http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305024
Concept of Quaternion Mass for Wave-Particle Duality : A Novel Approach
The author incorrectly describes a quaternion as a combination of scalar and vector. It is actually a combination of scalar and
pseudovector*. A common oversight.
Still an interesting paper touching on inertia, though.
* Vectors ("polar" vectors) involve "translation" (velocity, force,
E field, ...).
Pseudovectors ("axial" vectors) involve "rotation" (angular velocity, torque,
B field, ...).
Cross products obey the following rules:
axial x axial --> axial
polar x polar-->axial
axial x polar --> polar
polar x axial --> polar
The Cartesian unit vectors
i,
j,
k must therefore
all be
axial vectors since
i x
j =
k,
j x
k =
i,
k x
i =
j, and it wouldn't make sense to have a mixed basis. In quaternion language, units
i,
j,
k are actually half-turn (pi rad, 180 deg)
rotations about their respective axes.
Any two quaternions obey the product rule [[a,
A]] [[b,
B]] = [[ab -
A.
B, a
B + b
A +
Ax
B]], generally noncommutative. For normalized quaternions, which have sqrt(a^2 + A^2) = 1 where A = |
A|, the scalar part a = cos (theta/2) and the pseudovector magnitude A = sin(theta/2), where theta is the rotation angle and
A is the rotation axis.
So the "
translational", Cartesian frame in which traditional Gibbs-Heaviside vector operations are performed actually has a
rotational basis when viewed using quaternions. An axial vector can always mimic a polar vector, but the converse is not true. The failure to clearly and consistently distinguish between axial and polar vectors dates from the birth of various hypernumber concepts in the mid-to-late 19th century and is IMHO a contributor to the current confusion in physics. A bloody literature war was fought over this in the late 1800s. Quaternions were suppressed by the early 1900s. Hamilton made one mistake which increased the confusion... he thought that the quaternion units
i,
j,
k were associated with 90 deg rotations, as
i = sqrt(-1) is for complex numbers z = x +
iy, instead of the correct pi rad or 180 deg.
A recent (1960s-present) approach, Hestenes' Geometric Algebra, clearly distinguishes axial from polar (pseudo from non-pseudo), yet he still starts his derivation with a translational bias (point to line to rhombus to parallelepiped to ...). It works well, but might it be missing something?