by a meaningless symbol is a meaningless operation. This means that the theory of complex number is not a correct method of calculation. Consequently, mathematical (quantitative) operations on meaningless symbols are a gross formal-logical error;
(3) a complex number cannot be represented (interpreted) in the Cartesian geometric coordinate system, because the Cartesian coordinate system is a system of two identical scales (rulers). The standard geometric representation (interpretation) of a complex number leads to the logical contradictions if the scales (rulers) are not identical. This means that the scale of non-real (imaginary) numbers cannot exist in the Cartesian geometric coordinate system.
Shut up
was this generated by chatgpt? otherwise, completely regarded
Nope, chatgpt isn't involved in any way.
Bro had to go write s book about not understanding imaginary units therefore they "don't exist"
Just wait until you find out that _all_ numbers are fake!
multivector -we call it form in differential geometry.
Just construct a complex number with gravity and electromagnetism, that will lead to contradiction with reality physics laws.
Another more doable way to unify gravity and electromagnetism -is KK reduction of dimension, you just need one additional dimension and a natural two-form field and metric field, and then you have electromagnetism, gravity, and dilaton.
And the compact formula of Maxwell doesn't need any new physics
It's strict in math that the maxwell just states:
d star F=hodge star J
For no magnetic charge monopole situation, F is strictly written as dA
If you have a monopole, then F is locally written as dA, and we strictly have
d F= J monopole
The compactness and the elegance just come from the differential geometry of forms
A magnetic LQBT Pol Magnet, this is crap