P1 Theory of Regulation Fields Lambda-Domain FOOP-S-22-00045

Foundations of Physics
Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain

--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number:
Full Title: Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain
Article Type: Original Research
Keywords: Logic; Objects; Action; Quantum; Space; Time
Corresponding Author: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.

Private
Terni, TR ITALY
Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:
Corresponding Author's Institution: Private
Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:
First Author: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.
First Author Secondary Information:
Order of Authors: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.
Order of Authors Secondary Information:
Funding Information:
Abstract: This proposal is a method for describing-correlating physical parameters like action,
mass, energy, velocity, etc. There are no comparable approaches in Physics, so the
theory is unchecked-unproven. The formalism comes in terms of fields and assemblies
made of fields. These objects are set to be independent from space-time notions, and
for self-consistent operations in a properly defined logical space. A quantum structure
is embedded from the start. Its practice is straight as it bases on two now-next states
for which the transition actualizes a minimal bit of action, say one Planck constant.
The method is general and leads to two papers covering: P1) A first family-domain of
objects formalized as λ-grains, whose set of parameters includes size, mass, energy,
momentum, relative velocity, time scale, and time dilation. P2) A second family-domain
of reverse-twinned objects, formalized as σ-cells, which are assumed to describe-
correlate gravitational effects and parameters like force-acceleration, potential energy,
size of black holes, and time dilation. In both families, any individual object obeys first a
fixed action principle and then, depending on the physical situation, adjusts-regulates
its set of parameters accordingly.
This first paper P1: Sets the notion-definition of regulation fields and their logic-
mathematics. Introduces the inherent-proper structure of a λ-grain. Postulates a
correlation with the relativistic structure describing the grain when it travels at a
constant speed. Exemplifies the outcomes in terms of energy-momentum equation,
time dilation, and de Broglie relation.
The term regulation or structural field reflects the scope and limits of the method. The
demonstration purpose prevails but any passage highlights the underlying
assumptions. Globally, the method considers the fixed action as an a priori parent field
and calculates its balance on a proper set of logical axes.
Suggested Reviewers:
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Word manuscript with figures, no other data-materials Click here to access/download;Manuscript;P1 Theory of
Regulation Fields Lambda-Domain.docx
Click here to view linked References
Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain – Draft 0, January 8th, 2022
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain

