Foreword
Five months ago, I wrote “The Theory of Everything for Dummies Part 1. Now with Videos!”. In it I explained in quite a complicated manner what I understood about the theory of everything. It didn’t go viral: according to the page, it has 21 views. Not nothing, but clearly not something that has been reposted or shared in any meaningful way. And to some extent I’m not surprised. It does propose an elementary particle of energy, but it fails to explain the reason why this particle moves in seemingly complicated orbitals, as presented in rotating 3D models. It’s almost as if the reader is expected to take what I say at face value. The problem was, I still didn’t have a physical mechanism for the refraction of strings of elementary particles of energy (dots): the thing that the whole theory of everything should rest on.
So, here is the long-awaited Part 2, where I finally explain the physical mechanism behind it all:
Part 2. The Continuous Reflection of Energy
As this post might be read by people who haven’t read all of the posts in my blog, I’ll begin by making an audacious claim. Elementary particles of matter cannot be truly elementary. That is, if we adopt a non-magical interpretation of the energy-mass equivalence, E = mc², energy are particles moving at the speed of light. And all particles of matter must be an extremely large collection of these particles of energy. As noted before, I call these particles ‘dots’ for convenience.
Similarly, we must assume that dots make up massless particles, such as photons, as well. I’ve explained quite a bit about photons in Part 1, so you can read more there, if you’re interested.
Next, we must assume that these particles can only move in a straight line when they are present in light and in absolute vacuum. In any other case, there must be an interaction that causes them not to move in a straight line. This interaction must be reflection.
So, what is reflection? The current three laws of reflection are as follows:
1. The incident ray, the reflected ray and the normal to the reflection surface at the point of the incidence lie in the same plane.
2. The angle which the incident ray makes with the normal is equal to the angle which the reflected ray makes to the same normal.
3. The reflected ray and the incident ray are on the opposite sides of the normal.
These laws are normally derived from Fresnel equations, but there is no need to derive these laws from there, when applied to dots. Rather, the laws can be explained by the picture below:
Figure 1. Simplified reflection of two independent dots.
In it we see a spherical dot (particle of energy) colliding with another dot. Regardless of the motion of the dot below, if the dot above has two components, one parallel to the vector that is defined by the center-to-center distance of the two dots and another component that is orthogonal to the same vector. If we assume that the lower dot is not moving parallel to the vector, the parallel motion of the upper dot must be reversed. This is the reflected component of the motion. At the same time, the orthogonal component of the motion remains unchanged.
We can illustrate this phenomenon with an animation of two dots colliding and being reflected:
However, in real life, the likelihood of finding an individual particle of energy is very low, or possibly nonexistent. In the case of light, dots are present as ‘pearl necklace’ rings (in vacuum), or helices (when not in vacuum). The dots are continually being reflected by the dots in front and behind, causing them to move in a helical trajectory that is ‘straight’ on average. But because the dots have an orthogonal component of motion, with a radius of half the wavelength of light, the linear motion of light is slowed down the larger the refractive index of the medium is where light moves.
In particles of matter dots are present as two entangled helices where each dot is being reflected by two dots of the same helix and one dot of the neighboring helix:
Figure 2. Two entangled helices of dots in a segment of particles of matter.
This is roughly what the reflected motion of the dots looks like in a hydrogen atom:
I can’t vouch for the animation to be fully accurate, but the idea should be sound. In the above video the dots move in such a way that the neighboring dots in the same helix do not move along the same orbital, but at an orbital shifted by 90 degrees (or π/2).
But, if a dot is reflected, how can it remain continually attached to three of its neighbors without flying off? This a hypothesis that I hold that I call the Lintinen conjecture. It might not yet fulfill all of the criteria of a mathematical conjecture, but at least I try. It more or less states that dots rotate around their neighboring dots with three rotational components, each with their own radius. The first being the radius of a dot (r), the second being √(2+√2)r, and the third being (probably)
where L is the length of the orbital of a dot, n is the number of dots in the particle. How I came up with this calculation will have to be left for another post.
While the reflection shown in Figure 1 leads to a sharp reversal of direction, as experienced by light when hitting a mirror, most reflection is not a one-off event, but rather a constant change of direction that leads to a motion that I call a spherical toroidal vortex.
This means that each dot can move in a helical toroidal orbital at a constant speed of light while still retaining contact with its three neighboring dots.
In Figure 3 below I present the way reflection causes the otherwise linear path of a dot to bend into a curved trajectory, with a radius of R.
Figure 3. The average trajectory of four dots of two entangled helices, with a reflection radius of R. Two smaller radii ignored.
I think I am on the verge of proving my conjecture, but I am not there yet. The clue to the proof must be that a sharp reversal of direction would cause a point of discontinuity in the trajectory of a dot. This means that the change in motion must rotate around more than one axis (three axes to be specific) for there to be no discontinuity.
I hope that you, dear reader, will understand the general idea of this concept. Next, I just need to prove my conjecture.
Comments