Reflecting on Feedback

      I feel that the feedback I got was very positive in that it says I'm heading in the right direction. I received some concrete ideas about where to solidify the direction of the paper and the papers main question. Once I began looking into quaternions more, I became more and more aware of the debate going on over their use. I had been starting to identify a different angle that would focus on this controversy. I think using this debate to say something about the larger scientific process as a whole could be a very fun and interesting angle to pursue.

Primary Research

Primary Research - Option D: Cultural Analysis

Possible Questions:       Why is the debate about the use of quaternions so polarized?

What is it about quaternions that make people feel so strongly about them?

Why has the debate about quaternions went on for so long?

      I plan to go through and analyzing the debate of the use of quaternions in math and physics in letters to Nature from the years 1880-1900. From the little of research I’ve done so far there seems to have been a heated debate that took place during these years concerning the use of quaternions. It is interesting to me that people feel so strongly one way or the other. I plan to read 2-3 of these letters from both perspectives and analyze and try to understand the motivations behind these letters. I would also like to supplement this with research of how this debate still exists today. The area where quaternions are used the most today is in 3 dimensional computer modeling to describe how objects rotate in space. Even in this field where quaternions are somewhat commonplace there still seems to be a debate going on, and seems to be equally polarized today as it was back at the end of the 19^th century. The people that advocate for the use of quaternions feel very strongly that they have some actual physical meaning that translates directly to the physical universe. Those that advocate against the use of quaternions think that they are pointless and almost silly, some calling them a waste of time.

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.