1
2 Abstract
3
4 This proposal is a method for describing-correlating physical parameters like action, mass, energy, velocity,
5 etc. There are no comparable approaches in Physics, so the theory is unchecked-unproven. The formalism
6
comes in terms of fields and assemblies made of fields. These objects are set to be independent from space-
7
8 time notions, and for self-consistent operations in a properly defined logical space. A quantum structure is
9 embedded from the start. Its practice is straight as it bases on two now-next states for which the transition
10 actualizes a minimal bit of action, say one Planck constant.
11 The method is general and leads to two papers covering: P1) A first family-domain of objects formalized as
12 λ-grains, whose set of parameters includes size, mass, energy, momentum, relative velocity, time scale, and
13 time dilation. P2) A second family-domain of reverse-twinned objects, formalized as σ-cells, which are
14 assumed to describe-correlate gravitational effects and parameters like force-acceleration, potential energy,
15 size of black holes, and time dilation. In both families, any individual object obeys first a fixed action principle
16
17
and then, depending on the physical situation, adjusts-regulates its set of parameters accordingly.
18 This first paper P1: Sets the notion-definition of regulation fields and their logic-mathematics. Introduces the
19 inherent-proper structure of a λ-grain. Postulates a correlation with the relativistic structure describing the grain
20 when it travels at a constant speed. Exemplifies the outcomes in terms of energy-momentum equation, time
21 dilation, and de Broglie relation.
22 The term regulation or structural field reflects the scope and limits of the method. The demonstration purpose
23 prevails but any passage highlights the underlying assumptions. Globally, the method considers the fixed
24 action as an a priori parent field and calculates its balance on a proper set of logical axes.
25
26
27 Data sharing N/A to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
28
29 Summary:
30
31 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
32
33 1. Concepts and notations specific to regulation fields ............................................................................. 1
34
35
2. Notations and formulae for mass-energy grains in terms of fixed action and λ-regulation ............. 4
36 3. Relative velocity of λ-grains in terms of α-regulation and contextual LI-L2 logics........................... 7
37
38 4. Combining the α-regulation schematics with the fixed action principle and logics L1-L2 ............... 9
39
40 5. Transversal balance of the h on the DD-DR axes and energy-momentum relation ........................ 11
41 6. Structural formulae for proper and moving grains ........................................................................... 14
42
43 7. Kinetic grain and de Broglie form of the h in terms of displacement-relocation of central pin A . 15
44
45 8. Overview and conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 17
46
47 9. Reference List ........................................................................................................................................ 17
48
49
50
51
1. Concepts and notations specific to regulation fields
52
53 This proposal is a method for describing-correlating physical parameters (energy, action, etc.). The scope is
54 introducing its practice without entering conceptual foundations. The formulation comes in terms of
55 procedures, i.e., lists of assumptions-instructions. The method-description bases on simple logics independent
56 on space-time. Sketches mostly refer to 2D or 3D logical frames. Field elements do not relate to but are in
57 principle compatible with any position or orientation in space. Formulae are numbered progressively in each
58 figure and recalled in the text as Fi-j (Fig.-formula).
59 Start: a) Reality assumed to be substantial-concrete  notion of base material (optional-practical). b) It has
60
61 no attributes beyond being real. c) It makes the parent field, and its blank state qualifies 0D. d) The theory just
62 describes configurations of the base material  only the ones allowed by the method and logics below.
63
64 1
65
Overview: a) Recursive now-next description in terms of three states: A = actual blank state (reference);
1 A′Now = different contextual state (extended in space); A′Next = next state in time (unit change). b) Funding
2 assumption of a fixed bit of action per any unit change = 1 h (Planck constant). c) All items in the system are
3 assumed to be concrete objects, either fields or assemblies of them. d) Not touching at how fields and objects
4 establish or possibly reconfigure, so they are assumed to just subsist and conserve. e) The method define-
5 describes objects made of fields (λ-grains and σ-cells)  the balance of the h makes their parameters to
6
7 autoregulate-modulate  a priori requirement of keeping a fixed action per step in any circumstances. f) The
8 method bases on percent fields [%]: a quantity in its physical units is in any case 100% of itself  symbols in
9 the sketches express both the percent field and the physical quantity (with its appropriate measuring units). g)
10 Regulations fields (not the quantities) are assumed to undergo low-level conservation by the method and logics
11 of the theory. h) For the rest, concepts, foundations, and notations come from Physics  just adding the ones
12 defined below.
13 Structure: a) Different logics and independent domains are assumed to coexist. b) They produce different
14 descriptions-equations that reflect the physical situations. c) The balance of the action and the ensuing formal
15
objects and parameters take different forms depending on the logic. d) These logically independent descriptions
16
17 are assumed to work contextually in their own logical domains. e) Requirement in any case of logical-physical
18 consistency. f) Relations too described as field: distinction object-relation not so relevant.
19 Time: a) The system notion replacing time is contextuality ≝ any two fields-objects-items keep contextual
20 upon a same number of h-steps  contextuality is a must (fixed h criterion), then the time scale of an object
21 adjusts-regulates as any other parameter (depending on the object and on the physical situation). b) The method
22 is equal on time vs. space: the sole distinction is OR-progressive vs. AND-contextual for any pair of states.
23
24
25 a) Terminology and notations b) Distinction-correlation of 1-D fields c) Structural tiles and autoregulation d) Ring momentum
26 Y
X L i) System cannot discern the pairs i) Structural tile k i) Ring C
27 a b ? ? ii) Percent correlation
i) Pin 100% D
28 X K 100% x x∙y=k 100%
29 100% D
B ii) Spacers 100% y
30 Spacers Bars (quantities) y y Q [kg∙m/s]
c c d d
31 ii) Vector
A A’ A A’ ii) System uses logical directions iii) Pair correlation
32 ∞ 0% x 100% C
33 iii) C- or D-coding of pairs Difference and correlation coincide: x and y
the correlation tile makes the difference percent fields D
34 Spacers Quantities D
35 y DR
x x2 a a∙b 100% 100% y = k/x x and y quantities
x∙x P [kg∙m/s]
36 x z y∙z with their units of
37 x b measurement Note: DR third axis
iv) Structural tiles x 100% y 100% 0 x ∞ for relative velocity.
38
39
40 e) Assumed properties of base material and of field logic f) Bonding and change constants g) Counting the system change
41 i) Bonding constant b 2π∙λ i) Geometric change
ANext (1)
42 Next state λ∙ m0 = b Proximity
C P λ PStart
43 c c C = OR-logic = sequential = ↑↑ m0
44 D D ANow Pin A 2π PEnd = PStart
Frequency Pin A’Next λ Pin A’
45 Now state ν Separation
46 ii) System change
Time step
47 τ (2) ii) Change constant c λStart Pin A’
d d λ Pin A
48 Pin A Distance Pin A’Now λ/τ = λ ∙ ν = c
A’Now ANow A’Now τ λEnd
49 One field λEnd ≠ λStart λ∙λ
← Mass m0 →
50 revolution
51 D = AND-logic = contextual = ← → λ λ
2
λStart
52
53 Fig. 1: Concepts and notations specific to regulation fields.
54
55 Fig. 1 defines-assumes specific concepts and notations:
56 a) Structural elements:
57
58
i) A pin is a 0D field with neither quantity nor attributes. It symbolizes a given state of the base material.
59 It makes in general a reality cell, either point-like or extended. Pin and base material just mean
60 something real. A pin does not imply space-geometry and may lie anywhere in physical space.
61
62
63
64 2
65
Statements like having one pin or myriads of pins in a pin are irrelevant, as the system could not
1 distinguish them from one another.
2 ii) The central problem is how the system could discern pins, otherwise the logic would die 0D. The
3 second structural element is an oriented spacer (a = XY). It qualifies as a 1D field, so its logic is
4 independent. A 1D spacer is not made of a series of 0D pins. Spacers always works in equal pairs (like
5 amplitudes: ½ - ½). A non-oriented 1D field (b = K–L) do distinguish L from K but cannot specify
6
which is what (K-L ambiguity-interchangeability: not a structural spacer). Solid 1D fields (bars: 100%
7
8 on its own), either oriented or not, describe instead quantities (action, mass, velocity, etc.). Besides its
9 measuring units, any quantity is a number and corresponds to a 1D field (to a bar). A 0D pin could not
10 express a numerical quantity. The method mostly relies on percent balances. In fact, any numerical
11 quantity is worth 100% of itself. Note: Higher-order combinations of fields (2D, 3D, ND) ultimately
12 result in a single number-quantity (e.g., mass-velocity-velocity  energy). For how complex be a
13 logical-physical assembly of this kind, it qualifies at the same time as a plain 1D field. The parent logic
14 remains low-level, and the combination can repeat on 1D-equivalent groups.
15 iii) Pairs of spacers may combine either concordant (cc = C-coding) or discordant (dd = D-coding). These
16
17
configurations are assumed to be logically opposite to each other. They make both the borders of the
18 logic and our basis for describing-calculating the field assemblies: 1st C-coding ≝ consecutive states;
19 either A or B; OR-logic; now-next change; time progress. 2nd D-coding ≝ contextual states; A’ and A
20 coexist in the now; AND-logic; extension in space. C and D are self-standing logical occurrences
21 independent on space-geometry. We will nevertheless sketch them concretely as our C-D logical frame
22 (C and D-D axes  visualizing in the logical 3D).
23 Note: The logical direction of the distinction between pins is assumed to be determined for the C-
24 coding and undetermined for the D-coding. In principle, A’ may locate on a logical circle around A:
25
26
term-notion of ring; the D-coding only establishes the size d of this ring. Assuming also: C (cc)
27 associates to positional states (either in time or in space, including relocation of the base material); D
28 (dd) associates to a rotational state (two-channel logic: rotating vs. directing as reverse notions-facts).
29 iv) Tiles are the third structural element. They correspond to the product of the fields making the tile.
30 Spacers are always equal and form 2D quadratic tiles. Any two quantities a and b make a rectangular
31 tile and result in a × b, including their units of measurement. Tiles may be of any order (3D, 4D, ND),
32 in which case they combine-multiply more independent-orthogonal 1D fields. This gives in any case
33 a number-quantity ≡ 1D field  it can reenter the logical chain and combine again. Globally, any tile
34
combination-multiplication gives a bar that symbolizes 100% of its value, so resetting the order to just
35
36 1D.
37 b) Notion of distinction-correlation:
38 i) We normally discern identical items based on their different positions in space. The method however
39 cannot rely on space-time  assumptions (limited to the low-level logic): All spacers are worth 100%
40 and fit in their own 1D domain. For the system, they are undistinguishable from one another. The same
41 applies in principle to 1D bars that symbolize numerical-physical quantities. They also are worth 100%
42 and just confuse with each other in their own logical space.
43 ii) Rules-definitions: Our logic cannot correlate two items that show no difference at all  any mutual
44
45
relation implies a distinction also. The system cannot discern aligned 1D fields  being identical, they
46 cannot relate with one another. Their logical distinction comes via a 90° misalignment relative to each
47 other. The alignment-identity and the distinction-correlation of a pair make the opposite borders of our
48 logic. Here, the two human notions of distinction and of correlation coincide. For us, correlating means
49 forming a structural tile whose value is the product of the pair. This relies on a mutual 90° tilt within
50 the pair itself and keeps independent from space-geometry notions.
51 Notes: 1st The 90° correlation is required to be concrete also  notion-assumption of accessory angular
52 spacers ≝ structural elements that sustain-actualize the logical-physical relation between any two
53
collaborating 1D fields (say two bricks that join by an angular spacer). 2nd The usual categories of
