Auxilary Description of Objects and Relationships - Nicolini LGL

Auxiliary System to Describe Physical Objects and Relationships – Draft 0, October 14, 2017
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © October 2017
Auxiliary System to Describe Physical Objects and Relationships.
Table of contents:
0. Scope........................................................................................................................................................2
1. Describing regular massive objects and their geometric relationships......................................................2
1.1. Primary coding of objects via an elementary assembly A-C-B (Logic L1 and geometry G1)..............2
1.1.1. Introducing the tool and its operating principles...............................................................................3
1.1.2. YES-check mechanism (formal).......................................................................................................6
1.1.3. Operating features of model-time (formal).......................................................................................8
1.1.4. Containment effect and system-notions of energy (S=shared, P=presence, C=change)..................10
1.1.5. System-notion of unit load W1 and correlation m0c2 for A-C-B assemblies (formal)......................13
1.1.6. Digital coding and probabilistic reading of the model fields...........................................................15
1.2. Relational codings of massive bodies of the kind A-C-B...................................................................16
1.2.1. Relative velocity coding (length contraction and time dilation)......................................................16
1.2.2. Relative distance and gravity coding (maximum force on minimum radius)..................................21
1.2.2.1. Practical reading of gravity coding and comparing with relative velocity..................................22
1.2.2.2. Key assumptions and passages leading to our auxiliary coding of gravity..................................26
2. Ongoing work on coding photons and electrons within the tool (EA-C-EB and C-C standards)..............36
2.1. Tentative auxiliary coding of model-electrons (logic L2 and geometry G2).......................................36
2.1.1. G1-G2 system-coordination and observing practically from G1 vs. G2 (formal)...........................39
2.1.2. Positional-criterion and mutual relationships of model-electrons in G1.........................................41
2.2. Tentative auxiliary codings of model-photons (geometry Gp)............................................................43
2.2.1. Primary coding of the model-photon (formal Gp-object and probabilistic reading)........................43
2.2.2. Relational coding of single photons on single paths (Gp-G1 system-link).....................................51
2.2.3. Relational coding of two photons on two distinct G1-paths (Gp self-consistency).........................53
2.2.4. Probability rules in general for photon-events within the tool........................................................54
2.2.5. Generalizing the C-D arrangement in a system-standard for linear moving (formal).....................55
3. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................55
1
Abstract
We propose a new formalism to describe physical objects and relationships basing on elementary
operators. We adopt an independent method for specific purposes, so the approach interfaces with
regular Physics but keeps beside it. We normally describe physical objects and relationships in
geometric terms, whilst here we focus on system-logics. Our model pictures are mostly qualitative
and aim at supporting established methods without disturbing them. We start in fact from the
assumption that all we know from modern Physics is fundamentally correct. In addition, this
proposal is part of unfinished work and qualifies unchecked and unproven. The novelty consists of a
few standard schemes that seem to be common to most current physical situations. This
introductory work shows how to apply practically the idea to relative velocity, gravity, electric
charges and probabilistic behavior of light.
0. Scope
We propose an independent formal tool to describe physical objects and relationships in terms of
elementary logics. This intends to support their regular description and geometric framing, with no
changes required in established working methods. The novelty comes from a few standard schemes
that base on elementary operators and seem to cover most current physical situations. Below, we
will illustrate their practical application to relative velocity, gravity, electric charges and
probabilistic behavior of light.
The model picture that we draw at this stage is mostly qualitative, and the whole proposal
qualifies unchecked and unproven. More properly, it necessarily interfaces with regular Physics but
classifies as an independent method with different aims. We fundamentally focus on system-logics
and set the tool to support established methods without disturbing them. In fact, we derive our
auxiliary tool from assuming that all we know from modern Physics is fundamentally correct.
Within these very narrow limits, the tool seems nonetheless to fit with many of the key
conclusions of modern Physics. It therefore configures as a standard nongeometric description that
we explicitly devote to a few conceptual aspects of fundamental Physics. The topic is too ample for
a single paper. Moreover, we warn that some of the formal concepts that we propose seem at first
unfamiliar. We thus present a very quick and intuitive introduction, whose prime goal is to show
how the idea works practically.
1. Describing regular massive objects and their geometric relationships
1.1. Primary coding of objects via an elementary assembly A-C-B (Logic L1 and geometry G1)
We regard Nature as a system of physical objects and physical relationships, so we choose a

describing tool consisting of three poles and three relationships working together. Our poles are not
geometric items by themselves, but we will refer to them when comparing objects and calculating
relationships.
We start our method by the formal assembly of Fig. 1: this is a first kind of configuration that we
denote A-C-B and apply in general to regular massive objects. In Section 2, we will derive other
key configurations to track other kinds of objects, namely unit charges and model-photons.
Our description comes in terms of primary codings of the objects and relational codings of their
mutual relationship. We can regard the coding as an auxiliary standardization to supplement our
2
regular geometric picture of objects. This produces a list of formal instructions that we will next
apply to describe objects of a given kind and within a given physical situation.
We present first a quick overview of formalism with its auxiliary notations in Subsection 1.1.1,
and then we devote the remaining five subsections to highlight its unusual features. For the rest, we
adopt SI units and current concepts and notations.
Our first task is to show how to handle formally our massive proper objects, next we will switch to
their relational codings in Subsection 1.2. This quick-introduction pattern will then repeat for
model-charges and model-photons in Section 2.
We work by formal observers (generally our poles), and take explicitly their formal point-of-view
(PV). Our approach allows al PVs provided they keep consistent in the system. We also extend this
notion and consider for instance the PVs of system or of a given geometry instead of another.
1.1.1. Introducing the tool and its operating principles
Fig. 1.a sets our working tool in its base configuration (formal). On top, we draw two opposite
poles A and B with their main relationship RG1, and a central pole C with two left-right relationships
RL and RR that points to A and B respectively.
The sketch illustrates the key logics by which we work, and it is nongeometric by itself: all our
sketches are out of scale and are unusual also because they condense two or more PVs at once.
Poles A and B are in a complete NOT-relationship (100%-weight in the system). They are always
contextual, so they make the AND-part of our formal object (their main relationship RG1 is two-
way, i.e. AB and AB).
As a general rule, we associate the AND-part of the assembly with geometry and geometric
parameters of our objects (formal). Our base-configuration A-C-B refers to a first kind of logic-
geometry that qualifies linear (L1-G1). We will use it to describe and compare massive objects.
In Section 2, we will derive a second configuration that we will associate with a rotational logic-
geometry (L2-G2). Geometry G2 will be part of our description of model-charges and model-
photons.
The A-C-B configuration makes a first linear scheme for us to operate within the tool both on
massive bodies and on their mutual relationships. Subsection 1.2 extends such an auxiliary
description to relative velocity and gravity situations in terms of two A-C-B objects relating to one
another.
Our auxiliary objects of the kind A-C-B consist of a local and nonlocal part (formal). Fig. 1.a
shows on bottom the schematic of the object: we generally draw the local on the left and the
nonlocal on the right.
As a general modeling-support (intermediate sketch of Fig 1.a), we visualize our poles as states of
the h (formal), where h is the Planck constant [J∙s]. In this introductory paper, we will deal with ½ h
and 1 h states only.
Within the particular A-C-B configuration, we work by ½ h and ½ h in A and B, and associate
those two opposite-states respectively with (formal): a wide-shut state of geometry G1 (A=P0); and
a wide-open state of geometry G1 (B=P∞).
Our convention is thus to set a regular geometric point in A=P0, and to identify pole B=P∞ with
regular geometric infinity (formal). It is intuitive that the A=P0 is individual of any formal object
and that the B=P∞ is also, but all B=P∞ of our A-C-B assemblies are common because G1 has no
alternatives for geometric infinity.
Operatively, our poles A-B work as an inherent pair (AND-logic), and set the maximum possible
range of linear geometry and linear scales (G1-context). We stress that our tool does not give
further specifications, so G1-geomety does not contain the notions of angles and directions.
3
As a result, we fundamentally define an A-C-B object as a straight geometric-field going from a

regular point to geometric infinity (sketch of Fig. 1.b). The direction of that field stays unknown to
the system but it remains nonetheless a possible option (formal). This gives the object and our G1-
geometry an inherent spherical symmetry, that we should however consider probabilistic regarding
the direction (more details in Subsection 1.1.6).
The A=P0 state is completely shut by definition, and the B=P∞ state is completely open. It is
intuitive that the local core of an A-C-B object makes an inner slab in the system, whilst the
nonlocal part corresponds to an outer slab.
Fig. 1.d provides another schematic of the A-C-B object (more properly of its G1-geometry),
which helps us to form a quick appreciation of the model picture in 3D. This mental process
corresponds to map-back the tool in regular geometry and regular viewing of objects.
We assume that an object of the kind A-C-B always keeps its inherent symmetry into the system:
½ h and ½ h system-weight respectively in the local and in the nonlocal (formal). Nevertheless, its
geometric size floats as usual for the description to cover all possible ranges of physical dimensions
(namely from zero to infinity).
We therefore use a regular scale λ0 [m] in the local (corresponding to the notion of proper size of
an object), and an auxiliary quoting σ0 [1/m = inverse-meters] in the nonlocal, where σ0 =1/λ0
(details in Subsection 1.1.4). Poles remain in any case our reference to code and compare our
formal objects.
We stress that we are here on the level of our primary coding of objects, which means allocating
an object of a given kind with fixed properties and parameters (notion of proper object). Once we
assume to have such an object in the system, we apply regular conservation as usual.
