In my last post Bisphere Reflection I presented a model of reflection that I said looked quite perfect, but a bit messy. After that post, I’ve been toiling away, sorting out the messiness. However, in the post I also said:
But I’m still trying to curb my enthusiasm. It’s just too easy to ignore errors when you’re excited.
And this post is about identifying those errors and perfecting the shape of reflection. Again, I haven’t had that much time to look at the shape, so don’t think that it really took three days of active work to figure out the errors. But finding the error wasn’t easy either. Intermittently for three days, I was looking at the figure and trying to see whether all of the connections between elementary particles of energy (kaus/dots) led to rational reflections. And while the shape was otherwise okay, still two of the four reflections looked impossible.
But then it hit me: the unit sphere of reflection that I mentioned in the Flyby Cones post doesn’t really show reflection, but is the unit sphere of flyby (or something a bit more descriptive). You only get a unit sphere of reflection when you connect two unit spheres of flyby. And if such a sphere is truly a sphere of reflection, it generates a chiral reflection by the right side being an identical version of the left side, but just rotated by 180 degrees (π radians) around the parallel axis of propagation (the y-axis in this model):
The difference between this model and the one I presented in my last post isn’t large at all, but it sorts the wrong direction of reflection in the old model.
So, is this the ultimate final and true model of the reflections behind the theory of everything? Probably, but not certainly. I still need to convert this into equations and verify the model. While the vectors are now all over the place because I’ve reversed the direction of the reflections, it’s not nearly as conceptually messy as any of the older models. I’d say the odds are rather decent that I don’t have to change anything. But not a full 100 %.
Yorumlar