54
55 objects (the fields) vs. relations (the spacers) are irrelevant here: just structural elements. 3rd The prime
56 system notions are: AND-logic  angular spacer ≝ tilting (static-structural). OR-logic  one field
57 revolution (dynamic-evolutive). In human terms, we associate the first to π/4 or 90°, and the second to
58 2π: only because the method must fit real space-geometry. 4th The set only works if the two fields and
59 the angular spacer are logically independent from each other  de facto, π/4 (or 2π) qualifies as a first
60 structural constant of our logic: in general, the method cannot say why a structural constant has a given
61 numerical value by a given system of units (fields fundamentally work in the low-level by percent
62
63
64 3
65
values). 5th The 2π spacer actualizes the OR (not the AND), so its practical meaning is different 
1 now-next transition counter ≝ one change = 1 h (Sect. 2 for details).
2 c) Structural tiles may correspond to physical constants (i). If so, the twinned fields correlate-autoregulate
3 with one another, both in percent (ii) and as quantities (iii). This makes the parent tile to conserve.
4 d) We need the notion of a ring-shaped momentum in addition to the regular one. Both are made of fields
5 and qualify as objects. Their orientations refer to logical axes with two options only: i) Ring momenta
6
7
refer to C and are either clockwise or counterclockwise. ii) Vector momenta refer to ± DR, where DR is
8 our third axis for velocities (notion of space change along the DD plane: up changes on C stay for time).
9 e) The sketch provides an example of hybrid visualization: 3D appearance still referring to our C-DD logical
10 frame (concordant vs. discordant coding of spacers); regard it as a single photogram of a particular object-
11 configuration that is being changing by three parameters λ-τ-ν that conserve.
12 Assumptions-definitions: Consider a 1D configuration where a spacer λ lies between pins A and A′Now 
13 equivalent to state that the base material in A relates in A′Now to just itself (no differences in the 0D of
14 pins), and that this actualizes via the AND-logic. Assume now that the base material can relate to itself
15
16
via the OR-logic also (second contextual channel, say dd vs. cc)  λ is taken to be set first and to conserve,
17 so: the OR relation must consist of one revolution ≝ one bit of change =1 h; there must be some inherent-
18 structural correlation between the space-scale λ, the time scale τ, and the frequency ν of the change. Note
19 we are assuming here that if the configuration changes when pin A and pin A′Now differ of a given λ that
20 conserves, then the frequency ν and the time scale τ conserve also.
21 f) Globally, we assume that the logical-structural properties of the base material summarize in two inherent
22 constants ≝ structural tiles = products of logically independent fields (same notion of proximity-
23 separation actualizing via our two low-level logics):
24
25
i) AND-contextual channel: The logical separation vs. proximity of pins makes a reverse-twinned pair.
26 For us: The separation λ [m] corresponds to the size-distance of the assembly. The proximity m0 [kg]
27 corresponds to its proper mass. Eq. F1-1 results, where b [kg ∙ m] is a structural tile. By this method,
28 the notion of mass fits in the human category of relation: between two pins = two distinct contextual
29 states of the base material. The structural twinning-bonding just reads: the more the separation of the
30 base material, the less its mass. Sketches as in c.ii-iii apply for the percent and value correlations.
31 ii) OR-progressive channel: The change constant and structural tile c [m/s] of Eq. F1-2 comes
32 immediately from sketch e. For us: The time step τ [s] is the logical separation between the states A′Now
33
34 and A′Next . The frequency ν [s] is its reverse-twinned parameter, namely the proximity of the two states.
35 Compare again with sketches c.ii-iii  same correlation patterns: In term of fields, 0% and 100%
36 make the inherent end stops. When one parameter is 100%, the other is 0% and vice versa. Straight
37 percent correlation in-between. Note that by just the way they are defined-assumed here, the two
38 structural tiles and physical constants b and c have in common the parameter λ. The notion of time
39 scale aligns with the usual one: relation between two consecutive states (pins or configurations).
40 g) We normally refer to space-time for appreciating the change: i) The example shows a possible measure
41 of the change associated to one revolution of λ. ii) For fields, we need a specific notion and different rules-
42
notations: The low-level measure of change is one revolution. It makes one bit of change and corresponds
43
44 for us to one h (Planck constant). For a concrete-substantial change (neither abstract nor idle), λEnd must
45 be different from λStart . For us (sketch b), this means distinct-correlated fields making a tile (difference
46 = logical independency-orthogonality). The percent and physical value of the two is nevertheless equal,
47 so the tile is quadratic. In short: just count first the change as λ-λ, then take λ2.
48
49
50 2. Notations and formulae for mass-energy grains in terms of fixed action and λ-regulation
51
52
53 This section formalizes the inherent-proper structure and parameters of a first family of objects (λ mark).
54 Key assumption: The structural tiles-constants b and c of Fig. 1.f combine in a fundamental tile h (Planck
55 constant). In the λ-domain, the principle of fixed action writes h = b∙c [J∙s = kg∙(m/s)∙m] (Eq. F2-1).
56 Notion of λ-grains: Family of being changing objects (assemblies-configurations of fields). Their individual
57 structures and parameters conserve (conservation of fields and relations). The terms grain and particle almost
58 correspond but: the sketch-visualization of a grain contains changing-rotating fields and embeds a fixed action
59 (similar in principle to the static-geometric sketch of an orbital whose animation does not appear); a grain is
60 stable particle of a given kind but for instance, its individual size λ can range from small to large  the other
61
62
parameters follow from the fixed action principle and the structural correlations of the family (similar in
63
64 4
65
principle to a photon that upon a small-large wavelength, shows a large-small frequency-energy). In P2, the
1 term cell is equivalent: same reading of σ-sketches.
2 Structural-proper parameters of λ-grains (SI units): Space-time scales: λ and τ-ν (twinned). Mass: m0 .
3 Energy: E0 . Ring momentum: Q 0 . Angular momentum: M0 .
4
5
6 a) Overview of fixed action and λ-regulation schemes b) Normalized C-D chart of grains c) Q0 object [kg∙m/s]
7 100% ν
iii) 3-D visualization
8 ii) Schematic of λ-regulation C
ν
9 i) Tile scheme of action ∞ 100% Next A λ
ν Next
10 c 100% Q0 m0
λ Both ν and m0 τ Ring
11 decrease with λ D λ λ A’ D momentum
ν λ∙ν m0 σ 0% A Now σ
(2)
12 h 100% Q 0 = m0 λν = m0 c
13 λ ν
c b∙c ν d) Hybrid sketch ν
14 b m0 100% Next state
λ m0 E0
λ ∞ C Note: ν revolutions Q0
15 b
λ
(1) m0 λ∙m0 ∞ per second of λ-λ λ
16 D D
h =b⋅c λ 100% pair on DD plane
17 0% 100% Now state m0 τ
18
19 e) Seven system constants f) Schematic and formulae of mass-energy grains vi) OR form of the action
20 Note: The v) OR schematic (11)
21 a = one revolution = 2π (3) i) Action overview hOR = m0 λλch ννch τ
elementary ch
ν
22 (4) object is Q0 ν = m0 c 2 τ = E0 τ J s
b = h/c [kg∙m] = direct bonding C ↑ = OR-logic ν
ch
(sketch c)
m0 τ
23 ch
A’Next (12)
c [m/s] = speed of light λ λ E0 = h/τ = hν
24 (5) ANext
25 2
d = c /G [kg/m] = reverse bonding ν ch
λ
τ
26 m0 iv) AND form of the action
e = h∙G/c [m /s] = expansion (6)
2 3 λ λ D → = AND-logic (9)
27 ANow A’Now hAND = m0 λλch ν
28 f = ν∙τ = 1 (ν-τ see C-D chart) (7) iii) AND schematic = m0 λ λν = b ∙ c
29 (8) ii) Action field delamination h = m0 λc = M0 kg m2 s
g = λ∙σ = 1 (λ-σ see C-D chart)
30 OR step c ν (10) Q = h/λ = hσ
31 Were:
τ ν 100% λ b 0
ANow ch (13)
32 h = Planck constant [J∙s] or [kg∙m2/s] λ A’Now λ
m0 Note: hOR = hAND ∙ f = h
33 2
G = gravity constant [m /(kg∙s)] AND cell
34 expansion
35
Fig. 2: Notations and formulae for λ-regulation and mass-energy grains.
36
37
38 Fig. 2 sets the theory of the λ-domain. The λ-domain corresponds to all possible λ-grains, but the notion
39 includes the schematic of λ-regulation:
40 a) Low-level assumptions and rules of the λ-family in terms of structural tiles (i), regulation chain (ii), and
41 m0 λν correlation in the logical 3D (iii). Note λ depicted as the leading regulation parameter in this
42 domain: bare interpretation, practical though; parameters should be regarded instead as a contextual set.
43 b) Standard CD chart: Any individual grain of the family can be represented there by its scales λ-τ-ν. The
44 DD axis reflects the discordant coding (AND-logic of Fig. 1.e), so A and A’ are contextual states in space
45
46 (system now). The C axis reflects the concordant coding (OR-logic of Fig. 1.e), which we read as a time
47 change of one step τ per revolution (unit transition to next state ANext ). The quantity λ [m] corresponds
48 to the size of the object. One revolution of the pair λ-λ makes one change ≡ 1 h, to which we associate a
49 time step τ [s].
50 Notes: 1st Fields λ and τ are assumed to have different properties and units of measurement because of
51 their different coding of origin (dd vs. cc: Fig. 1.a-e). Nevertheless, their low-level definition is such that
52 if λ increases, then τ also must increase (Fig. 1.e-f). Their percent value keeps always equal for us. 2nd
53 Space-time reality lie within the CD chart. On its logical borders of 0% and 100%, the method-description
54
55
become dummy-inconsistent. 3rd The fourth scale σ for space is idle for the moment. We define it as the
56 logical separation (along the DD axis) between pin A’ and the opposite border of the reality field (100%).
57 As field, σ it is twinned to λ (we assume their tile to be worth 1). As quantity, σ = 1/λ [1/m], which
58 corresponds to the notion of curvature. This parameter is assumed to lead the regulation in the σ-domain
59 (see P2). The second σ-block of the theory could be regarded as the reverse twin of the first one. There,
60 we also assume a reverse logic to operate that is global-integral vs. local-positional (as we implicitly
61 assume here for the λ-domain).
62
63
64 5
65
c) Our most elementary object (Eq. F2-1) is assumed: 1st To come from a tile-combination of the three low-
1 level parameters of the λ-regulation (sketch a). 2nd To take the form of a ring momentum (Fig. 1-d). This
2 object is the minimal bit of physical reality that the method can describe.
3 d) Visualization-interpretation of an individual grain as a spinning top: referred in any case to our C-D
4 coding and logical frame (not to space). Claiming that the λ-λ pair rotates implies a residual part of the
5 D-D axis that does not: this fraction can never become 0% (object and action undefined).
6
e) Seven constants assumed-involved in the first two blocks of the theory: 1st a is inherent in the logic-
7
8 mathematic of 1D fields: AND notion of distinction-correlation that relies on a mutual tilting of 90° or
9 π/4 (Fig. 1.b). OR encoder that counts one change per field revolution (Fig. 1.e): its logic-practice is the
10 recurring-repeating of the configuration of a given field or assembly. Taking π/4 or 2π as our first
11 structural constant is irrelevant. 2nd b-c combine in the fixed action and shape-regulate the λ-domain
12 (details right below). 3rd d-e are their reverse twins for the σ-domain (see P2). 4th f-g express the fraction
13 balance of our two C and DD axes respectively: these axes are worth 100% and make our reality fields in
14 time (C) and in space (DD); the balance takes the form of a reverse twinning of the two fractions involved
15 (τν pair and λσ pair  see Fig. 3.b for the notion of transversal balance).
16
17
f) The sketch combines the notions-assumptions and practical rules discussed so far. The superscript Ch
18 marks the now-next transition due to one revolution (λch vs. λ, νch vs. ν, etc.):
19 i) Assumptions: 1st The fixed action of 1 h per revolution takes two different forms by respectively the
20 AND-contextual logic and the OR-sequential logic (Fig. 1.e): the two forms of the h, hAND = hOR ,
21 coexist on two distinct structural levels; the two AND-OR logics always operate together (say as two
22 twinned logical channels). 2nd The change is concrete-substantial only if the system can discern the
23 next configuration from the present one (system now): after one revolution of the λ-λ pair, the
24
geometric-abstract configuration of the grain repeats-resets (idle-inconsistent change for us)  our
25
26 method-description needs two structural spacers: For the rotating field that makes the assembly to
27 change  2π (OR operating on the DD plane). For any two consecutive states of the assembly itself
28  τ (OR operating along the C axis). In short, λ-λ is part of an assembly and it changes, so the assembly
29 too must change, and its C-step corresponds to one revolution of λ-λ.