Our second-level relational codings always imply that the primary coding of the objects involved
in a relationship stay fixed (proper configuration and parameters do not vary). Then, we derive the
relative parameters by just taking the PV of another formal observer who is NOT the primary
object.
We also associate our objects with a nominal pointing P that we define as a concrete and self-
standing direction in the system (formal, not a geometric vector). The system-pointings express
relationships, mostly like poles express the nodes of our assemblies.
As an example, in Fig. 1.a we consider that the two-way pointing RG1 is one single A-B
relationship, so it weighs 100% (1 h). Conversely, the two left-right pointings RL and RR make two
distinct C-A and C-B relationships, so they weigh 50% each (½ h).
Our notion of system-weight fundamentally concerns the fraction of h involved (formal), so we
apply it equally even if RG1 is AND-type whilst RL and RR are OR-type. The system-pointings and
the relationships amongst pointings will be an important part of our auxiliary descriptions of electric
charges and model-photons (Section 2).
By the mid-level sketch of Fig. 1.a, we emphasize a very particular modeling feature that we
define as YES-check mechanism: namely a regular exchange of two end-poles by a given model-
frequency (formal). We intend here some abstract nongeometric process that we introduce uniquely
to support our describing tool.
The YES-check artifice gives our objects an internal proper dynamic, with which we associate a
primary model-frequency ν0 [1/s] and a primary time-scale τ0 [s] (formal). We adopt a straight
correlation τ0 = 1/ν0, but by the model, we tend to regard the YES-check mechanism and its ν0 as an
inherent drive of the change.
Next Subsections 1.1.2 to 1.1.5 will explain the practical reasons for including such an unusual
component in our description of regular massive objects. In short, we look for a closer
standardization of formal objects of any kind, and possibly for some common mechanisms to code
4
our model- photons. Next Subsection 1.1.2 will also illustrate why we associate this sub-block of
the assembly with the OR-part of the object and with our time-like parameters ν0 and τ0 (formal).
Intuitively, we can compare for instance the model YES-check with a notion that we find
commonly in reliability of safety system. Those systems require regular maintenance and testing
upon a planned frequency to keep reliable, but during that time they are unavailable and this works
against reliability. We thus have a pragmatic situation where the operations of the system are
inherently discontinuous, and in facts accommodate for the two conflicting logics of being reliable
and of maintaining regularly.
This quick introduction cannot end without alerting about another very particular point of
formalism: just because of the way that we set our A-C-B assembly, we always have a fixed ratio
[m/s] between our local scale λ0 and our time-scale τ0 (formal). This has no special meaning by
itself, but we want to exploit our assembly as a describing tool for physical items, so it is natural to
associate our formal constant ratio with the speed of light c [m/s].
The reason to claim for such a constant system-ratio (nongeometric notion of model-c) is that in
Fig. 1.a, we associate the object time-scale (or more properly our auxiliary parameter ½ τ0) with the
half-weight left-right relationships RL and RR of a whatsoever A-C-B assembly. Its local scale (or
more properly our auxiliary parameter λ0) corresponds in turn to one-half of the full-weight main
relationship RG1 between poles A and B
Intuitively, ½ RG1 weighs in the system as much as RL or RR, and next Subsections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3
will provide more details on such a modeling artifice. For the moment, we emphasize that in the
schematic on bottom of Fig. 1.a, the three-pole construction and its fixed ½ h balance make our
standard for A-C-B objects (G1-geometry context).
In such a nongeometric sketch, the λ0 [m] and the ½ τ0 [s] are not homogeneous (AND vs. OR
logics), but they are fundamentally embedded into one another (formal). Moreover, using ½ τ0 is
our convention and it is irrelevant in the context, so the two geometric and time-like scales stay
always linked in the system and maintain proportional. For the rest, our nongeometric model-c
defines regularly as λ0/τ0 [m/s].
The details of our nongeometric c-constant ratio rely on the YES-check mechanism that we will
enter by next Subsection 1.1.2. We also anticipate that when setting the primary photon coding in
Subsection 2.2.1, we will adopt the same describing strategy and modeling mechanism (formal).
There, our YES-check artifice will just reverse logically in a NOT-check scheme (fundamentally
same modeling mechanism and properties), so we will maintain the same nongeometric notion of
model-c and the same constant ratio of scales in our model-photons also.
Again, we stress that this basic property of the tool has no special meaning in itself, and comes
instead from the approach we take in describing the objects, as well as from the several a priori we
have in our coding of Fig. 1.a. In addition, model-c is in itself totally unrelated to the speed of light,
so associating it to the true speed of light is just matter of a practical choice.
5
Fig. 1. Introducing our working tool in its firs configuration of an A-C-B assembly.
1.1.2. YES-check mechanism (formal)
We want our poles A and B to be distinct (which implies a NOT-relationship), but to relate also
(which implies a YES-relationship). As a general rule, we keep apart the YES- and NOT-logic, so
we need to work by a special modeling artifice.
We define in general the YES-check mechanism as an abrupt mutual exchange of two poles of the
same kind (formal). To illustrate the idea, we can take the example of Fig. 1.a (mid-level sketch).
First, we assume that at a very fundamental level, the system cannot discriminate two identical ½ h
states by themselves (or two identical h states in general). When we next claim for two distinct A
and B poles, we implicitly rely on some additional positional-criterion (self-consistency of the tool),
which in turn implies some kind of geometric distinction (e.g. the linear one we exploit in an A-C-B
assembly or the one we will hereinafter associate with our second logic-geometry L2-G2).
In this case, geometry is G1 and we have a first case of identical h-states that distinguish through
model geometry (general notion of positional-criterion). The opposite-position of poles A and B
means that the left ½ h takes a wide-shut geometry, whilst the right ½ h takes a wide-open geometry
(distinguishing-criterion pertaining to L1-G1). The two ½ h make by evidence a same system-item,
but our positional-criterion maintains them in a permanent 100% NOT. This reflects in an infinite
distance between our poles A=P0 and B=P∞.
If we now want to claim that the two ½ h nevertheless entertain a relationship, we must introduce
a compatible YES-logic next to this constant and dominant NOT (self-consistency of the tool). We
thus adopt the idea of a discontinuous exchange of some concrete item between any two identical
6
but opposite poles. This gives our formal objects an internal dynamic, which reflects in their
primary or proper frequency ν0.
However, our auxiliary tool contains no a priori beyond the ones we specify in Fig. 1.a, and
fundamentally we start our formal object from two ½ h only. Therefore, the only modeling option
we have is that our two poles A and B relate to one another by auto-shooting themselves
periodically toward the partner, which is our nongeometric notion of poles exchange (formal). This
works only if the exchange of the two ½ h is mutual and contextual, i.e. with pole A shooting its
partner B whilst pole B shoots A itself (we take here explicitly the individual PV of the two h-states
that make the pair, whilst the mutual exchange and its model-frequency ν0 is a common property of
the pair itself).
We visualize this modeling mechanism as a YES-check by the system (formal): fundamentally, it
allows maintaining a spot-YES and a concrete relationship between poles A and B in spite of their
permanent NOT. In this example (linear logic L1), we must conclude that the two ½ h leave their
states-positions in A and B and shoot together the opposite-partner (illustrative only), so they
necessarily cross in the middle and join in a temporary ½ + ½ = 1 h state (our central pole C).
Fig. 1.c provides a detail taking the PV of pole C = 1 h when it forms. Our model YES-check is a
dynamic process, so that C subsist ideally in a flash, and sees itself as an integer 1 h that is splitting
and shooting A and B opposite side (illustrative only). That is why we can claim (self-consistency)
that the two ½ h in A and B take two geometrically-opposite states there, as if they were ideally a +
½ h and a – ½ h states with regard to pole C. The sign is indeed conventional and meaningless by
itself, but intuitively it reflects our model picture by the eyes of C (we thus play in the tool the
individual PVs of our central-pole and of both end-poles, as well as the PV of system that ideally
surveys the triplet).
We also have that when central C splits-and-shoots, the two geometric-states of ½ h in A and B
are not there, but they will form in a while. That is why we associate our YES-check both with the
OR-part of the object (either the geometric state ± ½ h in A and B, or the central 1h state in C) and
with its inherent time-scale τ0 (inverse of the YES-check frequency ν0).
Conversely, the A and the B come always together (± ½ h states), so they make the AND-part of
the object and we associate them with geometry (geometric scales λ0 and σ0 = 1/λ0). In any case, this
mechanism and its model picture concern the bare logic of the object (formal), and do not imply
neither relate to the usual categories of trajectories in space or geometric pats.
In addition (formal), we have that when our two poles A and the B occupy their permanent state-
position into the object geometry, by evidence they do not shoot; and when they do, they cannot
fulfil their role of being in place (system cannot define object geometry). In this model, the
relational-shooting between poles must therefore come in a pause of the model picture we draw
when the two are in place (self-consistency of the tool).
Our objects, however, define exclusively through the poles, so when we lack the correct A-C-B
arrangement, we cannot define model-time neither. Therefore, we must come to the unusual
conclusion that the model-shooting is a different category than human-time and human-geometry.
To simplify (illustrative only), we may figure out this YES-check mechanism as if it were occurring
in a separate extra-time of the model itself: the idea remains barely formal, and more properly we
refer to the particular model-time and model-geometry (or model-space) that we define operatively
within this tool.
Our auxiliary description of primary objects thus proceeds by sharp model-paces and discrete
time-states of their configuration (see specifically next Subsection 1.1.3 for model-time and Fig.
2.a). Connections with regular geometry and regular time will come downstream, and specifically
as part of the relational codings of the objects themselves (see Subsection 1.2 for relative velocity
and relative distance of regular bodies). This same modeling approach will next substantially repeat
for electric charges and model photons in Section 2.
