Hi Jouko,

I echo some of the comments on presentation and also mathematical application.

i is a placeholder for a number. However it represents a specific dimensionless value, not c or h.

X^2 1^2 = i^2 * 0^2 = 0 and then x^2 = (-1)^2, which has the solution x = sqrt(-1) = i. In this situation, x is not a variable, but an unknown to be solved.

To consider a^2 b^2 = c^2 as an area, the values of the variables have to be allowed to vary. This is not the case for the solution of x^2 1 = 0 (where x is an unknown, not a variable).

In a different direction, since 'i' is really just a placeholder for an unknown, there is nothing to prevent us evaluating that unknown and defining an actual numeric representation of both i and, by extension, any complex number. In other words, i should be able to be represented in the same way as any other (real) number is - as a single value, rather than x iy. This would require some new areas of mathematics (like maybe defining what and how a negative base operates) and it could change a lot of equations and possibly some other areas of mathematics by simplifying complex equations. It would need to show that a complex value can be represented and manipulated as a single valued number, not the more cumbersome x iy representation involving an unknown placeholder. That would change both mathematics and physics in a fundamental way.

Best to you,

Don

Dear Jouko Harri Tiainen,

Your essay is nearly undigestable, at least to me. It is not clearly structured. You didn't even use page numbers. You didn't reveal much in your Bio and no referces at all. You claimed that a number is a square, etc.

Nonetheless, you might have correctly felt that the issue of i and Dirac's brackets deserves critical reconsideration. So far, I see you mainly ignoring the fundamental difference between the basic frog's level of reality and the timeless bird's view level of models that were abstracted from it. Somtimes it is necessary to distinguish chicken and egg duality from a concrete chicken that laid an egg.

Looking forward receiving a comment on my rather contrary essay,

Eckard Blumschein

I found this paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266325108_Energy_equation_in_complex_plane a thesis.

Seems SR also contains the complex field as negative energy. It is removed as unnecessary, because it normally vanish, as you also say. it is an error.

As instance in condensed matter are cases with time reversal, and then the right formula is important.

Thanks once more. Ulla.

Write a Reply...