30 Schematics-overview: 1st Start by the present-now state on bottom. For us: one revolution of the λ-λ
31 pair makes one now-next transition; it is concrete-substantial because of a 2π spacer; it only involves
32 the λ-λ pair, and the angular spacer works independently on the DD plane. Still, the barely geometric
33 status of the fields within the assemblies shows no change  the system actualizes-counts the now-
34
35
next transition by an up move along the C axis: this second spacer as field [%] and as quantity [s]
36 corresponds to τ (time scale of the grain). 2nd The AND form of the h (hAND) comes from looking
37 transversally-contextually at the grain configuration (DD-space only ≡ disregarding the up move 
38 rotational state of ring momentum Q 0 ). 3rd The OR form (hOR ) includes-combines the fact that the
39 rotational state also moves up of one step (C axis = time) ≝ system notion of energy. 4th In terms of
40 fields: hAND is worth one rotation of the prime λ-object (our Q 0 ); hOR , counts in addition one C-move
41 τ, and one change of ν to νCh (the frequency conserves but relocates in pin ANext).
42
43
ii) Low-level visualization-interpretation of the grain structure as a match of its AND-OR components:
44 1st The theory bases in general on balancing the h via the rules-mathematics of fields. 2nd Our fixed h
45 is a quantity, so a 1D field  define-assume it as our prime action bar of 100%. 3rd Consider now it
46 fractions-delaminates equally by our two logics, giving around central pin A: an AND cell-body whose
47 size is λ; an OR step τ that operates on the body. The residual ν on the right corresponds to the number
48 of changes (revolutions and contextual up moves) that the grain undergoes in a second.
49 iii) Graph of the unit change ≝ group of fields involved: 1st All fields are independent-orthogonal ≝
50 making a multidimensional tile (Fig. 1 for the base method)  adopting here the convention of
51
sketching them just by different directions (not necessarily 90°)  this allows visualizing any group
52
53 of N fields in the logical 3D. 2nd In the AND-graph, the left block λ-ν and the right block m0 -λ
54 (combining in the h) correspond to our assumed fundamental constants (structural tiles) of sketch a.
55 iv) The AND form of the h is an angular momentum M0 (referred to central pin A = unconfigured state
56 of base material). For Eq. F2-9: multiply first all terms of the AND-graph (multidimensional tile);
57 recall next that the numerical value of logically distinct-orthogonal terms is equal.
58 For us, the prime object giving the angular momentum (and the energy in the OR form) is a ring
59 momentum Q 0 (sketch c and Eq. F2-2): independent on its form (ring vs. vector), Q 0 correlates with
60
the size of the grain λ as in the de Broglie relation (Eq. F2-10). The notion is much different, but this
61
62 kind of relation is very general in structural terms (for the case of relative velocity, see Sect. 7).
63
64 6
65
v) Schematics of the OR-action by the same rules-conventions of graph iii: The OR form incorporates
1 the AND block m0 λνλCh and adds the group νCh τ.
2 vi) The OR form of the h (Eq. F2-11) corresponds to multiplying the proper energy of the grain (E0 ) by
3 its proper time scale (τ): same derivation rules of point iv above. The proper energy E0 calculates as
4
m0 c 2 (structural correlation as the mass–energy equivalence). Eq. F2-12 derives immediately: here
5
6 too, unrelated to photons but general for fields. Eq. F2.13 implies that the OR form just comes from
7 multiplying our three constant b-c-f, whilst the AND form only multiplies two (b-c).
8
9
10 3. Relative velocity of λ-grains in terms of α-regulation and contextual LI-L2 logics
11
12 This section formalizes in terms of fields the description-correlation of grains traveling at a constant speed.
13 The inherent-proper structure of λ-grains only contemplates that they change in time (C-moves). Our
14
description-calculation of relative velocity consists in: Assuming a tilted asset of the grain. Setting a new
15
16 logical axis for relative velocity. Correlating the tilting with the velocity and the other parameters of a traveling
17 grain.
18
19
20 a) Alpha-tilting assumptions b) Transversal balance of spacers c) L2 vs. L1 parameters and new λ-τ pairs
21 i) Notion of ii) Pair made of two 2 DD = Regular DR = Reverse
22 b-bonding quantity spacers s’ and s” (p2)
23 tile q = 100% → q1 + q2 p = 100%
L1 logic C s’ s”
24 100% q1 q2 L1 τ
2 AND
25 ν D (100%) 2 OR α τ sin α
(p1)
26 α s’* 0% τ cos α L2
λ λ 100%
27 Third orthogonal axis: (1) AND OR
L2 logic 2 2 2
28 λ c-c type = OR-logic = (p) → (p1) + (p2) A λ cos α λ sin α
D DR A’
29 sequential in space
α
30 100%
31
32 d) Plan view of α-tilting and transversal balance of fields f) Hybrid visualization of an α-tilted massive grain (relative moving)
33 α α τ τ C ∞
i) Bonding b = m0λ: only the
34 100%
L2 τ sin α D D
DD = Regular D D AND-component (←→)
35 α α
L1 τ cos α λ λ determines the mass
36 L1 τ (6)
L2 τ DR DR = Reverse DR
37 D λ cos α D (5) λ cos α ∙ ν = c ∙ cos α
38 λ
39 α L1 λ α λ sin α ∙ ν = c ∙ sin α ν
λ sin α m0/cosα
40 L2 Note: proper
41 frequency of grain ii) m0
42 keeps fixed; α reflects m0= 0
DR relative velocity v D λcosα λcosα
43
100% α λsinα α D 100%
44 e) Schematic of the α-tilting regulation chain
45 (2) λ λ
Constant ν QL2
DD = Q 0 = m0 c iii) DR
46
47 DD λ cos α τ cos α Ring momentum (8) OR = Linear AND - Rotational (7)
48 Relocating ring
m0 m0
α L2
49 momentum (3) PDR = c sin α = Q 0 tan α QL2
DD = c cos α = m0 c = Q 0
L2
cos α cos α
50 DR λ sin α τ sin α PDR = Q 0 tan α
51 (4) (9) Setting sin α = β ≝ v (v velocity; c speed of light), cos α = 1 − β2
c
52 L2
(10) Gives PDR =
m0
v = p (relativistic momentum, see also Fig. 5.d, Eq. 12)
v = λ sin α ν = c sin α 2
1−β
53
54
55
56
Fig. 3: Overview of α-regulation for moving grains vs. their proper structure.
57
58 Fig. 3 sets the sub-block dealing with relative velocity v [m/s]: still part of the λ-domain. Our new third axis
59 DR is orthogonal to DD; R stands for relative:
60 a) Method, notations, and starting assumptions: 1st The low-level setting of λ-grains only implies the C and
61 DD axes (no third axis)  our bonding b is a structural tile aligned with the C-DD plane. We now assume
62
63
64 7
65
that only the DD component of λ supports the bonding correlation between λ and m0 : for a proper grain,
1 λ always conserves and m0 is given; should however λ decrease for any other reason, the bonding
2 correlation will make the mass to increase. 2nd The proper scales λτν of a given grain must conserve.
3 We assume however that the system has one degree of freedom left in terms of the angular asset of the
4 λλ pair: we adopt the term α-tilting; α is the angle between λ and the logical axis DD; this definition only
5
relies on system logic (not on space-geometry). 3rd As λ is a spacer working in a pair, we consider a
6
7 specular tilting on both sides of DD (other option just phase shift and irrelevant): this twinned tilting
8 actualizes a third logical axis DR (unset-undefined in the realm of proper grains, see Fig. 2); it qualifies
9 cc and OR-logic type, so we assume it tracks sequential moves in space (our former-primary C axis is cc
10 too, and it tracks sequential moves in time); being cc type, the logical direction of DR and of relative
11 velocity is determined and, once established, it conserves (same status of uniform motion). 4th In the low-
12 level of the proper (L1), we cannot claim that DR subsists: only the C-DD axes and the b-bonding tile are
13 set; our third axis and a relative velocity can emerge indifferently on both sides of this logical plane; the
14 effects of relative velocity are therefore independent on the ± direction of the velocity itself. 5th The α-
15
tilting mechanism does not really distort the proper structure of a grain. We assume that the system
16
17 operates by two complementary logics on two separate-independent levels: L1 = one-grain logic; L2 =
18 two-grains logic. Moreover: The L1 description (still-proper grain) and the L2 description (same grain
19 traveling by a constant speed v) are always contextual. Both descriptions keep consistent with one another
20 as they obey the fixed action principle and the balance of the proper grain. Globally, L1-L2 describe two
21 equivalent forms of the h in a λ-grain, either in terms of C-moves, or in terms of combined C- and DR-
22 moves.
23 b) Notion of transversal balance (for spacers only): i) The balance of a quantity normally comes by a sum.
24 ii) For splitting 1D fields in general, the parts must be distinct-correlated = logically orthogonal (Fig. 1.b).
25
26
In a spacer, the field is just one-half the structural element, so the relevant quantity is its quadratic tile
27 (not the value of the half-field). The balance of a pair p proceeds transversally as per Eq. F3-1. We assume
28 this holds independent of the spacer coding (either cc or dd).
29 c) Compare with Fig. 2.f.ii: By L2, the α-tilting changes the asset  the transversal balance of τ-λ results in
30 a reversed pair of AND-OR spacers (on the right). By L1, no other options than having τ-λ on DD 
31 same primary-proper description of Sect. 2. Tilting means taking a different direction by an angle α
32 relative to DD, so both primary spacers τ-λ balance transversally as cosα-sinα. The τ-λ components on
33 the left (cosα part) remain coded the same way they are in the proper. The τ-λ components on the right
34
(sinα part), are new and reverse-coded  Our L2 description bases on these cosα-sinα components.
35
36 d) Effects of α-tilting visualized now on the DD plane. Notes: λ and τ assumed to be logically orthogonal
37 and to maintain so during tilting. Frequency ν assumed not to be affected. The proper λ and τ
38 fundamentally conserve, or more precisely the four pairs of cosα-sinα components are assumed to be
39 equivalent (transversal balance of point b). L1-L2 descriptions assumed to hold contextually, where the
40 first stay unaffected whilst the grain body stretches in L2 (λcosα instead of λ). DR is our human
41 idealization of the new space component coded cc (λsinα-λsinα pair: concretely appearing in, and only
42 pertaining to the L2 logic). In the example, these DR-velocity components point downward but both signs
43 ± α are acceptable  irrelevant for the mathematic and parameters of our L2 description.
44
45
e) Anticipation of the α-regulation schematics (L2 logic only; DD-DR components as per point d; point f
46 and Sect. 5-6 for more details and derivations): 1st The claim-assumption is of a correlation between α
47 (structural parameter of L2) and the relative velocity of a grain (v [m/s]); theory limited in any case to
48 constant velocities. 2nd The DD channel consists of the cosα components of sketch d. The form of the
49 action keeps like L1 (Fig. 2.f): ring momentum of the same kind that rotates and marks C-moves in time.
50 The relativistic mass however increases of 1/cosα whilst the ring stretches to λcosα; the mutual
51 compensation makes the ring momentum QL2 DD to have the same value of the original L1 object (Eq. F3-
52
2: compare with Fig. 2.c for L1 logic). 3rd The additional DR channel works by the sinα components of
53
54 sketch d. In it, the action is no longer same kind: it consists now of dragging-relocating transversally the
55 same ring momentum in space (unit moves along DR, not along C). Our symbol is a P (instead of a Q),
56 as the momentum is vector-kind (linear, not ring)  its form is new compared to proper grains in their
57 original L1 settings. Its value (quantity independent on the form) comes out to be Q 0 again (same value
58 of the original L1 object) times tanα (Eq. F3-3). 4th The relative velocity pertains to the L2-DR channel:
59 L1-DD cannot contemplate it; to relative velocity correlates to our α as per c⋅sinα (Eq. F3-4).
60 f) Another possible visualization of the α-tilting chain in the logical 3D: i) Working now by a threefold
61 logical frame C-DD plus ± DR. ii) Note that the tilted λ-λ in the sketch are just a graphical artifice for
62
63
64 8
65
showing the balance-equivalency: the proper λ-λ pair just lies on DD, neither could we define it otherwise.
1 The relativistic ring reduces to λcosα and the bonding profile registers a mass increase to m0/cosα. The
2 frequency ν keeps fixed independent from α, so the constant-structural tile c splits ideally in two cosα-
3 sinα parts (Eq. F3-5-6). iii) Along DD, the AND-rotational momentum calculates as per Eq. F3-7: the
4 mass increase compensates the size stretching, so QL2DD turns out to be Q 0 (same elementary object of L1-
5
Fig. 2.c). Along DR, recall that the λsinα-λsinα pair is cc type, so it does not rotate (the λcosα-λcosα does
6 L2
7 being dd type)  this gives a velocity csinα, and thus an OR-linear momentum PDR as per Eq. F3-8 (vector
8 form). Upon recalling that β ≝ v/c and setting sinα = β (Eq. F3-9), it turns out (Eq. F3-10) that the DR-
L2
9 OR component of logic L2 (PDR ) corresponds to the relativistic momentum (p).
10
11
12
4. Combining the α-regulation schematics with the fixed action principle and logics L1-L2
13
14
