Today’s post is about how to handle the chaos of finding that you’ve been just slightly wrong. In my last post I still showed the 3D plot of the twisted orbital where the orbital looked like a simple donut shape. However, as I went back to my equations and tried to plot the shape in Excel, I realized that I’d taken a slightly too large a step back.
You see, the idea of there being four entangled collections (or orbitals) of dots forming the final orbital hadn't been wrong. The only thing that the realization of the twist was that the initial state looked different to what I had imagined when I first realized the idea of the four orbitals.
So, what I needed to do was to plot the orbitals both as two twists and four double-circles and get exactly the same locations for each dot. This is what I did.
It wasn’t exactly hard, but still required some effort. And individual double-circle orbital looked like this:
And four of them entangled with each other looked like this:
In the end, I just had to tweak the values for the equations and I got these twisted double helix:
This one and the above are identical in the locations of the dots, but radically different in the equations. Each of the double-circles have only one turn, spread over two rounds (or 720 degrees), whereas for the example below, there are 36 turns. But because of the twist, there are actually 4x(36+1) = 148 dots in each of the twists.
While I might regret saying this, I think this was the last unexpected twist for the article. Now I just need to actually rewrite the article to include this new insight, and the manuscript should be ready for submission.
Comments