7
Our YES-check mechanism remains thus barely formal and do not fit with usual categories of
time and space. The point is that we define differently the model-time and model-geometry, so this
abstract and abrupt exchange of h-states stays logically apart and does not violate the speed of light.
As such, the idea holds independently of the distance we may have in the model, and in fact it
remains affordable even in the case of an A-C-B assembly, where the geometric span between A=P0
and B=P∞ is infinite by definition.
In any case, our YES-check represents no more than a particular modeling artifice. Secondarily, it
plainly relates, still in terms of system-logics, to just the particular way that we choose for
describing the inherent change of our objects (formal). Conversely, the idea that it could associate
with some concrete moving of poles or of the object itself, would induce a self-nonsense condition
into the tool (logical conflict with the primary definition of objects that the tool itself contains).
The example that we have just seen implies a linear-type exchange, so it refers specifically to our
first logic L1 and ensuing geometry G1. Nevertheless, the positional-criterion and our intuitive
shooting-picture apply to any kind of model-object, so we will assume it to operate also in our
model-charges and model-photons (Section 2).
This introductory paper limits to the more elementary configurations of our auxiliary assemblies.
Within this model-frame, we assume that the system configures the massive objects by a permanent
AND-part (two contextual and opposite poles making their geometry), and a logically separated
OR-part (YES-check mechanism driving their inner dynamic and primary settings).
We will see for instance that in our auxiliary coding of model-photons (Subsection 2.2.1), the
END-part becomes inactive and this object appears to have no geometry, which also means to have
no model-mass into the system (formal). At the same time, we will infer that the OR-part
nevertheless survives, so our model-shot reads there as an h-state displacement, which in turn
produces inherent moving and pace-to-pace momentum transfer.
Our model-photon thus remains a concrete entity, but we will see that its logic reverses, so it
behaves as a cast-object with regard to our regular geometry G1 (illustrative only). In a model-
photon (formal), we will just need to call NOT-check instead of YES-check the one that
fundamentally remains the same driving mechanism (logical reverse of the object configuration and
inherent dynamics with regard to our A-C-B standard).
Moreover, we will use extensively our conceptualization of the YES-check also in the relational
codings for relative velocity and distance-gravity (Subsection 1.2). As such, it is worth to resume its
very trivial meaning into the specific frame of this auxiliary tool: the system cannot distinguish two
identical h-states on its own, so it uses a positional-criterion where the two shoot each other to
distinguish and relate at once (illustrative only).
In this play, the act of shooting is by itself a NOT, in such it implies two distinct and opposite
players. At the same time, the shot qualify as a concrete connection, so it expresses also the YES
that makes the relationship between the two players. Operatively, we refer to a couple of poles and
may visualize them as a pair of equal h-states.
In fact, our YES-NOT logic of relationships is not so far from the one we have in real life. Here,
we just apply it strictly to a formal context were an elementary system needs to manage two
identical items with no other resources available than the items themselves. Should then the
relationship imply some concrete exchange, only those two items could help; and contextually, they
emerge as two distinct items just because of the exchange.
1.1.3. Operating features of model-time (formal)
Choosing to adopt the YES-check artifice has a direct consequence on how we can conceive
model-time. Fig. 2.a illustrates the situation for our starting A-C-B assembly (formal). A same
configuration repeats and reverses logically once per half-time-pace (½ τ0). If we accept (self-
8
consistency) that the two A and B states are objectively different (± ½ h making respectively our P0
and P∞ references), this implies a regular repointing of the object (sketched as P1, P2, P3 and so on).
The system-appreciation of time is thus recursive (Fig. 2.a-right), and consists of only two states
of the A-C-B assembly, which keep separated by half-a-time-scale. We recover the usual notion of
time by just counting those states one by one, and then adding up their durations of ½ τ0 seconds.
By convention, we count one full time-scale τ0 when the pointing of the object repoints twice and
gets back in place (two model-paces of ½ τ0 seconds).
It is next intuitive that the overall progress of time in an assembly whatsoever writes τ0 ∙ ν0, which
makes 1 by definition (formal). Therefore, all massive assemblies of the kind A-C-B stay
synchronous for what concern their proper model-time (primary coding). Time-dilation effects will
emerge downstream, i.e. in our relational codings for massive bodies as of Subsection 1.2 (relative
velocity and distance-gravity situations).
We also note that the pointing of an A-C-B assembly is mostly relational (second-order effect).
Our primary object actually contains two opposite and fundamentally equivalent directions, i.e.
P0P∞ and P0P∞. As such, we cannot think in principle of a proper A-C-B assembly possessing a
different primary direction from another one (self-nonsense within the tool).
Operatively, we regard geometry G1 and the assemblies of the kind A-C-B as a context where the
system in itself has just one logical option for directions: either way does not matter, so system
would not truly distinguish (formal). In subsection 2.1, we will propose that the primary coding of
electric charges pertains to a second geometry G2, where objects are still made of poles and inner-
relationships but configure differently.
There, the system do has two distinct logical options that are very sharp, regarding the possible
inherent direction of a G2-object. Therefore, we can have pairs of primary G2-objects that are
identical in principle except for one model-parameter. It is next intuitive to associate that G2-
context and that particular extra-parameter with our conceptualization of the electric charge within
the tool (formal). This allows for instance visualizing intuitively the electron-positron pair that we
know to subsist in real life also.
We also anticipate that the linear-type logic-geometry by which we define our starting A-C-B
assembly (L1-G1 context), does not contain the notion of rotation. Conversely, the independent
logic-geometry L2-G2 that we will introduce hereinafter (formal), fundamentally qualifies angular-
rotational and disregards the linear concepts and mechanism that we find in G1-geometry. If we
than take the PV of G2-geometry and assume that the model-pointing is an abstract direction by
itself, we can read the regular repointing of an A-C-B object also as one-half revolution = π in G2
(note on bottom of Sketch 2.a).
9
Fig. 2: Key properties of our first-kind assembly A-C-B and of geometry G1 in general.
1.1.4. Containment effect and system-notions of energy (S=shared, P=presence, C=change)
Our descriptive assembly founds on a dynamic equilibrium (formal), where the two competing
effects come from the NOT- and the YES-relationship between poles A and B. This implies an
elementary balance that we visualize intuitively as a sort of tie-rod effect within the object
(illustrative sketch of Fig. 2.b). Another very particular system-notion (formal) associates with the
equivalent of a trivial chain of regulation that we induce by our settings, so we describe it in terms
of a primary containment effect (illustrative sketch of Fig. 2.c).
Both modeling artifices concern the A-C-B configuration, and for the rest they come from just the
way that we decide to describe our objects (no special meaning in themselves). Nevertheless, we
illustrate the idea in terms of primary object dynamic and ensuing correlations with the proper
model-parameters of the object itself (formal). We thus derive a few system-notions that we will
hereinafter generalize to other configurations (see primary codings of model-electron and model-
photon in Section 2).
10
In addition, we note that we work here on the primary instructions that describe and allocate
individual assemblies to the system (notion of proper objects). The primary concepts that we set in
this illustrative Subsection fundamentally concern poles and their inner relationships within the
formal object. Nevertheless, we also regard them as a general standard for system-relationships, so
we will apply concretely these same system-notions in our examples regarding model-interactions
like gravity, electric forces, or even model-amplitudes of elementary photon-events.
For the rest, we emphasize that our formal primary coding of objects contains nothing that really
moves as we normally mean, and even our YES-check artifice makes a different extra-model
category whose logic stays on its own (Subsection 1.1.2). Below, we do not refer to the actual
geometric speed of light, but uniquel to our nongeometric model-c in terms of a straight
proportioning ratio between the model-scales.
As there is a fixed ratio c [m/s] between our local scale λ0 [m] and our time-scale τ0 [s]
(nongeometric notion of model-c), we can think of a simple correlation λ0 = c/ν0, where ν0 expresses
the frequency of the YES-check. We may regard it as the intensity of the relationship between our
poles A and B (formal): the more the two bond and interact together, the higher is the frequency and
the energy of the YES-check, and the shorter becomes our local scale λ0, which also means a
massive object of the kind A-C-B much concentrated in the local.
This summarizes the idea (illustrative only) of a containment effect that is inherent in the YES-
check mechanism and in our construction of model-objects obeying the A-C-B standard (see Fig.
2.c and comments in the sketch).
More in general, we adopt the system-notion of shared-energy S [J], which applies both to poles
(primary codings), and to formal objects when they interact with one another (relational codings).
Intuitively, our notion of shared energy also corresponds to the current category of potential.
We next define the system-tension T [N] as the ratio of shared-energy to common-scale, as if our
assembly where a concrete tie-rod system where the YES and the NOT counterbalance each other
(see Fig. 2.b and comments in the sketch).
The system-tension makes the equivalent of the notion of force in a linear context (geometry G1),
but it extends immediately to the notion of torque in an angular context (geometry G2).
Still in general, we emphasize that the shared-energy S is a common parameter of a couple, whilst
the tension T expresses the two individual PVs of the two items that play in that same couple (e.g.
two poles or two concrete objects).
By their nature, our elementary system-tensions, as well as their homolog forces or torques in
regular space, will always make a pair and will balance one another. Operatively, their sign or
direction is always opposite as they come from two distinct PVs that are in a geometric-NOT.
A first-beginner example comes from poles A and B in our primary assembly of Fig. 1.a.
Nonetheless, we can retain practically that the same logic applies to any two interacting objects of
whatsoever kind, as they classify in a mutual geometric-NOT just because they are two and in two
distinct positions.
