Today’s post has been several days in the making. One of the biggest reasons for this has been that I have changed my mind so many times that it’s hard to keep track. Initially I began to write a post about there being no sharp angles and that the motion of elementary particles of energy (dots) is truly smooth. However, the more I wrote, the less convinced I was of my initial argument.
This led me to the post about the piston hypothesis, which stated that the dots in the neighboring helices of dots of a particle of matter are colliding off one another, leading to a changing separation of the two helices.
When I explored the hypothesis further, I realized that the type of piston action that I initially thought was not possible. The problem with the hypothesis was that the reflection that puts dots out of a circular orbit should have a counter-reflection that puts the dots back into the orbit, this second reflection shown with a question mark in the below image at d).
However, when I tried to follow this piston logic through, I just couldn’t find the second reflection that would explain the phenomenon. Then it hit me: the second reflection is the reflection with a larger radius, but out of sync with the reflection with the smaller radius. Or this is what I think at the moment.
The reflection with smaller radius is illustrated with the image below. The path of the dots isn’t a circle with a radius of r, but rather an even regular polygon, with an edge-to-edge distance of 2r. This means that the shortest distance between dots is 2r. At this point (a in the image) dots are not being reflected along the this polygonal path, but still moving in a straight path along this frame of reference. Only after moving a bit past this point, the dots will be reflected.
While this is a descriptive explanation of reflection along the orbital with a smaller axis, it doesn’t really explain what causes the reflection. I was hoping to be able to explain this in this post but realized that I only have vague ideas that might still be wrong, so I’ll leave that to another post.
So, is there no reflection at the point where the distance of neighboring dots is the smallest? Well, no: there is reflection, but just not around the smaller radius. Rather, at this point the dots are also moving along larger axes and the collision at the saint Hannes knot causes reflection around a radius of √(2+√2)r, and R. What these are, you have to read my previous posts.
The point is that the reflections cause different dots to move closer to each other. This means that the dots can be imagined as being bounced back and forth, causing smaller and larger reflection upon each impact. The important feature being that in one reflection there is a sum of two reflections, both orthogonal to the direction of movement of the dots. One reflection causes the rotation around radii r and R, and the other reflection causes the rotation around radii √(2+√2)r and R.
I so would have wished to be clearer in this post, because the idea seems clear in my head. However, upon trying to write it down, I realize I still don’t understand the concept properly myself either.
But this must be it. Once there is a way to explain the movement of elementary particles of energy with just a bunch of straight line, this feels infinitely more intuitive than having to invent a way for true curved paths of movement to exist.
There is still a tiny chance that I am wrong, but I think it’s highly unlikely. It seems I haven’t progressed at all with regards to the actual equations, but I think they will surely just emerge from the theory.
If my hunch is correct, you should be hearing more on this topic soon enough.
Comments