In my last post I made the statement that I had probably figured out the mathematical rules of the Theory of Everything. While this statement might sound too grandiose, I think I’m beginning to have sufficient evidence to back this statement up.
Before I go deeper into the weeds, I’ll just recap the basics of the Theory of Everything for the new reader. It very strongly appears that everything in nature is made of elementary particles of energy. I call these dots for short. Dots are incredibly small, spherical and move at the speed of light. Dots do not experience any forces. Rather forces are an aggregate representation of a more fundamental interaction that these dots do experience. And this only truly fundamental interaction is reflection. This also means that there are no new laws required for the Theory of Everything.
However, for any of the above to be credible I need to explain how matter can exist as strings of dots that only touch each other when reflecting, but where all reflections take place in perfect synchrony and at exact point in space (and time) in relation to every other dot in the particle of matter.
You might not be surprised to hear that doing this is quite hard. It’s taken me two and a half years since the conception of the idea of the dot to get to this point. And over two years of these I didn’t really even understand what the interaction was that I was supposed to be describing. For the first year I had almost no idea and for about a year I thought that it had to be about refraction. But because I didn’t really understand what refraction was, I created much of the basic theory based on intuition and logic. The curious thing is that I wasn’t too far off.
Actually, the thing where I was both sort of right, but not quite, was the use of cones to describe the connections between dots. However, despite the general idea being correct, my basic premise was nevertheless faulty. It never even occurred to me that the cones of refraction, as I called them, could be bent.
An important thing to understand is that almost year ago, when I first had the idea of the cone of refraction, I didn’t know what refraction really was. Or to be more honest, I had the wrong idea for what refraction was. And the wrong idea was that the dots would be in constant contact with each other, bending their sum trajectory into a closed loop orbital. To this you might say: “I don’t understand a single word you’re saying”. And this would be the right response, because this is what we scientists do. We have a vague idea and try to describe these ideas with sentences that describe these vague ideas to others. And it is my firm belief that a lot of the reason why we scientists aren’t able to explain what we know, is that we don’t know enough. At some point we reach the level of superficial knowledge, and we invent jargon to explain the mathematical simplifications that we make.
But this time things should be different. So, first of all, let’s not call it a cone of refraction anymore. It is a cone of reflection, where each cone draws the location of two neighboring at the point of reflection and the point between the two dots at the middle distance between two points or reflection. And because of reflection, the two cones of reflection on either side of this middle point are bent towards one side. Or more specifically away from the side where the rings of reflection meet.
Perhaps if I showed the principle with images this might help a bit. So here is how the bending of the cones looks from above:
And from the front:
As the bending is here towards the viewer, it isn’t as clear.
And here what the bending looks from the side:
It’s pretty difficult to see anything here, because the cones are stacked one on top the other.
And here is the shape as a rotating 3D model:
It might not be obvious from the above video, but the shape also shows how multiple cones of reflection are connected. This, however, requires a whole post for itself.
I’m quite confident that if I worked hard, I would be able to turn this image into a vector representation within a few days, or weeks at most. However, I’ve been feeling surprisingly lazy lately. It’s probably because you can’t force mathematics. If your general idea is wrong, being wrong fast will still be just as wrong as being wrong slow. But now that I have something that seems to make mathematical sense, perhaps hard work might be a good idea.
Comments