15 Sect. 3 bases on hybrid visualizations for showing that the α-tilting correlates to the relativistic momentum
16 p. We now generalize this finding in terms of fixed action and field schematics. Note three distinct claims-
17 assumptions: 1st The one-grain logic (L1) and the two-grains logic (L2) act contextually on independent logical
18 levels. 2nd The h takes different but consistent forms depending on the logic: same criterion of Sect. 2 for the
19 AND-OR forms of the h, now extended to the L1-L2 forms. 3rd The two logics L1-L2 provide a complete
20 description of relative velocity and relativism: no need of a three-grain logic at this level.
21
22
Fig. 4 compares the L1-L2 logics and provides an ideal split of the action schematic in a relativistic grain:
23
24 a) Usual description compared with the L1-L2 claim: i) We know that velocity is relative, so we refer it to
25 an object or to a given frame (v0 ‑v1 ‑v2 values). In the example, the object G1 has two different velocities
26 (v10 vs. v12 ), and both are true  logical structure of two different but contextual-consistent parameters.
27 Still in general, the measure and the physical relation of velocity always involves two objects: notion just
28 missing-undefined for a single object. ii) Describing the situation by our two complementary logics L1-
29 L2 is equivalent: L1 disregards other objects and describes the proper asset and parameters of an
30 individual grain: at that level (Fig 2), the system could not define-set our α. iii) Conversely, L2 works as
31
a logically distinct level not involving-affecting the proper: it only describes pairs of grains that entertain
32
33 a velocity relation with one another, and refer to just the relativistic asset of those two grains; for both, α
34 is specular as is the relative velocity. So, for any pair of mutually traveling grains, there is a pair of
35 relativistic structures, the correlation is v-α, and the L1-L2 set is consistent.
36 Note: L2 allows a complete description of reality by just focusing two by two on the traveling objects
37 (bodies or grains irrelevant)  logical-physical structure of a network where the velocities (or the α
38 parameters) play as links between any two objects  L1-L2 make a complete and consistent set  no
39 need of L3 or higher order logics (see also P1 for the application of L1 and L2 in the σ-domain).
40 b) Comparing L1 vs. L2 schematics and formulae: i) Start first from the same sketch of Fig. 2.f.iii: just
41
42 rearranged for a better visual distinction of the object (Q 0 : Eq. F3-1) and of the space-scale (λCh : same
43 value of λ). Generalize next Eq. F3-2: we assume that the rule <AND-action = momentum times space
44 scale (1h)> holds independently from the kind of momentum (ring vs. vector) and/or space scale involved
45 (dd vs. cc coding). ii) Ideal split (graphical artifice) of the two DD-DR components in a relativistic grain:
46 Same object Q 0 (compensation cosα-1/cosα as per Eq F3-3). Q 0 remains ring-type as in L1. We apply the
47 generalized rule above and obtain Eq. F3-4 upon multiplying Q 0 respectively by: A dd type scale (λcosα)
48  DD component  action based on field revolutions  taking the form of an angular momentum (same
49
form of L1). A cc type scale (λsinα)  DR component  action based on space moves (along DR) 
50
51 taking the form of momentum times the DR-move.
52 Note: 1st Calculations refer to one revolution = 1 h in the proper grain (assumption of same-unaffected ν).
53 The rule-assumption above can be taken as a generalization of the de Broglie relation. 2nd The h is for us
54 a fixed quantity ≝ action bar of 100%  the L2 picture for the AND logic formalizes in a trivial
55 transversal balance of the h-bar on DD-DR (Eq. F3-4). Moreover, the OR-action (Eq. F2-7-13 for L1)
56 comes upon multiplying the AND-action by our structural constant f (assumed to be same-unaffected in
57 L2)  the idea of a straight transversal balance of the h holds also for the OR-action (see Sect. 5). 3rd In
58 Fig. 4.b.ii-DR, the pair τsinα is dd type  no progress in time: the split DR component only describes
59
60
unit moves in space; the DR-move per field revolution (one change) is λsinα. This is a graphical artifice
61 only: the relativistic grain is assumed here to be a concrete-consistent object  both the DD and DR parts
62
63
64 9
65
make together C-moves in time: the C-move per field revolution is τcosα; it comes in principle from the
1 part DD that remains same kind of the original L1 grain. 4th In the ideal DR-split note also: The logical
2 axis DR is orthogonal to DD (Fig. 3.a)  λsinα is unrelated to the bonding (not on b-tile), and τsinα too
3 (by definition)  no mass associated to our ideal DR-split  the mass and time scale parameters of the
4 relativistic grain continue to reside in its DD part (for time dilation, see Sec. 5).
5
6
7 a) One-object vs. two-objects logics b) Combined DD-DR action in a moving grain
8 i) DD only L1-Original
ν
Proper L1 Object (1)
i) v10 v12 ν
9 Q0; M0; E0 m0 λν = m0 c = Q 0
DD
v0 = 0 v1 v2 λ m0
10 λ AND-action (2)
11 G0 G1 G2 ch
hL1
AND = Q 0 λ
λ λ
12 m0 τ
13 Assumption: AND-action = Object times space scale
14 G1 α does not apply
ii) One-grain no matter which kind are they (see general sketch c).
15 logic L1 (consider null)
(3)
16 Relative L2 Object m0 cos α ∙ λ cos α ∙ ν = m0 c = Q 0
17 Logically distinct contextual levels L2-Moving
ii)-DD ν ν
18 iii) α α DD
α10 α10 Two-grains m0 / cos α Note: Object Q0
19 01 01 λ cos α λ cos α m0 / cos α
logic L2 does not change
20 G0 G1
α-v correlation for λ cos α τ cos α
21 v01 v10
DD space scale DR space scale
the pair G0-G1
22 ν Action Q0∙λ
ii)-DR λ cos α ch
23 iv) Distinct and DR becomes:
24 G1 G2 τ sin α λ sin α λ sin α ch
independent α12 α12 α21 α21
No mass (4)
25 α-v correlation τ sin α
26 for G1-G2 hL2
ANDDD cos α cos α
Note: L2 action balances in hL2
AND = = Q0 λ = hL1
AND sin α
27 v12 v21 a second DR component hL2
ANDDR
sin α
28
29 c) Generalization and overview of notations, schematics, and practical rules of next two sections
30 OR-action =
AND-action =
31 Object × Space scale Energy × Time scale
32 Energy =
33 DD Objects Object Space scale (10) Object × c Time scale (17)
i) (6)
34 (rings)
λ M0 = m0 cλ (14) E0 ⋅ τ = hL1
DD only Q 0 = m0 c = Q 0 λ = hL1
OR
35 λ λ AND τ
E0 = Q 0 ⋅ c Proper energy
36 L1 Prime A = m0 c 2 A
c m0 (7) (11)
37 λ-object Q 0 ⋅ λ cos α Time
38 QL2
DD = Q 0
= hL2AND‑DD (15) dilation
DD + DR Relativistic λ cos α
39 = hL1AND ⋅ cos α
Total relativistic
ring A’ λ cos α λ cos α QL2
DD ⋅c τ cos α
energy ETOT (18)
40 L2-DD
ii) m0 cos α A Length (12) = m0 c 2 A
c (8) contraction E0
41 Q 0 ⋅ λ sin α = ⋅ τ cos α = hL2 OR
42 Drag effect (no object) L2
PDR = Q 0 tan α cos α
= p ⋅ λ sin α
m0
43
iii) Relocating v = v=p = hL2AND‑DR DR component of ETOT
ring A’ v v cos α λ sin α
44 L2-DR = hL1AND ⋅ sin α (16) in its 1D space (19)
45 m0 cos α
(5) v = c sin α = c ⋅ β v A’ L2
PDR ⋅ c τ
46 Two forms, same value τ pc ⋅
p relativistic momentum = PDRL2‑1
⋅c tan α
47 iv) (9) (13) tan α = hL2‑1 τ
Relocating p ⋅ λ tan α = p⋅c OR
DR only L2‑1
PDR =p E0 tan α ⋅ = hL21
pin A A v p
OR
48 A λ tan α = hL2‑1
AND A tan α
49 L2-1
m0 tan 𝛼 (21)
Note: sin α = β ≝ v c; cos α = 1 − β2
50 m0 v m0 c sin α (20)
DR Objects ν tan α pc = c= c = m0 c 2 tan α = E0 tan α
51 (vectors) v velocity; c speed of light cos α cos α
52
53 Fig. 4: Independent-contextual L1-L2 logics for proper and relativistic grains.
54
55 c) The flowsheet generalizes-anticipates our notations and practical rules for the α-regulation in the λ-
56 domain (Sect. 5-7 follows for details): Description in terms of prime objects, space and time scales, and
57
forms taken by the fixed action h depending on the logic. Rows i to iv refer to components; columns show
58
59 the groups involved and the schematic progress of our calculations (combinations of fields). Formulae
60 can be written in terms of relative velocity v [m/s] using Eq. F4-21; α-tilting as per Fig. 3. Row i only
61 contemplates pure rings: α null; grains change in time only. On the opposite logical end, row iv refers to
62
63
64 10
65
vector momenta (Sect. 7): we assume they apply to the relocation of central pin A (unconfigured 0D state
1 of base material = not the configured ring state of pin A’). In row iii, we assume a drag effect from
2 relocating ring A’ of row ii: not qualifying as a prime-independent object  hybrid momentum and hybrid
3 action. The physics of this same momentum (row iii) is nevertheless same-kind of row iv: the ring-
4 rotational momentum of row ii implies in any case a mass  when the relative velocity v relocates pin
5 A’ as a ring, the mass of A’ relocates also on our DR axis.
6
Globally: The prime logics-parameters of the λ-domain come from row i only: L1-proper  v-α
7
8 undefined-inconsistent; only one nondirectional axis DD for space. Rows ii, iii, and iv, only activate with
9 v-α: additional-secondary L2 block (could not subsist-operate concretely without formerly cast L1-
10 objects)  second directional axis DR for space; it is different-kind cc and logically independent from
11 DD; action there = relocating the grain in space, not just in time. As relocating a ring A’ implies relocating
12 its central pin A, this generates a pure vector momentum logic in row iv: say it is the opposite-
13 complementary logic of row i and our second basis of description; L2-1 stands for L2 logic collapsed to
14 its second end where a pure vector momentum subsists (as opposite to the pure ring momentum of row i).
15 All intermediate v-α situations can be described as a combination of rows ii and iii: DD and DR
16
17
components of our L2 logic; related respectively to coding either dd or cc for the space scale. All v-α
18 situations contains in any case the two distinct vector momenta of rows iii and iv: respectively dragging-
19 relocating ring A’ in space, and dragging-relocating its central pin A in space (configured ring-state of
20 base material vs. its blank 0D state).
21 Notes: 1st We cannot presume the DR axis as an abstract priory: it activates concretely as the space-
22 concordant term λsinα-λsinα that, by this method, actualizes the relative velocity; the two notions coincide
23 and DR, as logical axis, qualifies more properly as a human abstraction-interpretation. 2nd Rows ii
24
25 presumes that: the size of a relativistic ring stretches of cosα (= 1 − β2 ); same for its time scale  we
26 assume that this reduction and the energy increase compensate each other in obeying to the fixed action
27 principle: Eq. F4-18 with details in Sect. 5.
28
29
30 5. Transversal balance of the h on the DD-DR axes and energy-momentum relation
31
32
This Section switches to the method-assumption of balancing directly the h on the DD-DR axes, which in
33
34 turn allows formalizing-calculating the last two passages of the α-regulation by the L2 logic: Deriving the
35 energy-momentum relation. Describing time dilation in comparative terms.
36 Claims-assumptions: 1st The elementary object in a relativistic grain (L2) is a composite momentum: DD
L2
37 part = ring-type (as the L1 original); DR part = hybrid type (Fig. 4.c.iii). The total object PDR is larger than the
38 L1 original Q 0 = m0 c: the new DR part adds whilst the b-bonding compensates and maintains the Q 0 value
39 for the DD part. 2nd The AND-OR forms of the unit action (L2) express the transversal balance of the h along
40 the DD-DR logical axes. This complies with the fixed action principle. 3rd The total composite momentum
41 L2
42 PDR , the AND-OR forms of the h by L2, the total relativistic energy ETOT, and the L2 vs. L1 time dilation can
43 be described-calculated as an α-tilting relative to L1. This is visualized-operated by two twinned and α-
44 distorted relativistic structures of mutually traveling grains, or just as a transversal balance of the h on the DD-
45 DR axes. 4th The two descriptions either in terms of geometric speed or in terms of logical fields and α-tilting
46 are equivalent. For us: sin α = β ≝ v c (v velocity; c speed of light); cos α = 1 − β2 .
47
48
Fig. 5 summarizes our description of relativistic grains in terms of α-tilting by the L2 logic: on top, the
49 schemes for the elementary object, and for the AND-OR forms of the h; on bottom, alternative ways for
50 deriving the equations; the L2 realm is separate-independent from L1 but the two logics work contextually:
51 Note: The transversal balance only applies to spacers (Fig. 3.b), whilst the quantities in the sketches are
52 structural bars. Nevertheless, we apply the Pythagoras theorem for correlating their values. Sect. 3-4 illustrate
53 why: first, our description of a moving L2 grains assumes that its proper spacers λ-τ obey the transversal
54 balance, and thus conserve in a tilting (Fig. 3.d-f); second, our structural calculations of Fig. 4.b lead to a form
55 of Eq. F4-4 that lend itself to the idea of a transversal balance of the h (not a transversal balance, but equivalent
56
to). In addition, just compare ii vs. i in Fig. 4.b: both the elementary object and the action come from a product
57
58 of 1D fields  as the spacer λ is involved and as it balances transversally, it comes out mathematically that