All these notions are in fact relational, and the modeling ideas of shared-energy and of system-
tension (formal) comes from noting but the internal relativism that we include in our describing tool
from the start.
By the comments on bottom of Fig. 2.d (compare also with the schematic of geometry G1 in Fig.
1.d), we also distinguish two forms of primary shared-energy S0 (formal), which relate respectively
to geometry-mass (E0P = m0∙c2), and to our model-shootings between poles (E0C = h ∙ ν0).
We assume that the first corresponds to the fixed NOT-part of the object, and thus to the
permanent presence of its geometry in the system (formal). The second reflects some presumed
inherent change of the object (OR-component) that we force ourselves in the tool via the regular
YES-check of poles upon a given model frequency ν0 (fundamentally a pragmatic modeling-
artifice).
11
If we choose such a framing of model-energies, we have to consider that our object of Fig. 1.a
contains nothing but the poles and their relationships (self-consistency of the tool), so in a way or
another those system-energies must be a same amount (more details by Subsection 1.1.5).
That is why we assume that within our formal objects (notion of proper parameters and proper
energy), the energy of presence E0P and the energy of change E0C just make two distinct forms
dating back to our two logical components of the objects (formal). For the rest, the tool and the
objects themselves have no other external resources, so our two system-energies must correspond to
one another and remain equivalent.
They both, in turn, must fit also our notion of shared-energy. Intuitively, we may say that shared-
energy S0 expresses the individual PVs of poles A-B in the couple, change-energy E0C reflects the
PV of system or of pole C that see ideally the couple to exchange, and presence-energy E0P comes
from the abstract PV of geometry G1 that quotes the system-weight of the object also in terms of its
model-mass. Operatively (balance of a closed formal object), we have in any case: S0 = E0C = E0P.
Our formal description does not make a profound distinction between the model-mass and the
object geometry (self-consistency of the tool). As a general rule, we assume that model-mass m0
[kg] expresses the system-weight of the overall geometry of an object. The example that we sketch
in Fig. 1.d refers to an A-C-B configuration, and thus to a G1-geometry context. Nevertheless, we
will apply in general this notion of model-mass as a quoting of geometry by the system (formal),
and specifically we will extend it to our second geometry G2 also (Subsection 2.1).
Conversely, the idea of such a mass-weight of the elementary objects does not apply to our model-
photons. As we will see, they do not possess AND-type geometry (formal), so in that particular
case, system fundamentally classifies them as no-geometry = no-mass objects (Subsection 2.2).
For the specific case of G1-geometry within the A-C-B standard (Figs. 1.d and 2.b-c), we
intuitively associate the mass-weight with the degree that the object concentrates toward the local
(illustrative only). By our model-picture (formal), the primary object fundamentally contains a
single shared-energy S0 either in the form E0P or E0C, so upon recalling their expressions above, we
correlate immediately the model-mass with the local-scale: m0 = (h/c) ∙ 1/λ0.
The model-energy that we associate with the geometric presence of the object in the system, or
more precisely in G1, for the rest writes as usual (i.e. E0P = m0∙c2), so we derive immediately: E0P =
(h∙c)∙ 1/λ0.
We thus have (formal) that both the model-mass m0 and the presence-energy E0P are large when
the YES-check is intense (large ν0), as it contextually implies that the A-C-B object is much
confined in the local (small λ0 via the nongeometric model-correlation λ0 = c/ν0). This also
associates with an intense share of energy S0 between geometric poles A-B, so intuitively we may
say that when the λ0-parameter shrinks, our poles bond more and interact strongly together, which
in turn leads to the idea that the object geometry and the model-mass weigh more to the eyes of the
system (formal).
Our change-energy writes E0C = h∙ν0, so it is intense also when the YES-check is intense (large ν0).
In fact, E0C is nothing but another form of shared-energy S0, so we derive immediately: E0C = (h∙c)∙
1/λ0 (i.e. same expression of E0P above since we require the two to be equivalent from the start).
System-tension is shared-energy on local scale, so within the primary A-C-B object it is inverse-
quadratic with λ0. We are still in the context of G1-geometry (Figs. 1.d and 2.b), so we can write: T0
= S0/λ0 = (h∙c)∙ 1/λ02 [N], where system-S0 corresponds to both E0C and E0P.
Upon recalling that we only refer to our model-c and definitely do not work by regular geometry,
we summarize in Fig. 2.c the model picture, and specifically the visualization-tool that we call
primary containment effect (formal). An intense YES-check (downward arrow quoting ν0) does not
change the full NOT-opposition of poles A and B (separation of logics), so they remain our formal
P0-P∞ reference (i.e. an ideally infinite geometric span). Nonetheless, the A-C-B object condenses
12
toward the local and weighs more, both in terms of model-mass (more dense geometry), and in
terms of model-energy (more intense relational-exchange between poles).
We also note that the object keeps its local-nonlocal symmetry in the system (formal), whilst
ideally the actual nonlocal scale σ0 = 1/λ0 expands when λ0 shrinks to accommodate more model-
mass and energy in the nonlocal (Fig. 2.c-right). All our sketches reflect in fact an intuitive
picturing out of the object by the system (formal), so they are out of scale and may even seem
illogical with regard to regular geometry.
We stress that the modeling ideas and intuitive considerations we expose here attempt showing
how the tool works concretely. We mostly want to alert on which modeling mechanisms we play
just because of the way we shape our description of object. For the rest, our tool works as usual and
we assume that our primary coding allocates a fixed object of a given kind with fixed parameters
into the system. This first passage corresponds to regular conservation and to the usual notion of
proper parameters of an object.
The inherent modeling-features that we have just pointed out will help instead our intuitive
reading of the relational codings. In that case, we will keep apart the proper object and its primary
coding, and we will write a relational balance to derive its relative parameters with regard to
another observer. In this second passage too, we will use our poles as reference and formal
observing tool.
1.1.5. System-notion of unit load W1 and correlation m0c2 for A-C-B assemblies (formal)
We introduce now another system-notion that may help visualizing the interplay of our formal
model-parameters. Again, this is illustrative only and we do not think here of physical Reality, but
just of the model features that we induce in the tool by adopting a nongeometric description
(formal).
We mostly want to track, if any, common standards and system-instructions amongst different
kinds of physical objects. Therefore, we tend to generalize the well-known formulae for momentum
and energy of light, and specifically we do via our artifice of model-c = λ0/τ0 [m/s]. This comes in
terms of a logical-structural proportioning of our two model-scales λ0 [m] and τ0 [s] (nongeometric
property of the tool).
We focus for the moment on our A-C-B standard (linear L1-G1 context) and introduce the system-
notion of unit load W1 as the level of the h on the model-scale, i.e. W1g = h/λ0 for geometry
[kg∙(m/s)], and W1t = h/τ0 for model-time [J]. In this case, the two parameters correlate immediately
via the model-c: W1t = (model-c) ∙ W1g.
Operatively, we just need to multiply the geometric unit load by our model-c to obtain the system
unit load in model-time. It is next immediate to see that this last model-parameter, namely W1t =
h/τ0 = h∙ν0 also corresponds to our primary system-energy S0=E0C=E0C (Subsection 1.1.4).
Next to that, it is intuitive to see the YES-check as a mechanism that refreshes the model geometry
with a given frequency ν0, and thus once per τ0 seconds, where τ0 = 1/ν0. We may even read our
model-c as the amount of local geometry that the system refreshes any regular second during this
ideal YES-check cycle (illustrative only).
The whole remains indeed barely formal, but in the very end, we are taking here implicitly the PV
of system as if it were doing some work to maintain and refresh our A-C-B assembly (formal). This
in turn dates back (self-consistency) to just the way that we define the A-C-B standard itself (OR-
part and YES-check mechanism). Globally, such an ideal system-PV regarding the unit loads in
model-geometry and in model-time (W1g and W1t) is not so far from the idea of regular conservation
for the system and the individual object as a whole (illustrative only).
More properly, the idea of some refreshing of model-geometry comes almost automatically from
our choice of including an ever-changing component in our descriptive assemblies (formal,
13
nongeometric). In the ones of the kind A-C-B (Fig. 1.a), the refreshing rate of geometry is strictly
fixed as of model-c, and this holds for any massive-like object independently on its particular
individual parameters (formal).
We nevertheless have (Subsection 1.1.4) that when the YES-check is intense (large ν0 and small
τ0), the primary model-mass m0 and model-energy S0=E0C=E0C tend to be large (A-C-B standard). In
the linear context of our logic-geometry L1-G1, it is thus intuitive to express the geometric unit load
as the product of the fixed refreshing rate that is common to all our A-C-B objects (model-c) times
the model-parameter that quotes the particular system-weight of the G1-geometry of a particular A-
C-B assembly (model-mass): W1g = (model-c) ∙ m0.
If we then multiply again by model-c (still limited to the specific context of our A-C-B standard
and not in general for all formal objects), we obtain the system unit load in model-time that also
corresponds to model-energy: W1t = (model-c) ∙ W1g = (model-c)2 ∙ m0 (formal, nongeometric).
If we next decide (independent step downstream of tool) to associate model-c with the speed of
light for nothing but practical descriptive aims (see also subsection 2.2.1 for photon coding), we
result in reproducing the well-known expression E0 = m0∙c2 (formal, illustrative only).
On the other hand (self-consistency of the tool), we stress that we took for granted this same
expression when setting our model-E0P in Subsection 1.1.4. The argument then remains merely
illustrative, and mostly help visualizing practically the nongeometric model-dynamics by which we
operate on our model-objects (formal).
