Mathematical Physics - Quantum-Relativity (qr)

qr forces us to face up to a great misunderstanding and error that has become embedded within mankind's deeply flawed additive-led or flat understanding of Nature's multiplicative-led or curved (exponential) mathematical logic.

In 1971, this is what I inferred from merely paying close attention in electrical engineering maths class.

 PS: do not tell a pure mathematician about this hack, it makes them angry, they do not like it - well, tough on them.

Author's notes:

1)  See colour key attached below.

2) If you find the above diagram hard to come to terms with, that is only because you have been trained to think of i as an imaginary number. Well, in the over simplistic additive theory of arithmetic which they teach us so enthusiastically, one can regard i as if it were an imaginary number. However, our universe works on multiplicative (exponential) principals and in transforming from the complex exponential number plane into the flat additive kind of arithmetic, we must treat i as the rotational operator with quadrant units of rotation. Both systems work, but the additive system that they love so much is basically a load of old cobblers, as anybody who paid any attention in electrical engineering maths class surely ought to have noticed. Think of e^(iwt), which is really e^(0 + iwt), which in flat additive finger counting numbers evaluates to 1.iwt. Think of one unit of something (say a unit of alternating magnetic flux) times a rotation of the angle w moving in time. With the 600 MW turbo alternator that I am most familiar with, a single bipolar standing magnetic flux field is actually driven to rotate through the three phase stator windings at 3000 RPM; that is

with the standard (everywhere except North America) 50 Hz synchronous alternator.

3) When Gauss was still a child of 12, he said that anyone who did not see the correctness of the Euler Identity at first glance was never going to be a (great) mathematician. As nobody else could see the correctness of this at all, let alone at first glance, this remark did not endear him to people who were being in effect told that they were not competent mathematicians. What Gauss was dreaming of as a child is hard for me to fathom because the Euler Identity he referred to was in effect nonsense. I could give Gauss credit for perhaps seeing that Euler did not bother to show the zero magnitude term in the exponent of his famous identity. However, this would leave me irritated with Gauss, if it was so easy for him, then why did he not just explain the missing zero exponential magnitude term? My best guess is that Gauss remained confused about this matter for his entire life but redeemed himself by leaving me with a vital breakthrough genius remark made in paragraph #24 of item C in a letter handed to the Royal Society in 1831.

4) Any so-called "mathematician" who could not see beyond the omission of the zero exponential magnitude term in the Euler Identity (all so-called "mathematicians") was never a useful arithmetician of rotating fields, let alone any kind of respectable applied mathematician. Think about this another way, whatever we do in life, even if one is a mathematician oneself, for about the last 290-years we have all been accidentally hypnotised or indoctrinated into learning a lot of puerile arithmetical claptrap from poor deluded "teachers and professors" who had never even been taught how to count inverse numbers properly in the first place. Note that the numbers -1 and +1 are NOT part of a seamless numerical continuum, there is a 180 degree phase reversal at the flat (finger counting) numerical origin. You call that origin zero, but in flat or finger counting numbers, there is no such finite number as zero. Zero is an infinitely small number, the natural reciprocal of an infinitely large number. If you can only imagine finite entities, then the subject of Quantum-Relativity will lie beyond your present intellectual capability. Do not give up; as the dying Lord Yoda advised Luke Skywalker; "use the force, try nothing; -  DO!".

Background photo; an hypnotically distorted view of "the Great Jewels of the Pleiades".

At this trivial magnification, all distant stars should actually be represented by single pixels of light. The absurd astrophysical crowd is always desperate for more funding, as if their work had any value. Leaving this natural feature of the CCD to portray the stars as if they were thousands of times nearer than they actually are, is a deliberate ploy to try and maintain public interest in a subject of which they are in fact sublimely ignorant. For example; despite 60 years of trying very hard with powerful supercomputers, they are no nearer to explaining how any star forms in the first place than they were in 1730. Despite my publication of "Mass Compaction Mechanics" in 2015, nobody was interested. Nobody actually wants to know because not knowing is far more profitable for them than the actual boring routine facts of the matter.