L2
59 the object and the h balance same way. Conversely, the composite PTOT object in Fig. 5.a.i reflects the 1/cosα
L2
60 mass increase due to the bonding counteraction in Q DD = Q 0  not a transversal balance, there, and the new
L2
61 DR component just makes the numerical value of PTOT to increase whilst QL2
DD keeps fixed at Q 0 . Despite that,
62
63
64 11
65
Fig. 5.a.ii-iii highlights the cc and dd coding embedded in the two fields-quantities QL2 L2
DD and PDR that combine
L2
1 in PDR  the rest of both quantities is an uncoded multipliers (m0 ν cos α), so the Pythagoras rule ultimately
2 applies: both QL2 L2
DD or PDR , and independently from their ring vs. vector form, carry the structural imprinting of
3
two half-quantities that are dd or cc correlated as the respective funding spaces are  this is not at all a
4
5 transversal balance but it works like in the practice.
6 a) Schematization of the elementary object in a moving grain (DD-DR plan view): it is a composite
7 momentum as per Fig. 4.c.ii+iii; it depends on velocity v [m/s], or equivalently on α-tilting (both
8 parameters assumed constant and correlated by Eq. F5-11). Eq. F5-1 recalls Eq. F4.1; Eq. F5-2+3 recall
9 Eq. F3-7+8  Pythagoras rule gives Eq. F5-4 (generalization of spacers transversal balance as per
10 sketches a.ii+iii). Compared to the original object (a ring-momentum), the relativistic one consists of:
11 DD) a same-kind same-value ring momentum (bonding compensation on the mass-size parameters); DR)
12 an additional hybrid momentum (Fig. 4.c.iii) that grows with the tilting. For us, Eq. F5-4 hides a mix of
13
14
structurally different momenta that are also logically independent-orthogonal.
15
16 a) L2 moving object (α-regulation) b) L2 balance of AND-action c) L2 balance of OR-action
17 L2
Assumptions: Relative L2 object (PDD ) AND-action keeps fixed in any OR-action comes as AND-action times f = τ ∙ ν
18 amplifies due to bonding compensation on QL2DD . case and balances on DD-DR axes. (sixth constant of Fig. 2.b), and it balances also.
19 (1)
i) L1 Q0 = m0c (2) (9)
20
21 QL2
DD = Q 0 L2
(6) h L2
AND‑DD L2 hL2
OR‑DD
D D
22 (3)
α = h cos α D = m0 c 2 τ cos α D
ii) v (7) D (10) D
L2
23 PDR α v α
m0 ν L2 (4) hL2 hL2 v
24 = Q 0 tan α AND‑DR
h
OR‑DR
2 h
cos α L2 = h sin α (5) = m 0 c τ sin α L1 (8)
25 L2 PTOT = Q 0 cos α L1
⋅ λ sin α PDR L1
= Q 0 1 + tan2 α
L1
hAND = Q 0 λ hOR = m0 c 2 τ
26 L2
iii) A Q DD DR = m 0 cλ = h =h
27 DR DR
m0 ν cos α ⋅ λ cos α λ cos α ⋅ m0 ν cos α Note: hAND = hOR =
28
29 h (Planck constant)
A
30
31 d) Energy-momentum relation (p = relativistic momentum) e) Equations in terms of transversal balance of h (see sketch c)
32 i) From sketch a and Eq. 1-2-3-4, by setting: i) The DD-DR components contain the terms m0 c2 - pc
33 (11) sin α = β ≝ v (v velocity; c speed of light); cos α = 1 − β2 Note: Both work by the same contracted time (grain is one).
c
34 L2
Note: PTOT composite ring-hybrid momentum (see Fig. 4.c.ii-iii). (18) m0 c 2 τ ∙ cos α = m0 c 2 ∙ τ cos α
35 L2
(12) m0 m0 (13) PDR p = m0 c 2 ∙ τ 1 − β2
36 L2
PDR = c sin α = v=p tan α = L2 =
37 cos α 1−β 2 Q DD m 0c
m0
38 (14) m0 c p 2 (19) m0 c 2 τ ∙ sin α = c sin α ∙ c ∙ τ cos α
L2 cos α
PTOT = = m0 c 1 + m0 ∙ cβ
39 1 − β2 m0 c = c ∙ τ 1 − β2
40 1 − β2
41 ii) By generalizing the L1 rule: energy = object times speed of light m0 v
= ∙ c ∙ τ 1 − β2
42 1 − β2
(15) L2
m0 c 2 p 2
43 ETOT = c ∙ PTOT = = m0 c 2 1+ = pc ∙ τ 1 − β2
1− β2 m0 c
44
45 iii) Comparing L1-L2 forms of OR-action (from sketch c, Eq. 8) ii) Combining the two terms by the Pythagoras rule
46
L1 L2 Note: The L1 form of h corresponds to Eq. 8 above; the
47 (16) cos α m0 c 2 L2 form comes from the Pythagoras combination of Eq. 9-
48 hOR = m0 c 2 ∙ τ = m0 c 2 ∙ τ ∙ = ∙ τ cos α →
cos α cos α 10 (or Eq. 18-19 equivalently).
49 L1 L2
50 (17) m0 c 2 (20) L1 L2
→ hOR = m0 c 2 ∙ τ = ∙ τ 1 − β2
51 1 − β2 hOR = m0 c 2 ∙ τ = m0 c 2 2 + pc 2 ∙ τ 1 − β2
52 m0 c 2
Assumption: The L1-L2 forms of h are independent-contextual; either = ∙ τ 1 − β2
53 1 − β2
proper energy times proper time, or relative energy times relative time,
54 in which case energy amplifies and time contracts by the same factor.
55
56 Fig. 5: Energy-momentum relation and time dilation as an L2 balance of the elementary object and of its h.
57
58 b) Description of the AND-action as an equivalent transversal balance (DD-DR plan view): Eq. F5-5 for the
59
L1-proper action recalls Eq. F2-9+10 (or F4-10); Eq. F5-6+7 recall Eq. F4-4. The balance in this case is
60
61 trivial (cosα-sinα): the h-bar is for us a fixed quantity; its DD-DR components reflect the ones of the
62
63
64 12
65
spacer λ that we assume to tilt and balance on the DD-DR axes (see for instance the visualization of Fig.
1 3.f).
2 c) Description of the OR-action as an equivalent transversal balance (DD-DR plan view): Eq. F5-8 for the
3 L1-proper action recalls Eq. F2-4; Eq. F5-9+10 reflect: the cosα-sinα balance of the AND form of the h
4 as per point b above (sketch b); the assumption that in L2, we can use the same L1 rule of multiplying the
5 AND form by f (Eq. F2-7) for obtaining the OR form (Eq. F2-13). As we claim that the relativistic time
6
scale varies (τcosα instead of τ), this must be justified: 1st We consider f a structural constant  we cannot
7
8 think of using a relativistic f instead. 2nd In Fig. 3.f, the relative pair λcosα-λcosα actualizes the transversal
9 balance of its parent pair λ-λ, so the number of revolutions is concretely equal for both  this justifies
10 our assumption that in L2 the frequency does not vary relative to L1 (α-tilting at constant frequency as in
L2
11 the proper). 3rd The DR component of the object in sketch a (PDR ) does not have its own time scale: see
12 for instance Fig. 4.b.ii-DR or Fig. 4.c.iii  the component τsinα is dd type and cannot mark a progress in
13 L2
time  we cannot think of multiplying PDR by τsinα for deriving its OR-action separately. As such, the
14
15
only interpretation consistent-compatible with the other assumptions of the method is: 1st The same
16 parameter τ of the proper grain (L1) plays also as the nominal-theoretical time scale of its relativistic-
17 traveling structure (L2): this because of the assumptions that ν is the same and f = τ⋅ν is a structural
18 constant. 2nd The energy of a relativistic grain, however, is larger than its proper energy (1/cosα factor)
19  the product energy × time scale in L2 would violate the fixed action principle (extra action by absurd
20 required). As such, the actual relative time scale cuts-reduces for keeping fixed the relativistic action also
21  the L2 action is worth h like in the proper grain, but the concrete progress of the relativistic grain in
22 terms of C-moves slows down  observable time dilation relative to the proper grain ensues. 3rd For the
23
rest, the system change-contextuality relies on the number of field revolutions, either original (λ-λ) or
24
25 relative (λcosα-λcosα)  the count is indeed the same because of our assumption that λcosα-λcosα reflect-
26 balances λ-λ, so the two concretely keep in phase and the frequency (either L1 or L2) is not affected by
27 the v-α relativism. This formalizes-resumes in two basic rules-assumptions: 1st The system contextuality
28 for both L1 and L2 establishes primarily through the count of field revolutions (low-level logic as per Fig.
29 1-e). 2nd The set of parameters of a grain, including its space and time scales, must then adjust-regulate
30 for complying with the fixed action principle (still depending case by case on the logics-structures of the
31 situation: see for instance P2 for the application in the σ-domain).
32 Note: Derivations below come from are subject to our set of assumptions for the λ-domain and λ-grains.
33 L2
34 d) Derivation of the energy-momentum relation and time dilation from sketch a (relativistic object PTOT ): i)
L2
35 Write PTOT in terms of relativistic momentum p (Eq. F5-1-2-3-4+11  Eq. F5-12-1314). ii) Apply the
L2
36 general-practical rules of Fig. 4.c  for L2-relativism, PTOT is the elementary object to be multiplied by
37 c for obtaining the energy  in this case, the total energy ETOT (Eq. F5-15). iii) Rewrite Eq. F5-8 for hL1 OR
38
39
as in Eq. F5-16, switch to L2 by cosα/cosα, and compare the L1 vs. L2 forms of hOR = h (Eq. F5-17):
40 depending on the logic (see also general rules of Fig. 4.c), the fixed action principle actualizes as either
41 (proper energy) × (proper time scale), or (relative energy) × (relative time scale).
42 e) Alternative derivation of total energy and time dilation from sketch c (OR-balance of the h): We start here
43 from the action, so the equations include both the energy and the time scale. i) Rework the DD-DR
44 components (Eq. F5-9+10) in terms of m0 c 2 and pc (Eq. F5-18+19). In doing that, assume a common
45
46
contracted time scale (cosα factor giving 1 − 𝛽 2 ): 1st Our notion of components is an abstraction whilst
47 the relativistic object is one, so both components must remain coherent-consistent by progressing the
48 same way in time. 2nd Their energy is more than proper energy (the pc term by evidence adds), so the time
49 scale must be less (no extra-action beyond the h allowed here). ii) Combine the two DD-DR components
50 through the Pythagoras rule (see sketch a.ii-iii and justification above) and get Eq. F5-20  same picture
51 by which the energy and time scale, either proper or relativistic, actualize the fixed h.
52 Interpretation (assumed): Compare the two forms of total energy in Eq. F5-15 (or equivalently in Eq. F5-20)
53 with Fig. 4.e: 1st The first with one term only (m0 c 2 but not p) shows a straight-proportional increase of the
54
55
proper energy just because the relativistic mass increases  regard it as a description of the relativistic grain
56 by the DD perspective only: de facto, same rules of the proper-L1 apply  the size of the grain just stretches
57 and because of that, the bonding sets on a larger mass; for such an altered DD structure, the energy of the grain
58 is inherently larger of a same amount. In practical terms, the calculation-structure proceeds in principle like in
59 a proper grain: the rules of the λ-family apply without considering whether the grain is traveling or not; indeed,
60 the DD logic is blind to that. Also note that after accepting the fixed action principle, such an almost-static DD
61 description makes evident that the increase of energy in a traveling grain must be compensated by a reverse
62
63
64 13
65
decrease of its time scale: the now-next states in a moving grain objectively contain-carry more energy (even
1 the DD-only description says that), so their separation in time is less for any given field revolution that marks
2 1h. Finally note that after accepting the cosα correction in the DD-only form-description, the same must be
3 done for consistency in the second form that contains the pc term. Moreover, our method assumes that the
4 description of the time scale and of the progress in time of a λ-grain are uniquely matter of the prime C-DD
5 realm-logics (our third axis DR for moving comes next and independently). 2nd The second form of total energy
6
7
where pc combines with m0 c 2, qualifies therefore as a description-correlation of the same physical situation,
8 where however two logically distinct channels-components combine, namely DD and DR  the DR-moving
9 term pc therefore appears explicitly.
10 Globally: The independent logics that determines the two forms-descriptions are either <single channel DD-
11 only>, or <double channel DD+DR>. Both obey the fixed action principle and the rules-assumption of
12 regulations fields, so they qualify as equivalent-contextual by this method.
13
14
15
6. Structural formulae for proper and moving grains
16
17
18 Fig. 6 proposes another possible notation-visualization of λ grains in terms of structural formulae (S): Listed
19 as S1 to S6 in the sketch and representing a combination of fields-parameters. All terms are independent-
20 orthogonal and obey the tile-product rule. The chart summarizes the L1-L2 object, AND-action, and OR-action
21 (see former Sect. 2 to 5 for details). Formulae and equations are included (compare for instance with Fig. 4.c
22 or with the structural sketches of Fig. 2.f and of Fig. 4.b).
23
24
25 Note: a) Primary logic L1 b) Relative velocity logic L2
26 (single grain = proper) (equal-specular relation between any two grains)
S = Structural
27 formula
28 One component DD = regular = same kind of object
L2 gives two contextual components:
29
hAND = hOR = h only (DD axis) DR = reverse logic = relative moving
30
31 (S1) (S4) m0 λ cos α
m0 λ ν ν
32 cos α λ sin α
33
34 Object QL1 L2
0 - Pv
(1) (4) m0 c
QL1 QL2 m0 c cos α QL1 = Q 0 m0 m0 c
DD = m0 c = Q 0 L2
PTOT = DD
= = DD =
35 L2
PDR cos α c sin α Q 0 tan α v = p
1− β2
36
37
38 λch m0 λ cos α ch
(S2) (S5) λ cos α ν
39
m0 λ ν cos α λ sin α ch
40 AND-action hAND
41 (2) (5)
hL2
AND−DD cos α cos α 1 − β2
42 hL1
AND = m0 λc = Q 0 λ = M0 hL2
AND = = hL1
AND sin α = m0 c ∙ λ sin α = m0 c ∙ λ
h𝐿2
AND−DR β2
43
44
νch
45 (S3) λch νch (S6)
m0 ch
λ cos α
46 λ cos α ν τ
47 m0 λ ν τ cos α λ sin α ch
48 (6a) hL2 cos α cos α cos α