We also emphasize (self-consistency) that the passages above dates back to just the way that we
describe our formal objects and to the several a priori that we have in our scheme of Fig. 1.a. In
addition, we note that here we are trying to account for the inherent energy content of a primary
object (notions of proper energy and mass). The modeling context is therefore much different from
when we observe the formula in terms of an object that disassemble in energy of traveling
fragments and/or photons (relational context relative to some static observer).
In Subsection 2.1 (assemblies of the kind EA-C-EB as of Fig. 6.a), we will see that the standard we
propose for our second logic-geometry L2-G2 is much different from what we normally think of
regular geometry. Nevertheless, our system-notions of unit loads in geometry and in time seem to
hold in any case.
In particular, our working hypothesis will be that in G2 (electron coding), our model-geometry
fundamentally comes by fixed 2π-slabs, so the geometric scale there just writes 2π. Therefore, our
unit load W1g simply writes h/2π (instead of h/λ0) and dimensionally associates with angular
momentum [kg∙(m/s)∙m] (instead of the straight momentum we dimensionally have within the A-C-
B standard).
Formal objects in G2 (electron coding) will exploit the same YES-check artifice, so intuitively
they behave in the tool as unit rotors (more properly as encoders proceeding by π-repointings upon
the model-paces). There, we may actualize our idea of the refreshing rate of model-geometry
(formal) in terms of 2π (total G2-geometry in the object) times the YES-check frequency that in that
case we write νe (e = model-electron): 2π∙νe = 2π/τe.
This parameter makes thus the homolog of our model-c in G1 (our formal νe and τe are constant
too), and in G2 it expresses the total model-slabs that the system ideally refreshes per second
(formal). If we next multiply by the geometric unit load that applies in G2, we end in the same
system-notion of unit load in time that we have just seen for our linear G1-context: W1t = W1g ∙
(2π/τe) = (h/2π) ∙ (2π/τe) = h/τe.
This last G2-parameter corresponds to our system-expression of W1t and of change-energy E0C in
general. This system-notion is in fact transversal to geometry, so it associates with the usual notion
of energy independent on the configuration of our assembly. The idea and the trivial form h/τ0 for
model-energy thus holds in all our codings, including model-photons that fundamentally lack model
geometry in the sense we mean for other assemblies (details by Subsection 2.2.1).
14
More properly, our model-photons associate with a special reverse-logic and cast-geometry that
we denote Gp (p=photon). They specifically lack the AND-part (Fig. 7.a), so system cannot allocate
them a model-mass as it does for other kinds of assembles (formal). Nevertheless, model-photons
fundamentally keep on board the same refreshing-mechanism (more properly a NOT-check due to
the logical reverse of the object), so system indeed applies to them our general notion of unit loads
W1t and W1g (formal).
Therefore, we recover in the tool also the well-known formula for energy and momentum of light,
i.e.: E = h∙ν [J] and p=h/λ [kg∙m/s], where h is the Planck constant [J∙s], and ν [1/s] and λ [m] are
respectively the frequency and wavelength of light [1/s].
1.1.6. Digital coding and probabilistic reading of the model fields
We base our describing tool on two simple pairs of competing-complementary logics (YES-NOT
and AND-OR operators). We also care that our describing logics do not mix, so operatively they
keep neat and apart in all circumstances.
When we define our primary A-B arrangement, we implicitly prescribe two sharp ½ h to stay in A
and in B (note for instance their point-like drawing in our sketches). Our assembly thus founds on a
digital coding that makes its primary frame. We consider that this applies to the whole, and
specifically to the pair A-B. If we want, this reflects the certainty of geometry and corresponds to
the commonly accepted idea that a given physical object is positively there in the World.
If we now take the individual PV of either A or B, we must account for the inherent separation of
our logics, and for the fact that any two item in a NOT fundamentally cannot relate to one another.
Our YES-check artifice provides a concrete link, but we cannot presume that this compensates
completely the NOT-status of our A-B pair.
Intuitively, we may say that both A and B know to be related to their opposite-partner (YES-check
mechanism), but they do not know (and the system neither) which relationship do they have exactly
with the partner (formal). This gives our assembly a probabilistic reading also, where it is natural to
assume a uniform distribution throughout the model geometry (e.g. the two elementary slabs λ0 and
σ0 of an A-C-B object).
In the eyes of system (and specifically when we take the PV of either A or B), the same ½ h that
makes the geometric frame of the assembly (sharp coding of its A-B ends), spreads in a
probabilistic continuum that we associate with the concrete geometric relationship between poles A
and B (illustrative only). This in turn corresponds to our modeling convention that both half-
geometries of an A-C-B object (G1 context) always maintain an inherent system-weight of ½ h (or
50%), both in the local- and in in the nonlocal-part of the object itself (formal).
The example concerns the A-C-B configuration and the ensuing G1-geometry, but we will assume
and apply this modeling criterion also to other configurations and kinds of objects. The probabilistic
reading of the tool becomes more evident when handling the relational codings (e.g. Subsection
1.2.2 for distance-gravity). In Subsection 2.2, we will then see that the probabilistic reading
becomes a very important component of our formal description and relational codings of model-
photons.
Globally, we think of a possible probabilistic reading since we set the primary coding of our first-
kind assembly (Fig. 1.a). By our model-picture, the internal relativism seems to produce a
geometric continuum even if the system prescribes a digital framing of the whole in the form of two
neat opposite-poles A and B (± ½ h states).
More in general, we consider facing probability when the system has more than one option but no
precise instruction on which one to apply (formal). Probability is inherent in the tool, and
specifically in our position of separating the working logics of our formal objects.
15
Intuitively, our sense of probability comes from some missing coding that allows additional
degrees of freedom into the system. As the system does not know of those extra-options via some
explicit codings (formal), it can neither prevent them neither know which one will actualize
(provided the whole keep consistent and aligned with the ongoing physical situation).
Our operative notion of probability is thus the one of a system-illiteracy on some options that the
system itself nevertheless allows (formal).
We mentioned a first example in Subsection 1.1.1, when referring to the 3D model picture of an
A-C-B assembly (Fig. 1.b). The G1-coding does not include directions, so the actual orientation of a
bare G1-field remains undetermined and probabilistic by itself (inherent spherical distribution of
G1-geometry and G1-objects). On the other hand, having a given orientation does not conflict with
other codings or system requirements, so it remains a viable option and all directions are equally
probable (formal).
A second example is the one we have just mentioned, i.e. the geometric-spread of the ½ h that we
assume to occur within the assembly due to its inherent inner-relativism (formal). Below, we will
see other examples of a probabilistic description, especially when entering relational codings. In
any case, this does not implies that a given situation is probabilistic in itself, but only that we are
reading probabilistically the tool.
We can conclude in general that our auxiliary tool contains a deterministic part (which intuitively
corresponds to some digital framing of our formal objects), and a probabilistic reading (that we
mostly associate with the way that we conceive and operate separately our describing logics).
This resembles for instance the idea of an orbital: its internal details remain probabilistic, but the
orbital as a whole is always neat and reproducible by regular calculations. The notion of an orbital
is thus deterministic on its own, so we can think intuitively of a fixed frame where probability
fundamentally can play freely, but nonetheless our probabilistic equations prescribe the options that
we may or cannot have into the orbital.
Similarly, a deterministic coding and a probabilistic reading plainly co-exist within our auxiliary
tool.
1.2. Relational codings of massive bodies of the kind A-C-B
We compare objects two-by-two (same kind), and use poles both as reference and as formal
observing point (PV). Due to the way that we set our describing tool for massive objects (A-C-B
coding), we only have two options to compare them, i.e. either in a relational-YES or in a
relational-NOT.
Below, we will see that those two schemes (relational codings for two-object assemblies) fit to
describe relative velocity and relative distance respectively (formal). We also assume that in a two-
object assembly, the system forms and calculates a NOT-part, (to which the formal observer does
not relate), and a YES-part (that makes the concrete relationship and the formal item to which the
observer relates).
1.2.1. Relative velocity coding (length contraction and time dilation)
From special relativity, we know three outstanding effects of relative velocity: length contraction
by a factor of √ (1 – β2); time dilation by a factor of 1/√ (1 – β2); energy-mass increase by a factor of
1/√ (1 – β2). The key parameter is β = v/c, that we will read below in terms of a dimensionless
fraction of the speed of light and of our model-c (formal). We also note that the factor for time
dilation and mass increase is the same, and it is the inverse of the one for length contraction. For the
rest, we adopt SI units and usual notations; v is the actual velocity of a massive body relative to a
massive observer [m/s].
16
Fig. 3.a illustrates our auxiliary coding for relative velocity (formal). There, we assume that two
massive bodies take the form A1-C1-B1 and A2-C2-B2 in the system, and then compare each other
through a YES-relationship (see also Chart Legend). They thus start in a 100% YES when static
(horizontal axis), and tend ideally to a limiting condition C* (vertical axis) by folding with regard to
one another as A1v-C1-B1v and A2v-C2-B2v.
Such an auxiliary chart is nongeometric and condenses two contextual system PVs. Nevertheless,
we assume that our drive for relative folding with regard to either system-observer 1 or 2 (left) is
the regular β = v/c (right arrows), where v is the regular relative velocity [m/s] and c is the speed of
light [m/s]. Both v and β are common parameters of the couple of objects (more properly of their
mutual assembling in a YES), so the auxiliary tool results in a symmetric butterfly-scheme: same v-
β values in principle, and thus identical system-drive for both observers.
As such, C* makes an ideal limiting condition where β tends to 1, but this would require both
partners to attain a 100% NOT in a fully-folded and opposite arrow-like configuration. Intuitively,
we may call the C* a YES-diversity condition (formal): we intend that both partners keep their
original relational-YES in the system, but another contingent logic superimposes (i.e. the one that
we associate with relative velocity) and makes them to end and to work ideally in a full NOT in C*.
