It’s been a few days since my last post. Again, one of the main reasons for this is that I’ve been pondering about the fundamental link of reflection of elementary particles of energy (dots) and matter.
For some time, I thought the best way to understand this would be to make 3D models. However, as is often the case 3D models aren’t the solution, but rather a tool in finding the solution. Iin this post I won’t show 3D models, or videos. Instead, I go back to basics and 2D projections.
And the overlooked clue that had been in front of my face this whole time is the interface between two dots. You see, before I didn’t really think this interface itself was that important. I thought that the movement of dots was somehow determined by dots further away. But the surprising thing is that no, it’s not. At least not directly. You see dots moving in space are reflected only by planes of reflection that are drawn from points of reflection. These are so important that I should start using annoying acronyms for them, such as PloR and PooR.
I think I’ve mentioned before that reflection only cares about the component of the movement of dots that is not parallel with the other dot it is being reflected from. And in the case of atomic/molecular orbitals the movements of neighboring dots are mostly parallel. That it, only small perpendicular components of movement are not parallel.
I illustrate the concept with the figure below. The grey arrows depict the multiple possible directions of parallel movements of the dots. The red horizontal line depicts the plane of reflection and the point where the lines intersect is the point of reflection. The angled red line at left is the movement of the dot being reflected before reflection and the angled red arrow on the right depicts the movement of the dot after reflection.
However, the point of reflection isn’t constant. Conversely, it moves constantly as the dots move. While I’ve shown the parametric equations for the locations of dots:
and
these equations do not depict the movement of the point of reflection. To begin with, we don’t add anything, but rather take away the last term of each equation. Like this:
These parametric equations define a part of the orbitals of the points of reflection. I.e. the centers of the red circles in the image below:
I might be wrong, but the other orbitals of points of reflection actually look like this:
and this:
These define the other dots within the red circles.
The red dot in the center of the black circle is the only point of reflection that doesn’t have a continuous orbital.
The funny thing is, I didn’t even have an idea about this when I started writing this post. I only had an idea about the first parametric equations (all in black). Only when I got to the point where I was about to say that this defines the points of reflection, did I understand that I had missed something very important.
I think I must include all of the above equations into my revision of the Theory of Everything -manuscript.
I hope the shift of depicting refraction as a rather vague concept to something where the curvature of the movement of dots is explained from first principles. I sincerely hope that no reviewer says that my definition of reflection is vague. But never underestimate the daftness of Reviewer 2, and sometimes also the editor…
Comments