OR_DD
49 (3) hL2
OR = = hL1
OR sin α = m0 c
2
∙τ = E0 ∙ τ →
OR-action hOR hL2
OR_DR
sin α sin α
50 hL1
OR = m0 c
2
∙ τ = E0 ∙ τ
51 (6b) m0 c 2 m0 c 2
m0 E
52 → hL2
OR = m0 τ cos α = τ 1 − β2 = 0 ∙ 1 − β2
c sin α ∙ c ∙ cβ ∙ c pc
53 cos α 1 − β2
54
55 Fig.6: Structural formulae for proper and moving grains (α-regulation trough contextual logics L1-L2)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 14
65
7. Kinetic grain and de Broglie form of the h in terms of displacement-relocation of central pin A
1
2 This Section completes the description of relative velocity with a third kind of λ-object: kinetic or de Broglie
3 grain (see L2-1 of Fig. 4.c.iv). We claim-assume it is activated by and dedicated to the relocation of the central
4 pin A of a moving grain. The method consists of correlating the parameters of the kinetic grain with the proper
5 parameters of the parent grain that moves (constant velocity v [m/s] ↔ constant α-tilting).
6
Assumptions: 1) Same numerical value of the momentum implied in dragging either ring-pin A’ or pin A. 2)
7
8 Different logic L2-1 for pin A, which deserves a distinct kinetic grain with its own space scale (say λDR ). 3)
9 The general rule h = momentum times space scale applies. 4) The new L2-1 logic and the kinetic grain still fit
10 in the λ-family. 5) The grain activates by the incipient moving of the parent grain with a large λL21.
11 Note: The kinetic grain is a logically self-standing object: the physical process of relocating central pin A is
12 different from relocating ring A’ (the system does distinguish A from A’)  a kinetic grain is correlated to its
13 moving parent grain, but its description deserves a separate h as any other grain of the λ-family.
14 Fig. 7 proposes notations, schematics, and formulae for our assumed kinetic grain (DB = de Broglie).
15
Overview: The ring A’ and the central pin A in a moving grain proceed by a same speed v [m/s] and a same
16
17 momentum p (evident). The unit move per field revolution (giving 1 h) is however λsinα for the ring A’ (L2
18 logic) vs. λ/tanα for the central pin A (L2-1 logic). Also, we intend central pin A (logical 0D) as the point-like
19 now state that univocally locates the grain in space (same notion of the center of mass in a body):
20 a) Situation so far (compare also with Fig. 4.c; count in any case one move either C or DR per revolution):
21 1st The state of pin A (blank-unconfigured) is logically different from the one of pin A’ (ring-configured)
22 + in pin A (0D), the momentum ±p is a pure-localized vector (not a dragging of the ring momentum in
23 A’)  assume a different logic L2-1 and a specific space scale λDR for the DR move of the group A-p (p
24 L2
25
relativistic momentum = PDR in Fig. 5). 2nd Apply in any case for the h our general rule of momentum ×
26 space scale (our unit move)  this gives Eq. F7-1 noting that in principle, λDR is unknown to the method:
27 we have not specified our logic L2-1 yet.
28 b) 1st Compare now with the de Broglie (DB) relation (Eq. F7-4)  our λDR ≡ λDB : obvious, as our rule is
29 an a priori generalization of the DB relation. 2nd Eq. F7-2+3, allow however writing this parameter in
30 terms of our method-description (Eq. F7-5)  this shows a correlation 1/tanα between the known-
31 established λDB (for us the unit move λDR of the group A-p), and the field-value λ that we assume for the
32 proper space scale of the moving grain (for us the parent grain and the logical-structural drive of the
33
34
kinetic grain). 3rd By our Eq. F7-2-6 (or Eq. F2-9), we finally find Eq. F7-7  the h can be written as a
35 self-consistent DR-grain whose parameters correlate via tanα to the ones of the parent moving grain.
36 Ensuing claims-assumptions: 1st Relocating-moving the A-p group is a secondary effect induced by the
37 primary λ-structure and subsequent α-tilting of the moving parent grain. 2nd It is logically-physically
38 consistent with it but distinct, so it deserves a specific grain-mechanism ≝ our notions of L2-1 and kinetic
39 grain. 3rd The λ-domain must accommodate in pin A this new effect-parameter, so it does via its general
40 rules and a new coding of the logical axis that adds to our L1 for mass-energy grains of Sect. 1: The
41 coding dd remains the same and define the DD axis (this axis is therefore common to L2-1 and L2).
42
Conversely, the coding cc of L2-1 involves a space scale (not a time scale) and lies on the DD plane (third
43
44 axis DR for moving, distinct from axis C for time). 4th The two logical system C-DD (L2) and DD-DR
45 (L2-1) qualifies as reverse twinned, so they establish the bases for our complete description of any relative
46 moving of λ-grains (relocating both the pure vector group A-p and the hybrid-mixed form DD+DR of
47 sketch a). 5th In spite of its different coding and of its subordination to the moving parent grain, the new
48 kinetic grain works as any other grain in the λ-family, including obeying the fixed action principle. 6th
49 Another difference-peculiarity of the kinetic grain is due to its role-function in the context (say relocating
50 pin A when its ring A’ moves): its parameters modulate-adapt to the v-α of the moving parent grain.
51 c) The sketch visualizes the assumed kinetic-DB grain in the logical 3D: Same transport of momentum p but
52
53
described now in terms of velocity-moves of central pin A. The space scale of this grain vanishes when
54 v-p become null; it correlates with the proper space scale λ of the moving parent grain as λtanα.
55 d) Compare with Fig. 1.e: The two-channel property of the base material in establishing an AND-contextual
56 relation with an OR-sequential one is assumed to operate now on the DD plane only (changing in space,
57 not in time). A same spacer λDR is coded both dd along DD (as for mass-energy grains of Sect. 1), and
58 cc along DR (as opposite to mass energy grains, whose coding cc is along C-time).
59 e) L2-1 coding of kinetic grains compared to the L1 coding of mass-energy grains (see Sect. 1): Our cc basis
60 consists now of a space scale field λDR (no more the time scale τ of L1). This twinned and complementary
61
62
code cc defines our DR axis for relocating groups A-p (as well as mixed DD+DR forms of momenta).
63
64 15
65
Besides the different cc coding for the space-scale, a kinetic grain correlates in any case with its moving
1 parent grain via tanα.
2
3
4 a) Kind of unit changes and momenta in a moving grain b) Comparing the kinetic grain parameters with the de Broglie relation
5 C DB = de Broglie (2) β = sin α ; (3)
One revolution = 1 h hAND = m0 cλ = h
6 D ν DR = L2-1 logic 1 − β2 = cos a
D
7 (1) (4)
DR m0 λ One C-move ? h 1 − β2 1 − β2
8 A’ p ∙ λDR = h λDB = → λDB = h = m0 cλ
τ p m0 cβ m0 cβ
9 i) L1: Proper → (5)
A
10 DD-only A’ Note: See λDB 1 − β2 cos α 1 λ
→ = = = → λDB = = λDR
11 m0 Fig. 3 and λ β sin α tan α tan α
λ cos α One C-move Sect. 3-4-5
12 cos α A’
ii) L2: Moving τ cos α for α-tilting.
(6) λ λ
13 DD+DR A h = m0 λνλ = m0 tan α ν tan α →
A’ tan α tan α
14 One DR (7)
±v λ sin α move also → h = mDR λDR νDR λDR = mDR cλDR
15 iii) L2-1: Pin A A Assumptions: 1) Same numerical
16 DR-only 0% ±p value of momentum implied in
100%
17 dragging either ring-pin A’ or pin A.
Vector momentum as a c) Kinetic grain schematic (specular)
Kinetic grain logic 2) Different logic L2-1 for pin A,
18 byproduct of dragging
which deserves a distinct kinetic grain
±v ±v C
19 the ring momentum New entry, same rule: pure vector
with its own space scale (say λL21 ). 3) Pin A Pin A ν tan α
20 above; upon relocating momentum (DR-only) times its
The general rule h = momentum times
ring-pin A’, central pin own spatial move (relocation of D DR
21 A must relocate too. pin A = one λDR per revolution).
space scale applies. 4) The new L2-1
C λ tan α
R α
λ tan
22 logic and the kinetic grain still fit in D
the λ-family. 5) The grain activates by λ tan α
23 DR D ±p D
incipient moving with a large λL21 . Pin A
24 Reference grain
25 d) Key properties of base material in L2- (L2 partner)
26 1 e) Schematics of pure DR coding vs. C (L2-1)
27 Logical proximity  σDR i) Kinetic grain parameters (logical 3D)
C
28 C D 100% Note: λDR assumed to correspond
ν σ to the de Broglie wavelength
29 λDR A′Next ∞
30 σDR A′DR D 100%
λDR A λDR τ A′Now Now C λm0 ν parent
31 λ σDR
A′DR
Now DR λDR grain (still-proper)
32 A′DR
Next A
33 D λ A′DR
Next
0% λDR λDR mDR νDR kinetic
34 λDR DR grain (vector form p)
Logical separation  λDR
35 D 100% νDR = ν tan α
36 L2-1 logic ≝ pure vector momentum in pin A λDR = λ tan α mDR = m0 tan α 100%
37  λDR = λ tan α ; λDR ⋅ σDR = 1 (λ space mDR = m0 tan α ∞
38 scale of the moving parent grain). νDR = ν tan α
39 DR λDR = λ tan α
40 Note: λ-ν-τ-(σ) parameters of parent grain ∞ 100% The kinetic grain adapts to
41 f) Kinetic grain chart (plan view) v-α of its parent grain
42 100% σ tan α g) Reverse α-driven regulation
Kinetic grain inactive for any
43 i) L1 h) L2-1 delamination rule parent grain having v-α null
44 Parent grain m0
λ λ λ
45 (still-proper) ν tan α j) Kinetic form of the h (DR - L2-1)
tan α 0% tan α ν
D D
46 ii) OR λ tan α h → b ⋅ c = mDR λDR νDR λDR = mDR λDR c
47 A λ A′DR
Now Relative velocity σ tan α
L2-1 0% sin α
48 tan α (v or α-tilting) = m0 tan α λDR c = m0 cλ
m0 tan α 100% cos α DR
49 α λ tan α AND λ tan α m0 m0 v
A′DR = c sin α λDR = λ → h = pλDR
50 Next ν tan α cos α cos α DR
DR
51
52 Fig. 7: de Broglie form of the h as a kinetic grain that adapts to the velocity of the moving parent grain.
53
54
55
f) Plan view visualization of the kinetic gran in a C-D chart (compare with Fig. 2.d): for small momenta, the
56 kinetic grain is much larger than its moving parent.
57 g) Both the proper and the kinetic grain follow the λ-regulation rules: the second pertains however to the
58 pure DR-form L2-1 of our logic L2; it only activates upon a structural α-tilting (a given relative velocity
59 v [m/s]). For a kinetic grain, we count in any case its own 1 h (logics L1 and L2-1 are independent).
60
61
62
63
64 16
65
h) Compare with Fig. 2.f.ii: Same delamination picture of the grain  the AND-OR fractions match in any
1 case; they just involve now the same space scale (vs. a space + a time scale of mass-energy grains). The
2 size of the AND-cell is λDR = λDB = λ tan α and the OR-step is λDR too.
3 i) Hybrid visualization of the regulation chain in a kinetic grain: Compare with Fig. 2.a.iii, where λ is the
4 fixed proper size of a whatsoever travelling grain  the size of its kinetic grain depends on λ and reduces
5 with the velocity (correlation λ/tanα).
6
7
j) A kinetic grain is a secondary structure induced-activated by the velocity of a parent λ-grain. Nevertheless,
8 it can be calculated as any other grain of the λ-domain without knowing its origin, just by using its field
9 parameters mDR λDR νDR  for us, a kinetic grain actualizes the L2-1 form of the h for the relocation of
10 a pure vector in pin A; then, the tanα correlation allows writing it in terms of the relativistic momentum
11 p, which indeed corresponds to the de Broglie relation.
12
13
14 8. Overview and conclusions
15
16
17 The method remains unchecked-unproven, but a field-based description seems to be consistent with the basic
18 properties and equations we know from Physics for the action, energy, time dilation, etc.
19 The parameters within the family of λ-grains can modulate continuously but there is an inherent counter for
20 the unit change ≝ one field revolution. The quantum structure is embedded in a continuum and only concerns
21 the change.
22 The method only describes-correlates physical parameters and there is no interpretation in it. Thinking of λ-
23 grains as objects is practical, but it makes already a first level of human reading-modelling. A step further may
24 even consist in wondering if, in principle, ordinary particles-bodies like electrons or cars can be real only
25
26
because there is a concrete space-time structure that hosts-contains them. If so, our grains and cells may be
27 regarded as just as the description of parts of space-time that subsist in themselves, evolve in time, and move
28 in space as any other concrete particle we already know.
29 Paper P2 completes the introduction to the regulation fields with another kind of space-time structure. The
30 second block of the theory bases on the same method and on a series of logical inversions. This allows
31 formalizing the description of space-gravitation in terms of global-integral σ-cells around local-positional λ-
32 grains.
33
34
35
36 9. Reference List
37
38 This proposal is more a pragmatic method than a theory. No one however could have thought of regulation
39 fields without Physics, so all past and present literature should be cited in principle. The list necessarily limits
40 to a few general references. As far as the author knows, there is no literature covering directly or indirectly the
41 regulation fields or comparable methods of description:
42  Briatore L., Leschiutta, S. (1977). Evidence for the earth gravitational shift by direct atomic-time-scale
43
comparison. Il Nuovo Cimento B 37 (2): 219–231.
44
45  Capra F. (1997). Il Tao della fisica (The Tao of Physics). Adelphi Edizioni.
46  Davis P. (1996). I misteri del tempo – L’universo dopo Einstein (About Time). Arnoldo Mondadori
47 Editore.
48  Dirac P. A. M. (1959). I principi della meccanica quantistica (The Principles of Quantum Mechanics).
49 Bollati Boringhieri Editore.
50
 Dirac P. A. M. (2019). La bellezza come metodo. Raffello Cortina Editore.
51
52  Earman J. (1989). World Enough and Space-time. The MIT Press.
53  Einstein A. (2014). Il Significato della Relatività (Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie). Bollati
54 Boringhieri Editore.
55  Einstein A. (1967). Relatività: Esposizione Divulgativa (The Special & General Theory). Bollati
56
57
Boringhieri Editore.
58  Feynman R. P. (2010). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Italian edition: QED La strana
59 teoria della luce e della materia). Adelphi Edizioni.
60
61
62
63
64 17
65
 Feynman R. P., Leighton R. B., Sands M. (2010). The Feynman Lectures on Physics – The New
1 Millennium Edition, Volume I: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat. Basic Books, Perseus Books
2 Group.
3  Frith C. (2009). Inventare la mente: come il cervello crea la nostra vita mentale (Making up the Mind:
4 How the Brain Creates our Mental World). Raffaello Cortina Editore.
5
6  Hafele J. C., Keating, R. E. (1972). Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains.
7 Science 177 (4044).
8  Hafele J. C., Keating R. E. (1972). Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.
9 Science 177 (4044).
10  Hawking S. W. (1988). Dal big bang ai buchi neri. Breve storia del tempo (A Brief History of Time: From
11 Big Bang to Black Holes). BUR Rizzoli.
12
 Heisemberg W. (2016). I principi fisici della teoria dei quanti (Die physicalischen Prinzipien der
13
14 Quantentheorie). Bollati Boringhieri Editore.
15  Markosian N. (2000). What are Physical Objects? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 61
16  Rovelli C. (2014). La realtà non è come ci appare – La struttura elementare delle cose. Raffaello Cortina
17 Editore.
18
 Rovelli C. (2007). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press.
19
20  Schiller C. (2010). Motion Mountain, The Adventure of Physics: Vol. 1, Fall, Flow and Heat; Vol. 2,
21 Relativity and Cosmology; Vol. 3, Light, Charges and Brains; Vol. 4, The Quantum of Change; Vol. 5,
22 Motion Inside Matter - Pleasure, Technology and the Stars; Vol. 6, The Strand Model - A Speculation on
23 Unification. Printed edition by Lulu, www.motionmountain.net.
24  Smooth G., Davidson K. (1995). Wrinkles in Time – The Imprint of Creation. Abacus – Little, Brown
25 and Company.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 18
65
Cover Letter

Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain (Paper 1 of 2)
Cover letter
This proposal is more an engineering method than a theory. My starting points: Reality is substantial and
objective. Physics is correct and made great advances for centuries. My personal frustration: Some aspects of
Physics seem to override our intuition. This despite efforts made by brilliant minds for generations. My working
hypothesis: Our intuitive understanding depends on the base notions and mental schemes we put in place. We
are a biological device, so the human element may be a factor independently on who is traying to form an
intuitive comprehension of reality. My different perspective: Regard reality as just as a huge machine or system
that produces reality. Regard reality as a present state of an item that transforms by conservation in a next state
of the same item. My subsequent investigation: How can this system work and keep under control despite its
own limits in sending signals to far areas? How can this system produce objectivity much before our claim that
it is objective? My practical hints: Our human thinking depends strongly on objects, space, time. Is there any
ratio or method for generalizing these notions in a practical and intuitive way?
This ended in the general method that I propose here: First of all, it intends to align with Physics and absolutely
must, but it remains unchecked and unproved. For the rest, it provides a description and correlation of physical
parameters that rely on logics, not on spacetime, even if space and time parameters are by evidence included.
Another feature is its inherent quantum structure as well as the possibility, if confirmed, to extend it to gravitation
also. In practical terms, the method can emulate a few equations for demonstration purposes, but the
interpretation of the formal objects used for that is unclear. As we do not know any real item that be completely
abstract, the regulation fields and the assemblies made of fields should be regarded as concrete objects. If so, an
unavoidable interpretation would be that time and space are concrete objects also and obey the quantum structure
as any other item within this method.
Abstract
This proposal is a method for describing-correlating physical parameters like action, mass, energy, velocity,
etc. There are no comparable approaches in Physics, so the theory is unchecked-unproven. The formalism comes
in terms of fields and assemblies made of fields. These objects are set to be independent from space-time notions,
and for self-consistent operations in a properly defined logical space. A quantum structure is embedded from
the start. Its practice is straight as it bases on two now-next states for which the transition actualizes a minimal
bit of action, say one Planck constant.
The method is general and leads to two papers covering: P1) A first family-domain of objects formalized as λ-
grains, whose set of parameters includes size, mass, energy, momentum, relative velocity, time scale, and time
dilation. P2) A second family-domain of reverse-twinned objects, formalized as σ-cells, which are assumed to
describe-correlate gravitational effects and parameters like force-acceleration, potential energy, size of black
holes, and time dilation. In both families, any individual object obeys first a fixed action principle and then,
depending on the physical situation, adjusts-regulates its set of parameters accordingly.
This first paper P1: Sets the notion-definition of regulation fields and their logic-mathematics. Introduces the
inherent-proper structure of a λ-grain. Postulates a correlation with the relativistic structure describing the grain
when it travels at a constant speed. Exemplifies the outcomes in terms of energy-momentum equation, time
dilation, and de Broglie relation.
The term regulation or structural field reflects the scope and limits of the method. The demonstration purpose
prevails but any passage highlights the underlying assumptions. Globally, the method considers the fixed action
as an a priori parent field and calculates its balance on a proper set of logical axes.
Keywords
Logic; Objects; Action; Quantum; Space; Time;
Author
Private. Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, via Vitalone Giandimartalo 18, 05100 Terni (TR), Italy.
Mail: luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it. Portable phone: + 39 334 9513644.
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7646-1255
Age: 59. Education: Nuclear Engineering. Work: Consultancy services for public funding in Industry. Personal
interests: Engineering and Science. Inherent limits of human notions-models. Speculation on physical reality.

P1 Theory of Regulation Fields Lambda-Domain FOOP-S-22-00045

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1 Theory of Regulation Fields Lambda-Domain FOOP-S-22-00045

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundations of Physics

Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain

Full Title: Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain

Article Type: Original Research

Keywords: Logic; Objects; Action; Quantum; Space; Time

Corresponding Author: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.

Corresponding Author Secondary

Corresponding Author's Institution: Private

Corresponding Author's Secondary

First Author: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, Dipl.-Ing.

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain

48 (6a) hL2 cos α cos α cos α

Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain – Draft 0, January 8th, 2022

Theory of Regulation Fields: λ-Domain (Paper 1 of 2)

You might also like