Operatively, we mean that partners start in a system-YES on the horizontal of Sketch 3.a (static),
and end to the limit in a practical-NOT along the vertical (speed of light should β attain 1). In next
Subsection 1.2.2, we will find a somehow specular end-stop for distance-gravity. Intuitively, we
will label such a limiting condition as a NOT-identity of the two gravitational partners: in that case,
we assume that they start by a system-NOT at infinity (ideal), so to the opposite-limit, they may end
in a practical-YES that we will next associate to the notion of Schwarzschild radius (formal).
We will introduce photon codings in Subsection 2.2, and provide there some more details on how
we schematize pragmatically the constant linear moving of regular bodies within the tool. For the
moment, we just assume that in the system (formal), the coding of straight relative moving takes the
same form of model-photons.
Such an auxiliary description of system-moving remains merely formal. Operatively, it means that
a same formal configuration (fundamentally a C-C of two 1 h states) plays primarily as a regular
model-photon, but it plays also in a relative moving context, where the C-C simply express the
moving itself. The model-photon is a self-standing object though, whilst by evidence the relative
moving is not.
We illustrate the idea of our C-C element basing on Sketch 3.b (not part of our formal codings of
objects). We have considered so far relationships between poles, so we introduce now the new
category of relationships between relationships (left sketch). We operate ideally on our starting A-
C-B assembly, and we consider folding progressively its twin left-right relationships RL and RR.
We assume that they nevertheless conserve, and if we take their individual PVs, we realize that in
fact they were in full opposition within the original configuration. We read it as a 100% system-
NOT in terms of half-a-rotation = π with regard to one another, where the NOT is now different
from the linear one we considered to define our L1-G1 logic-geometry.
We therefore assume that our ideal operation generates a new and independent logic L2, which
may relate RL and RR in several relative configurations. This fundamentally makes a new kind of
system-relationship between two preexisting relationships between poles (formal). It is intuitive that
this new logic qualifies angular or rotational, so it stays neatly separate from the linear scheme that
allows setting up our first logic-geometry L1-G1.
For the moment, we anticipate that if we ideally continue to rotate RL and RR toward one another,
the object loses progressively the G1-opposition between poles A and B (it loses in fact the G1-
geometry of the assembly). We therefore come to a natural end-stop, where a new state of 1h forms
in pole D (top of left sketch): in fact, the original ± ½ h in A and B kept apart only because of their
initial G1-opposition. If the object loses it completely, we must think of a single 1 h state (self-
consistency of the tool), where former half-weight poles A and B cannot distinguish anymore and
17
merge in one. This makes there a 100% weight, which positively reads as a plain 1 h state in the
system, i.e. fundamentally another pole C.
We conventionally label D this new pole, but it is a 1 h state identical to C, so there is no reason
for the system to distinguish them unless we give a proper geometric criterion. This leads us to
formalize a new object (right sketch of Fig. 3.b), that we assume to reverse the YES-check in a
NOT-check and to produce sort of cast-object with regard to geometry G1 (details by Subsection
2.2).
This sketch makes our auxiliary coding for model-photons, where we fundamentally assume that
the present state of 1 h in C relates to another 1 h by an OR only. In fact, the AND-part of the object
went lost during our ideal L2 transformation that cancelled the G1-opposition and G1-geometry.
The intuitive picture is that actual C points ideally to D by a time-scale τ0, and shuts of one λ0 to
next state C’ with a frequency of ν0 (NOT-check). Contextually, next pointing C’D’ makes a full L2
rotation (2π) with regard to former pointing CD. Everything in the new object weighs twice as we
have joined in L2 the original RL and RR relationships (illustrative only).
The new primary coding we have just anticipated is our auxiliary tool to describe photons as
individual proper objects. Nevertheless, we assume that a similar configuration forms in a relational
assembly of two massive A-C-B objects when they move by a velocity v relative to one another
(vertical axis of Fig. 3.a).
The photon coding, or more properly the C-C element, becomes therefore our standard for the
auxiliary description of regular moving too. Next to that, we assume that the β-parameter
corresponds to the fraction of the speed of light (C-C component) that the system reads in a two-
body assembly where the two compare in a YES (formal).
At a more fundamental level, the underlying assumption is that system cannot discriminate
between elementary arrangements of two 1 h states in the form C-C, neither we give the tool
specific instructions for it to regard differently a primary C-C from a relational-relativistic one (self-
consistency of the auxiliary description).
In main Chart 3.a, the two system-pointings C2C1v and C1C2v schematize (not real photons
though) the mutual photon-like relationship to the eyes of our formal observers respectively 2 and 1
(assumed system-standardization of general moving). Within the tool, we intend those two vertical
runs as the system coding of relative moving that corresponds to common regular v (formal). Its
system percent-weight is β, and intuitively it corresponds to the NOT-shooting that the system
requires to distinguish the proper C that observes from partner C that moves relatively.
The relative objects to the eyes of observers 1 and 2 show on the horizontal, respectively as A2v-
C2v-B2v and A1v-C1v-B1v. There, we read the length-contraction factor for their inherent-proper scales
λ2 and λ1, i.e. √ (1 – β2). In this case, the mutual coupling involves poles C only, so the primary
YES-check within body 1 and body 2 goes on undisturbed with its own proper frequency (see also
notations and comments in main Chart 3.a).
The primary mass-energy thus does not change, but the relativistic observer sees an additional
confinement effect due to the L2-folding of the assembly. The partner-objects and their mass-
geometry now rest on a shrunk geometric field (A1v-B1v and A2v-B2v), so the relativistic observer see
a model-mass increase by a factor of 1/√ (1 – β2).
Sketch 3.c provides an intuitive appreciation of the effect by the formal PV of the system. The
proper G1-geometry of object 1 does not change, but the relative observer 2 must ideally cut off the
central part that has gone in a NOT with itself (formal). This corresponds to the relational photon-
like coupling that we draw along the vertical as C2C1v = β in main Chart 3.a.
Here we assume explicitly that new logic L2 is not at all homogeneous with our L1-G1 standards
(self-consistency of the tool). This in turn corresponds to the general notions of logical
independence or mutual orthogonality of two logical items, and implicitly reflects in our
schematization of velocity coding upon two vertical and horizontal axis.
18
We stress that nongeometric Sketch 3.c is illustrative only: it mostly aims at visualizing practically
the modeling idea of a different logical handling, by the system, of the two parts of primary
geometry that in the velocity relationship pertain to our two different and independent descriptive
logics (formal). By evidence, there is no true separation neither cutoff in the true object.
In addition, we point out that mid-level Sketch 3.c refers to an ideal cross section of relativistic
geometry 1 along the straight horizontal projection A1v-C1v-B1v of main Chart 3.a (formal,
nongometric). More properly, we should think of a relativistic folding of object 1 leading to that
same projection (see sketch on bottom of same Fig. 3.c), and in main Chart 3.a, this relativistic
folding of geometry 1 comes along the folded primary pattern A1v-C1-B1v of the inherent YES-check
of object 1 (formal). Therefore, relativistic geometry 1 conserves its proper model-energy, and due
to the relativistic folding it just thickens as of √ (1 – β2) to the eyes of relational observer 2
(secondary containment effect).
Finally, we consider that the key drive of change in an object is its primary YES-check, which in
this case conserves along A1v-C1-B1v and A2v-C2-B2v of main Chart 3.a. It however projects less on
the shrunk relativistic scale, so we have a reducing factor of √ (1 – β2) for the relative model-
frequency of both objects (same as geometric-shrinking due to β-folding). The relativistic observer
thus registers a time dilation too in the moving partner, by a factor that reflects the lesser relativistic
frequency and quotes 1/ /√ (1 – β2).
We also note that in this case, we play a straight YES-relationship between the two objects and
just add the photon coding, which is regulated by the same key-constant c we postulate for our
starting assembly. The relative velocity situation is such that the system does not requires additional
constants. We will see right below that the gravity-situation comes by a NOT and soon becomes
complicated, so our auxiliary tool could not manage without an additional and logically independent
constant that regulates the new relationship in itself.
19
Fig. 3: Relative velocity coding based on standard coding of photons and relative moving.
20
1.2.2. Relative distance and gravity coding (maximum force on minimum radius)
From classical gravity, we know that two masses m1 and m2 produce an attractive force FG = G ∙
(m1 ∙ m2) / r2 [N], where we adopt SI units and usual notations: G is the gravitational constant
[m3/(kg∙s2)] and r the mutual distance [m]. The potential energy is UG = G ∙ (m1 ∙ m2) / r [J]: we will
regard it (formal) as the relational-energy SG that the two objects share in the system (YES-
component of their relationship).
From general relativity, we associate any massive body with a limiting distance known as
Schwarzschild radius RS [m], where relative time stops due to gravitational time dilation, and
gravitational attraction attains the limiting force Flim [N]. For a mass m0, these two key parameters
write respectively RS = 2Gm0/c2 and Flim = c4/4G.
The gravitational time dilation ∆tr of a massive probe clock set around a non-rotating massive
sphere whose Schwarzschild radius is RS, and relative to the ideal undisturbed proper time ∆t∞ of
that same clock infinitely away, fundamentally depends on the ratio between the Schwarzschild
radius and the mutual distance as of: ∆tr / ∆t∞ = √ (1 - RS /r). Below, we will handle both ratios in
the first and second terms as percent fraction (auxiliary standardization).
