While I probably overuse the term, today’s post is probably among the most significant ones in my whole blog. The reason isn’t that what I’m about to say is radically different from what I’ve said before, although I present one of the biggest changes to the Theory of Everything in a while.
The reason why today’s post might be monumental is that with it, I might be able to remove the biggest “and then a miracle occurs” statements in my theory.
First of all, let’s begin with where I was before today. Already some time back I had presented a qualitative image of what the rotation of elementary particles of energy (dots) around a common axis looks like. This is one of these images.
While the above image is probably fully correct, my extrapolation of the image to a full orbital was faulty. You see, I thought the above image isn’t stacked “the easy way”, but rather with a rather convoluted means of rotation, as seen below
Anyhow, the thing that I was so wrong with was the idea that each dot is always connected to the same number of dots. Only when trying to get the mathematics of reflection correct, did I realize that this assumption is not valid. Rather, to simplify quite a bit, the dots appear to be moving in different regions along the orbital. Again simplifying, these regions are the central orbital, middle orbital and peripheral orbital. And each dot passes each of these regions during the total orbit.
As I don’t yet have an accurate 3D image of what’s going on, I illustrate the concept with this 2D image (which is incorrect because the three orbital types don’t merge into one another, but this makes illustration easier).
The inner orbital are the blue spheres (dots). These are being reflected by the orange dots in the middle orbital. The orange dots in the middle orbital are reflected both by its neighboring orange dot and by one (or possibly more) blue dot in the inner orbital. This leaves us with the blue dots in the peripheral orbital which is being reflected only by its neighbor in the central orbital.
How does this translate to accurate mathematics of reflection? I do have a couple of vague ideas I need to test. I’ll only know whether these ideas are any good after testing them.
So, why am I so confident that this approach is so monumental? Quoting Sherlock Holmes:
However, to be a proper mathematician, I must rephrase:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, must be the truth.
Only a quick Googling reveals that I’m not the only one having removed the “however improbable” -section. Well, actually the rejected manuscript followed the “however improbable” -logic. But the problem is that in physics, and even more so in mathematics, if you say: “however improbable”, you immediately lose the game.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that this is the final piece of the puzzle. If this final piece fits, the puzzle is solved. And if it doesn’t, it’s back to the drawing board for me.
Comments