I’m still slogging along on my quest to explain the Theory of Everything with mathematical precision, using the reflection of elementary particles of energy (dots) and continuous reflection.
The problem I have is that while I know there can only be reflection, there really isn’t a good mathematical framework to describe continuous reflection. Or if applicable mathematics have been invented for something else, it hasn’t been applied to continuous reflection.
So, now I must try to invent this framework. A truly daunting task. The good thing is that I think I have the basics sorted out. We can begin with the x-z projection of eight dots moving along two orbitals (green and orange), with half of the dots moving away from the reader (lower left) and half towards the reader (upper right). Upon impact, the orange dot below the plane of refraction between the three quadruplets of dots (φ = 0) reflects from the green dot above the plane (φ = 6π/4). As we know that the movement of the dots are tangential to the circular orbit around the quadruplet (marked with a red circular arc), we can deduce the vectors of non-parallel motion of both dots.
When drawn in the above scheme, we can see that reflection is sufficient to explain the continuous reversal of the non-parallel motion of the dots. While there are only two points in the whole Saint Hanned knot orbital where these quadruplets reflect off each other, there is still plenty or reflection going around in the rest of the orbital, as each dot is connected to at least one dot next to it and one dot either in front of or behind it.
I think there doesn’t exist a very strong link, but curiously the vectors in the above scheme look like the components of a Feynman diagram:
I probably shouldn’t say anything about them, as I haven’t really learned to use them and only have a very shaky grasp of even what they do. I’m an experimental chemist dealing with biomaterials and synthesis (as well as a bunch of other chemistry stuff), so I really haven’t needed them.
However, there is something eerily similar with the two types of schemes. In the above Feynman diagram:
an electron (e−) and a positron (e+) annihilate, producing a photon (γ, represented by the blue sine wave) that becomes a quark–antiquark pair (quark q, antiquark q̄), after which the antiquark radiates a gluon (g, represented by the green helix).
The curious thing is that the positron (e+) is depicted as moving back in time, with the arrow of movement being opposite that of the electron. This is a bit similar to the collision of non-parallel particles. The particle behind moves forward in time, but the particle in front, moves backwards. That is, the non-parallel component slows the particle down, where the movement at the speed of light is happening at the ever-changing present, whereas the non-parallel component could be described as having already happened in the ever-changing present. Thus, the two dots on either side of the plane of reflection are continuously reflecting, with one dot moving to the future and the other moving to the past.
But the big difference is that the photon (γ), isn’t converted to anything. Rather, on the other side of the photon, there is an identical event, with the pseudo-photon, separating the two events. Except, what separates the events isn’t such a large collection of particles as a photon, but rather a single elementary particle of energy. Or we are being pedantic, the separating energy are two halves of a dot, at least if we consider it to mark the separation of the events.
So, what does this mean mathematically? I don’t yet know. My training in mathematics stopped pretty much at the undergraduate level. I’ve always liked math and been quite good at it, but this is hard. For the moment, I can only define the problem, I’m not able to offer a solution.
Weirdly, when I started writing this post, I was sure I wouldn’t be able to say anything sensible. But actually, I’m positively surprised how much progress I managed to make, just by being able to articulate the similarities between my problem and what Mr. Feynman came up with.
It might take a while for me to be able to be able to crack this code, but at least I have an idea of what to work with.
Comments