Below, we will first introduce our practical instructions on how system reads the situation
(Subsection 1.2.2.1 and main coding chart of Fig. 4.a). Next we will zoom, although intuitively, on
the several unfamiliar assumptions that lead to express the relational coding in those terms
(Subsection 1.2.2.1).
Our auxiliary description of distance-gravity within the A-C-B standard bases in fact on three
outstanding points beyond the ones that support our general coding of objects and relationships.
First, in a two-body situation our massive A-C-B assemblies share their primary model-energy
E0P=E0C in a way that aligns with our general system-notion of shared-energy S (Subsection 1.1.4).
When implementing in distance-gravity, the relational-energy SG that the two bodies share increases
upon reducing the mutual distance r between their two end-poles A in the local (object schematic as
of Fig. 1). In addition, shared-energy SG comes to a logical and inherent system end-stop when the
two-body assembly attain a Schwarzschild radius configuration. We handle such an occurrence
through our general notion of system-tension within the A-C-B standard (Subsection 1.1.4), so we
can read the limiting model-force as an elementary balance where the maximum energy-share and
the minimum relational scale compensate in the system (formal).
Second, our tool allows a probabilistic reading via the modeling artifice of system YES-check
within A-C-B assemblies (Subsection 1.1.2). Our coding fundamentally bases on conserving the
primary YES-check and thus the proper model-energy of the two interacting bodies (next
Subsection 1.2.2.1), whilst the individual gravitational share of energy SG may express by a
probabilistic fraction α that depends on a trivial system quoting of reverse-distances. This much
unusual reading of the tool comes in turn from adopting the PVs of the two local poles A involved
in gravity (usual notion of center of mass), and from referring their common reverse-distance to the
Schwarzschild radius that they respectively see in the respective gravitational partner (formal). Our
auxiliary fraction α [%] is therefore specular for the two gravitational partners-observers (poles A of
the two-body pair). It in fact formulates trivially as σr/ΣS-OppositePartner, where σr = 1/r is our auxiliary
quoting of distance and common parameter of the pair [reverse-meters], and ΣS-OppositePartner acts as the
logical reverse of the Schwarzschild radius that our elementary observer pole A ideally see in its
gravitational partner (formal).
Third, we base on a very general scheme for second-order relationships that compose of two or
more first-order relationships (sketch of Fig. 5.d). The modeling criterion and its practical
application are the same that we will adopt hereinafter for mutual relationships of model-photons
(Subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3). We fundamentally regard and handle model-relationships as self-
standing construction bricks that may combine in second-order relationships of relationships within
the system (formal). In such a case, we consider that by themselves, the first-order relationships we
21
start by represent two or more logically independent items within the system, so we combine their
model-parameters in a product. This makes to reinforce two model-relationships that mutually
combine with one another, and tends in general to produce quadratic effects in the system. When
applying to our auxiliary description of gravity, the individual energy-shares SG1 and SG2 of any two
interacting bodies 1 and 2 tend to reinforce each other when the mutual distance reduces. As the
individual shared-fraction α in our model regulates as σr/ΣS-OppositePartner for any one of the two
gravitational partners (formal), we have that in a two-body gravitational assembly, the mutual
sharing of the inherent energy E0P=E0C that we have on board of the two bodies tends to grow
quadratically when their mutual distance r reduce. We thus standardize our distance-gravity coding
(main coding Chart 4.a) through an ad hoc model-parameter X that reflects the mutual distance r
(common parameter of the pair), and writes pragmatically as the square root of our model-α, i.e. √
(σr/ΣS-OppositePartner) [dimensionless].
1.2.2.1. Practical reading of gravity coding and comparing with relative velocity
Fig. 4.a illustrates our auxiliary distance-gravity coding for a two-body situation (formal). We
assume that this second relational coding comes from a NOT-relationship between massive objects
1 and 2 (Sketch 4.b). Both objects continue their inherent YES-check from their primary A-C-B
coding, but part of it works as a new form of relational YES-check between poles A1 and A2.
Such a second-level component comes from assuming explicitly that our reference poles A1 and
A2 relate here by a system-NOT (G1-context). We thus take their respective and individual PVs in
Chart 4.a, as if they were looking at one another through a logic that reverses with regard to the
regular one (formal, nongometric). We also highlight that both PVs are inherent in the situation, so
they work contextually in the chart (details right below). In addition, we use standardized model-
parameters X-Y that refer to proper poles A1 and A2 (see also Legend of main Fig. 4.a for notations
and key points).
The new relational YES-check component of Sketch 4.b corresponds to our specular X-parameter
in the left half of main Chart 4.a (local half-field of the model). It depends on the regular distance r
that we quote from our center of objects in terms of poles A1 and A2, and it fundamentally arises
from a projection along the horizontal of the primary and undisturbed YES-check that we sketch in
the right half of the figure (nonlocal half-field of the model).
Differently from our relative velocity coding, poles A1 and A2 compare now in a NOT, whilst the
C and the B are not involved (right half of main Sketch 4.a). The NOT is in fact mutual and applies
to both A-C-B objects, but any pole C is immune to a G1-NOT due to its inherent features, and the
two poles B make the common P∞ of the objects, so the NOT cannot make poles B to separate.
Our formal NOT-observers are thus proper poles A1 and A2, which show on the left of the
horizontal axis in their ideal primary position (as if they were in a YES like in Fig. 3.a for our
relative velocity coding). Due to the NOT, however, they start their relationship ideally in A1∞ and
A2∞ (infinite distance), where we assume that both proper observers 1 and 2 (inherent poles A1 and
A2) can appreciate the undisturbed model-time of their respective gravitational partner (τ1 and τ2 in
the sketch).
Intuitively, the mutual G1-NOT makes the partner-object to fold 90° in the relational view of the
gravitational observer (formal), which by our auxiliary scheme (compare with object schematic of
Fig. 1.a-bottom) corresponds to extract the model time-scale from within the main geometric body
that goes from A=P0 to B=P∞ (our distance-gravity Chart 4.a also associates G1-geometry with the
horizontal axis). We may also say that in the YES-relationship of relative velocity (Fig. 3.a), our
two massive partner see each other model-frequency, whilst here the system logic reverses so they
see each other time-scale (formal).
In that ideal and necessarily limiting condition of A1∞ vs. A2∞ (infinite distance), our two relational
pointings C2(=C1) to A1∞ and C1(=C2) to A2∞ are opposite, which we assume to read in the system as
22
a 100% NOT. This corresponds to our modeling idea of an infinite distance, and thus to the lack of
any relational YES-check between poles A1 and A2. Intuitively, if we compare with our general
scheme of the containment effect as of Fig. 2.c (formal), we may say that in this extreme coding
position with respective partner at infinity (A1∞ for observer 2 and A2∞ for observer 1), the YES-
check frequency tends to zero and there is neither energy-share nor system-tension on model-scale r
(Subsection 1.1.4).
If we now take for instance the PV of pole A2 (formal), we have that the primary YES-check of
massive object 1 (90°-folded in such a gravitational NOT-view by pole A2) only affects the nonlocal
half of the model and of the two-body assembly (G1-context). Pole A2 thus judge (formal) that its
NOT-partner is YES-checking by two poles at infinity (i.e. its primary unaltered B1, and its primary
A1 as reversed in A1∞ within the gravitational view).
We also assume that the specular NOT-view of gravitational partner 2 by Pole A1 works
fundamentally the same way, and that it acts contextually in determining the gravitational
relationship between the two massive bodies (formal). It is next intuitive (more details in
Subsection 1.2.2.2) that our auxiliary description of distance-gravity works by re-projecting in the
local (left of Chart 4.a) the local half-part of the inherent G1-geometries of the two interacting
partners. Therefore, our gravity coding bases on a system-weight that corresponds to just one-half
of the proper model-masses and model-energies that two bodies 1 and 2 carry on their own.
Operatively, we will calculate below by ½ m1 and ½ m2, but for the rest we assume that this
system-amount is primary and objective (regular notion of proper object), so it stay upstream and
independent from the gravitational interaction. This same amount fundamentally reflects in our two
starting pointings C2A1∞ and C1A2∞ (ideal 100% system NOT), and in our model operations
where their lengths maintain fixed in the ones of C2A1r and C1A2r (tracking arrows associated to
a given fixed r).
Next to that, we fundamentally refer to the ideal 100% NOT that we read in A1∞ vs. A2∞, so the
actual degree of G1-NOT between our two tracking poles A1r vs. A2r reduces for any given finite r-
distance (local half on the left of Chart 4.a). Subsection 1.2.2.2 will provide more details but in
practical terms, we start reading the Chart by translating first the regular distance r (horizontal axis)
in our model-parameters X2o1 and X1o2 (see tracking arrows in Chart 4.a and Legend). Our ad hoc
model-parameter X fundamentally comes from the two system PVs that engage in a gravitational
relationship (formal), namely our two A-type poles that we assume to watch ideally the
Schwarzschild radius RS of their respective partner in front of them (illustrative only). Such a
model-X in fact defines pragmatically in terms of concerned distances or reversed-distances as: X =
√ (RS-OppositePartner/r) = √ (σr/ΣS-OppositePartner) [dimensionless], where ΣS = 1/RS and σr = 1/r [1/m] (RS
plays specifically as a self-standing gravitational scale and a limiting distance).
Next, we refer to the vertical axis where we track, via A1r vs. A2r, the remaining degree of G1-
NOT. More properly, this corresponds to a given vertical Y-span of A1r relative to object 2 with its
proper local pole A2, and of A2r relative to object 1 with proper local pole A1. Our Y fundamentally
corresponds to the ratio of delayed model-time to undisturbed model-time of the gravitational
partner (details and definition by the chart legend).
