Critical Reflection Part 2

            This research project started out for me as an investigation in two the mysterious math of quaternions and their history. It began with James Clerk Maxwell and the conversion of his quaternion formulas into the more popular alternative, vector analysis, by Oliver Heaviside. My question began asking, in various changing forms, what the reintroduction of quaternion algebra could do for modern physics. I began my research searching for articles containing the word “quaternion”. This yielded a lot of articles about the apparently common use of quaternion algebra in three dimensional computer modeling and animation, but very few about them being used in physics. The articles I did find mentioning quaternions addressed some unsolved or novel portion of the physics knowledge body, such as conceptual problems with quantum mechanics and anti-gravity. The articles claim the use of quaternion algebra plays a key part in developing a mathematical language to discuss these issues.

 As my research has progressed, I have become aware of ongoing debate about the use of quaternions in general that has spanned over one hundred years. I have become aware of a long string of letters in the archives of Nature spanning from 1880-1900 in which a heated debate about quaternions was played out. Even today while searching for general information about quaternions on the web I have seen passionate stances one the use of quaternions. I find it very interesting that the positions on this issue seem to be much split; that is the authors that are for the uses of quaternions feel very strongly about their view and vice versa. I’m starting to think about working this aspect of this issue into my question. Why is the quaternion debate so polarized?

Taking notes on the articles I have read so far has been difficult, but the lack of notes has not yet caused any difficulties, although this may turn out to not be the case as this papers progresses. Part of my issue is that I become so engrossed in the article that I am reading I forget all about taking notes. Another part of it is that there are only very small section of these articles that provide relevance into the research that I am doing and so far have found it easy to remember where and what those sections say about quaternions. That being said I feel like I need to improve in my note taking skills as I know it will be to my benefit in the long run.

While creating my annotated bibliography I didn’t read every word of every article are book. The articles I perceived to be more relevant to my research I spent more time reading as to make sure I would become aware of anything that I could use in support of my (still in formation) question. The articles that were less relevant I skimmed for general content and sections that spoke specifically on quaternions and their physical relevance. I think that this was the only effective way for me to glean the information I needed for my annotated bibliography. For this reason I think the bibliography will be helpful to me and anyone else who wants to research quaternions, but may not be so useful to people that have a different area of research to which these articles and books may be relevant.