Thanks heaps Kalid, for taking the time to discuss this issue.
After posting my second comment, my feeling is that my intuitive understanding leads me to look for something unitary, simple, or ‘pure’, to define complex multiplication and exponentiation. That seems intuitive.
So, how about this:
We could think of multiplication as being an operator with two ‘sub-operations’ - the ‘Real’ ‘operation’ that scales the magnitude, PLUS the ‘imaginary’ operation that adds to the angle - or rotates.
To apply this multiplication in two parts it is convenient if the two ‘operations’ that need to be performed are ‘orthogonal’ operations - where orthogonal simply means that they do not affect each other, and thus can be computed independently and the two results combined to get the final answer.
In this view of multiplication, the imaginary rotation operation is orthogonal to the familiar scaling of real multiplication - by DEFINITION - it’s the way we must change the angle while leaving the magnitude unchanged.
Similarly, the scaling of the magnitude is DEFINED as the operation that does not change the angle, but only scales the magnitude.
Together the two are combined to perform the familiar operation of complex multiplication.
Therefore, our ‘pure’ imaginary ‘operation’ must trace a perfect circle - only because we have defined the operator as only capable of adding to the angle, but never changing the magnitude - a fixed radius is a perfect circle by definition!
But, I do not feel that the ‘unit circle’ is the one ‘mystical’ circle (in your words), rather it is just the consequence of repeatedly using the purely imaginary operation - a perfect circle with fixed radius that goes around for infinity with increasing angle, analogous to the way that the real axis goes on to infinity with increasing scale.
However, I found that thinking about ‘growth’ when looking at e^i caused me to go off-track - and that word ‘growth’ caused me to incorrectly intuit that the graph of increasing powers of i would be a spiral, not the perfect circle.
Now, the way I am thinking is this: the ‘circle of any radius’ is intrinsic to the multiplication by the ‘pure’ i, because we define that to be ‘adding the angle but leaving the magnitude alone’.
Further, the very special ‘unit circle’ actually has nothing to do with the special number ‘e’, rather it is derived independently by the property that anything to the power of zero must be 1. So the circle is locked to a length of 1 unit as a natural property of exponentiation. This works regardless of the real number we choose as the base, not just by choosing e.
In fact, thinking about e as the base wrecked my intuition of what was happening when we raised real numbers to multiples of i. Perhaps the unit circle is ‘deeper’ concept than ‘e’. However the base ‘e’ is still special because it relates the other special number ‘pi’ by way of rotation FREQUENCY: [i times 2 times pi] for each full rotation.
I hope that makes sense.
Please do not take offense if I appear to contradict you. All I am really discussing is my own evolving intuition of complex powers, and ‘pi’, and ‘e’. Of course this may be different to your, or anyone else’s intuition.