In today’s post I publicly limit my ambitions. In the past days, when finalizing my Theory of Everything -manuscript, I’d come across the realization that the accurate description of the interaction of the entangled double-helices of dots requires more complicated mathematics than what my manuscript offers. I was almost about to embark on the path of using complex numbers to fix the final issues.
However, then it hit me: I don’t have to do it. I no longer have to be 100 % correct, because there are no longer major flaws in my logic. You see, the complex figure with circular arcs always had an air of “Then a miracle occurs” to it. I never had a proper logic for exactly why the movement of dots created that shape. Only when I understood the logic of the bending of the entangled helices, I understood where I had placed the miracle in the original figure.
However, the important thing to note is that while I was mathematically wrong in the first instance, I needed to not be bothered about the logic of the orbital to make progress in other parts of the theory. Or more specifically, I didn’t really even have the theory until I decided to let go of trying to be perfectly correct and just trying to be close enough. Back then I decided to pick my battles, and it paid off.
This time, I need to do the same. This time I’m right enough to be able to write a compelling argument to the manuscript. I might not be 100 % right. Or to be frank, I know I’m not 100 % right about the mathematics of my theory. But I don’t even try to be. I’m close enough. This is at least roughly the figure that I’m about to add the manuscript that should replace the previous hand-waving:
Will there be a reviewer, saying “I think you should be more explicit here in step two”? The probability of it seems high. However, now I’m hoping that the rest of the argument is strong enough that the reviewers will overlook their misgiving about certain details in favor of the overall validity of the argument. It should be noted that the competing theory of everything necessitates the existence of ten dimensions. There’s nothing as wacky in my theory.
I’ve already rewritten the main text of the Theory of Everything to include these new observations. Next, I need to rewrite the supplementary information. Luckily this mostly means that I can delete pages of mathematical doodling, which act as a distraction to the main argument of the manuscript. The comical thing is that there is still a chance that the equations really do describe a free hydrogen molecule. However, as they are, they don’t follow the simple logic of bent helices. This means that including them to the manuscript is an unnecessary battle.
It seems that the estimate that I made two weeks ago, of being able to submit the manuscript within a month, still seems valid. If I really wanted to rush things, even a deadline of a week from now might be possible.
Update from the same day
Here is the current relatively rough draft of the new manuscript:
I'm sure the language is a bit clunky, as the changes influence the whole. However, I'm very happy that all of the figures and equations tell a single story. Before I was afraid that the manuscript was all over the place.
And here is the new supplementary information:
I've ditched the whole long chapter about how to derive the values for the circular arcs for the hydrogen molecule. Even if it might hold true in some cases, it was just a nightmare for the reader.
Comments