I’m not 100 % sure whether today’s post is procrastination or not. It probably isn’t as I write it to clarify my thoughts on the five laws of reflection. You see, I think I have finally found the question that needed to be answered for the Theory of Everything. And the question to be answered is “How can you push a string?”. According to Wikipedia, you can’t. However, that is why string theory in its current formulation turns nonsensical, requiring extra dimensions.
The simple answer to this question is that the string pushes itself and is reflected in the process. For almost a year, about from the time I finished the Version 1.0 of my Theory of Everything, I thought that the only way to entangle two helices of elementary particles of energy (dots) was to rip the two helices apart. This solved some mathematical problems, but I never really could explain how this ripping of helices took place. For the submitted manuscript, I decided to leave the ripped out of the manuscript but thought that I would add it as soon as I could explain it mathematically.
However, now that I look at the Theory of Everything from the lens of reflection, I think I need to heave the ripped helix theory into the trash bin. Now I’m quite convinced that each dot in an helix entangled with another helix of dots must be reflected by the dots behind and in front of it in the same helix, as well as being reflected by a dot in the neighboring helix:
In the above scheme I only show the very large arcing (green circular arc at the end of a cylinder), where the arcing marked by R both in the manuscript and my previous posts) and the small arcing (the green circles). I have omitted the middle arcing that is the result of the reflection at the saint Hannes knot, because that would take took long to draw for this post.
So, in the above simplified scheme, the blue dot in the middle is reflected by the blue dots above and below, as well as the yellow dot in the middle. And the same logic holds for the yellow dot in the middle.
In the picture you see cones of reflection, which the astute observer might observe, are very similar to the cones of refraction from my peer-reviewed Theory of Everything -paper. The big difference being that the cones of reflection are integrally linked to the vector connecting the dots of neighboring helices. While the cones of refraction didn’t seem to have any basis on quantifiable interactions, this shouldn’t be the case for the cones of reflection.
However, the reason I call today’s post procrastination is that I could have spent all of this time figuring out the mathematics connecting reflection to the equations that define the saint Hannes knot.
Perhaps I’ll do that next…
Comments