I’ve been rather silent in my quest to explain the Theory of Everything through the reflection of elementary particles of energy in the past days, or weeks, if you don’t count the one-off post from a week ago. I thought the reason to be the same one I’d mentioned before: that there are so few missing parts left that producing a mathematically accurate theory is almost the only new insight gained.
But I was wrong! Once again, I realized that a hypothesis that I’d entertained a while back became relevant. In the post “The Mathematics of Pushing a String”, I still had my orbitals of dots around a point at the center. But once I started working on the reflection theory, the mathematical basis of this central spot seemed to disappear. For a long time, I thought I no longer needed to define the centerpoint for the reflections.
However, while trying to fit reflections together, I realized that none of the flyby paths make sense, unless they are defined by a vector connecting both the center of the reflection orbital and to the center of the flyby path between reflections. This new model of reflection around the center of the elementary particles of energy (kaus) necessitates that the kaus closest to the center remain closest to the center and that the kaus farthest from the center remain farthest. But the model also necessitates that the kaus in the middle distance are reflected between two distances: one closer and one farther from the center. This in a way where the neighboring kaus are always moving to the opposite directions: either closer to the center or farther from it.
It might not be instantly obvious, but the difference between the lengths of the tangential movements (the non-reflected components) determines the angle between paths, around the center of the orbital. And knowing the length of the flyby path (very close to or exactly √2 times the radius of a kau), this angle determines the radius of the orbital!
In some sense none of this was conceptually new, but it’s very different to have an idea of how things should be and to observe the mathematical necessity of such a thing.
And here is very roughly how a model of a few reflections around a center of reflections looks like:
I think I’ve said this a gazillion times, but don’t take the above model as the final truth. Whenever I have a new idea, I start a process of figuring out whether the new model replaces old problems with new ones, or whether it really is the final solution. At this point I can’t say anything with much certainty. I have a very good feeling about this new insight, but it just might be because I haven’t looked close enough.
Again, this new insight isn’t that different from the model I presented in my last post. The reflections still follow the same basic rules. The only difference is that what defines the angles of reflections becomes clearer. I would so much like to say that this is the whole story, but I’ll know whether it is or isn’t only after checking the mathematics.
Comments