Original post published on July 7th 2023:
Today I'm going to do something unconventional. I'm goin to post the zero draft of my manuscript on the theory of everything. Why I'm calling this the version zero, instead of a revision is that I don't think my Counterevidence Paper was of the same magnitude as this one.
It's really odd to say this, but the reviewers were more or less right, when they said that the Counterevidence Paper was poorly written. The problem with the paper was that I knew the very basic principle of there being an elementary particle with a speed of light. However, I really didn't know the physics or the mathematics of my hunch. It took almost ten months since the very first acceptance of the Counterevidence paper for review until now that I can really say that I really understand what I had intuitively stumbled upon.
I was rather open last August, when I compared myself to Galileo Galilei. You see, Galileo had a very strong belief in the heliocentricity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun and not vice versa. However, his science to back his hunch up apparently wasn't that good. This has been a thing that had been bugging me for this roughly year and a half, if I count from the initial Eureka moment. I knew I was roughly correct, but I also knew I didn't exactly understand any of the machanisms behind this new realization. I just knew I was roughly correct and that everyone else was wrong in their interpretation of the nature of reality.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An up until just about today, there were open questions that I was rather uncomfortable about. However, today I was working on my entire rewrite of the theory of everything and I realized that I had everything I needed to submit the paper. That's to say, I knew everything I wanted to say, but I hadn't yet written it into a form I would be happy with. The manuscript still looks a bit 'ugly'. There are sentences that don't go anywhere, there are placemark Figures, with no captions, the beginning hasn't been rewritten to reflect everything that I've learned in the process, but it is the first version that shows all of the major pieces of the puzzle.
I'm surprised to find that I don't need to mention anything about the nature of proton generation in water, or anything not relating to the basic theory. What I'm planning to do is to still add some of this into the supplementary information, but I'm not going to have them distract from the main mathematics and physics of the theory. To some extent, they were a crutch for me, when I still didn't exactly know what I was talking about. Now that I do, I can freely put the spotlight on the mathematics/physics/chemistry of the phenomenon that I'm studying. And while I don't think the mathematics is 100 % perfect, I think it's good enough to publish.
So here is the manuscript (on July 7th 2023):
I will be posting newer versions of the manuscript into this post, but I just want to keep this as a reminder of how the manuscript looked on the day of its conception. I know that the demarkation of what conception means in this context is quite arbitrary, but I can decide that this was the the day the manuscript was ready enough. The only thing I'm going to do is to tidy it up. If in the tidying up-process, I'll learn new things, these will of course be added. But I no longer feel compelled to actively expand on the theory.
This isn't the first time I've called a day momentous during these months, but somehow being able to show the draft zero to you is a significant milestone.
Here is a Figure describing the nature of bothlight and its refraction, just so that this post won't be all text and no pretty pictures.
Update from July 10th 2023:
I thought I'd let you know see the draft 0.1 of my Theory of Everything Manuscript. I've just about quickly looked through the original manuscript from two months ago and corrected the most poorly written parts. My attention was kept until page 7, where I started introducing the equations of helical tori. Up to this point I had managed to keep focused. From this point onwards my focus started to wane and I knew that I couldn't make any significant improvements without being focused.
But here are the improvements that I managed to write:
There were a lot of things to improve. Pretty much the whole beginning had to be rewritten. The major reason for this is that if one were to boil the theory of everything into the shortest possible sentence, it would be "refraction is a relativistic phenomenon."
This realization is pretty much the core of the theory. Which is why it's pretty odd no one thought of the idea. Indeed, as I sometimes do in these cases, I asked ChatGPT "is refraction a relativistic phenomenon?", to which it replied:
No, refraction is not a relativistic phenomenon. Refraction is the bending of light as it passes from one medium to another due to a change in its speed. It occurs according to the laws of classical optics, which are based on Maxwell's equations and the principles of classical electromagnetism. These laws do not take into account relativistic effects, which are the modifications to physical phenomena that arise when objects move at speeds close to the speed of light or in the presence of strong gravitational fields. Relativity theory, developed by Albert Einstein, describes these effects, but they are not directly relevant to the phenomenon of refraction.
But as you hear from the answer: These laws do not take into account relativistic effects, which are the modifications to physical phenomena that arise when objects move at speeds close to the speed of light (emphasis mine). If light moving in a medium isn't moving close to speed of light, then what is?
So what I did was rename the paper. The current working title is:
The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Relativistic Origin of Refraction
This title might stick, but as it's very new, I might still reconsider. However, I have a hunch that at least the basic idea of the title remains. You see, the basic rule of any new theory is that it builds upon existing theories. And building your theory of the fundamental interactions based on refraction and relativity are two quite assuring concepts. The comical thing is that I don't really understand enough of relativity to say for sure whether the term "Relativistic Origin of Refreaction" is accurate. That is, if there are no laws of physics apart from refraction, what does the phrase:
even mean? What I mean to say is that it just might be that relativity is an emergent phenomenon of the refraction of elementary particles moving at the speed of light. In this case it might not be accurate to call refraction a relativistic phenomenon. The easiest solution would be to change the title to:
The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Refraction of Elementary Particles Moving at the Speed of light
This would save me a lot of trouble. Except even the term refraction doesn't quite mean what I use it to mean in the paper. In current understanding, the concept of refraction is the redirection of a wave as it passes from one medium to another. However, the way I use the term, refraction is the specific way a medium with a refractive index constantly interacts with light. At least according to Wikipedia:
Rather it is because, as an electromagnetic oscillation, light itself causes other electrically charged particles such as electrons, to oscillate. The oscillating electrons emit their own electromagnetic waves which interact with the original light. The resulting "combined" wave has wave packets that pass an observer at a slower rate. The light has effectively been slowed. When light returns to a vacuum and there are no electrons nearby, this slowing effect ends and its speed returns to c.
I'm not saying this interpretation is wrong. It might even be part of what I say in the paper. I say, in relation to a slightly different phenomenon:
We acknowledge that we only provide a structural link between the proposed elementary particle of energy and the Rydberg formula. The mechanistic description of the Rydberg formula would require a theory of how supraphotons are absorbed by a supramolecular shell. While we believe this to be possible, this is beyond the scope of this paper.
This is to say that I am quite at sea still with the mechanistic side of the theory of everythin, as I've been focusing on structure. I just hope that I don't use incorrect term that will cause reviewers to reject the paper on technicalities.
Comments