The time dilation effect in terms of model-time comes automatically by the construction that we
adopt in this coding. Within the tool (Subsection 1.1.3), we fundamentally work by the model time-
scale, so we compare the reduced one that our two gravitational observers 1 and 2 see in their
respective partner upon a mutual distance r, with the proper one that they would see ideally at
infinity (formal).
If we take for instance object 1 looking upward at its partner object 2 (left side of Chart 4.a), it is
immediate to write: 1 = (τr1o2/τ1)2 + (√σr/ΣS1)2 = (τr1o2/τ1)2 + (√RS1/r)2 = (τr1o2/τ1)2 + RS1/r. Our auxiliary
tool bases in fact on formulae that we already know, so here we merely align and in terms of model-
time, we just reproduce the known relationship: τr1o2/τ1 = √ (1 - RS1/r).
23
The one for object 2 looking at partner 1 is automatically specular. For a two-body assembly
within the A-C-B standard and the NOT-logic of our distance-gravity description (formal), we may
thus write in general: τr-OppositePartner/τProper-OppositePartner = √ (1 - RS-OppositePartner/r).
We highlight that by this model picture and the inherent logic of our auxiliary coding (main Chart
4.a and probabilistic reading of Subsection 1.2.2.2), the model-parameter τr-OppositePartner expresses the
relational model-time that objectively reduces upon a mutual distance of r due to the balance of the
model-relationship itself within the system (formal).
Globally, we end in a model picture where the degree of NOT-opposition between our two
tracking poles A1r and A2r regulates via the mutual distance r (illustrative only). We assume that in
the system, and specifically via our pragmatic X-Y parameters, such a two-body NOT-arrangement
keeps fundamentally symmetric, i.e. similarly to what we assume for the YES-arrangement within
our coding of relative velocity (compare with Chart 3.a).
In this case, however, only one-half of the two A-C-B assemblies is involved in the local, so for
distance-gravity we draw an equal half-folding scheme that nevertheless limits to just the left-half
of Chart 4.a. This consideration remains merely illustrative, mostly to help comparing and
visualizing of our two YES-NOT relational schemes for A-C-B assemblies.
The Schwarzschild radius model-condition (formal) occurs when observer 2 reads RS1 in its
partner 1, and observer 1 contextually reads RS2 in its partner 2 (extreme left end of Chart 4.a). We
assume this limiting condition to actualize a second end-stop for the relational-NOT, which attains
there its 0% and thus makes the closest and strongest possible relationship between the two bodies.
On the other hand, both of them remain allocated primarily into the system as two distinct A-C-B
assembly, so they cannot come to a complete relational identity that would imply a 100% YES.
Therefore, we refer intuitively to this limiting Schwarzschild radius condition as a NOT-identity
(formal), where we intend the logical reverse of the 100% NOT-opposition which the two bodies
ideally starts by at infinite distance.
24
Fig. 4: Relational coding of distance-gravity and limiting conditions.
25
1.2.2.2. Key assumptions and passages leading to our auxiliary coding of gravity
A first outstanding point concerns the application of our general notions of shared-energy S and of
system-tension T as of Subsection 1.1.4. Below we extend such a modeling idea to a gravitational
assembly of two A-C-B objects that carry proper primary model-energy E0C = E0P (equivalent
forms) and just add the subscript G for gravity in our model-S and model-T.
Our model picture of distance-gravity fundamentally arises from sharing-and-combining in the

system a given fraction (model-α) of the inherent energy of the two gravitational partners. Sketch
4.c shows our auxiliary scheme for the individual energy-share SG1 and SG2 in terms of percent-
fraction of the proper model-energy on board of bodies 1 and 2.
Intuitively, we intend here a first operating instruction (formal) for a body to share a given part of
its own model-energy with the gravitational partner, which operatively corresponds to our model-α.
Only half-geometry is involved (local run from pole A to pole C in Fig. 1 and main Chart 4.a), so
we count in the body just one-half model-mass (our coding plays now in the local side only of G1-
geometry).
In Sketch 4.c, we regard the two bodies individually, so we consider for the moment that the
model-share depends on the mutual distance (common parameter of the pair), and that it completes
when the two-body assembly attains a Schwarzschild radius configuration (inherent system end-
stop).
Next, we take the individual PVs of the two bodies and consider that they ideally see the
Schwarzschild radius RS1 and RS2 of their respective gravitational partners 1 and 2 (formal). We then
assume that they both standardize their system readings in terms of reverse-distances, and that their
own energy-share depends linearly on the model-parameter σr/ΣS-OppositePartner, where ΣS = 1/RS and σr
= 1/r [1/m].
Our model-α for the energy-share SG fundamentally expresses the individual PVs of our two
gravitational partners (formal), and it practically corresponds to this same geometric quoting on
their behalf: α = σr/ΣS-OppositePartner = RS-OppositePartner/r [%]. The liming condition to left of Fig. 4.c
therefore occurs contextually when σr/ΣS-OppositePartner gets one (r = RS-OppositePartner), and the individual
energy-share attains its maximum of either ½ m1 c2 for body 1 or ½ m2 c2 for body 2.
The idea of some second-level gravitational-share of proper energy also reflects in the way that we
handle the Schwarzschild radius configuration within our tool. Sketch 4.d zooms on such a limiting
condition taking the PVs of the two bodies in terms of their two poles A1 and A2 (formal). Here too,
our sketch condenses two system PVs at once, that we consider being contextual as well as
fundamentally equal and inherent in a relational situation.
We take for instance the individual PV of pole A1: such an ideal elementary observer looks left to
right (formal, nongeometric), and in a limiting condition as we show in Sketch 4.d, we assume that
it fundamentally sees its partner 2 as a shared-energy SG2 = ½ m2 c2. By our scheme, this also
corresponds to the idea that its gravitational partner (relational NOT-logic) at this point has gone
100% in YES with itself (extreme condition of NOT-identity and inherent end-stop for the
gravitational relationship).
In that limiting condition, the gravitational-share is therefore the maximum possible, and by our
descriptive frame, it weighs one-half of the overall partner geometry (this also corresponds to the ½
h that we allocate to the local slab of an A-C-B assembly vs. the total ½ + ½ h of a G1-geometry).
The situation is next reciprocal for pole A2, which reads ideally from right to left and in this same
limiting condition, associates its partner 1 with a maximum-possible energy-share SG1 = ½ m1 c2. By
just the descriptive logic that we chose to adopt, our NOT-identity occurrence is necessarily mutual
and contextual for both gravitational partners.
The inherent partner mass and its shared-energy (more properly one-half of mass itself) make a
finite amount coming objectively from outside (primary coding and proper object stays logically
26
upstream). We then assume that the system requires a finite nonzero scale to allocate this shared-
energy: such a geometric scale is nevertheless different from a regular one, as it comes from a
relational effect (although objective). In any case, the two poles A1 and A2 belong to two distinct
primary objects, so we assume that they cannot join in a perfect and indistinct match (even if we use
the term NOT-identity for our model RS-limit).
We also assume that the system balances the minimum RS-scale to keep consistent the system-
tension of the gravitational coupling (TGlim1o2 = TGlim2o1 in Sketch 4.d). The limiting model-ratio of
SGlim-OppositePartner to RS-OppositePartner tracks for us the gravitational system-tension in a two-body limiting
condition, and it is a constant for any model-object and for any model-observer. For a whatsoever
body J it in fact writes: SGlim-J / RS-J = (½ mJ c2) / (2GmJ/c2) = c4/4G, which is our maximum force
Flim.
The intuitive picture is that in a limiting Schwarzschild radius condition, both gravitational
observers (our poles A1 and A2) see a given energy of their respective partner depending on its mass
(relational- or YES-component of the gravitational coupling). Therefore, they must see also a
minimum physical scale to allocate that energy: the more the mass-energy m0 of the partner, and the
larger the relational-scale RS that the system requires in that limiting conditions.
We assume that such an effect is merely relational (relativistic), so it keeps logically independent
from our primary A-C-B coding. Therefore, it specifically deserves (formal) another ad hoc
constant or system proportioning in the form of RS/m0 = 2G/c2, or equivalently of SGlim/RS = c4/4G =
Flim.
A second outstanding point concerns our model picture of distance-gravity as a whole, and a
possible probabilistic reading of the tool.
Fig. 5.a illustrates the situation by a quick and intuitive mapping-back of the system perspective in
3D (sketch is nongeometric in any case). As an example, we take explicitly the PV of an elementary
observer pole A2 that looks at its gravitational partner object 1 as of middle-level sketch (formal).
Both objects are coded A-C-B primarily, but observer 2 apply a gravitational NOT-view to object 1.
First, we highlight the limiting condition that we associate with an empty G1-geometry on the left
of relational object 1, namely for an extent corresponding to its own Schwarzschild radius RS1. We
thus assume that observer 2, upon looking through such a reversed gravitational logic at object 1,
sees a G1-geometry much similar to itself (illustrative only), which nevertheless weighs to the limit
just one-half of the normal (½ m1), and which at best misses a left-end slab corresponding to the
Schwarzschild radius of object 1 (RS1).
The effect is merely relational and indeed specular for pole A1 of object 1 looking in a NOT at its
gravitational partner 2 (formal). Nevertheless, by this particular relational mode the two cannot
share more than one-half of their respective mass-energy, and this comes when the two-body
assembly (Figs. 4.a-d) shrinks to a mutual Schwarzschild radius condition as a whole (both
elementary observers see contextually the RS-parameter of the respective partner).
More in general (any ordinary r-distance), we refer to the relational logic and ensuing geometric
reading that we sketch on top of same Fig.5.a. We in fact assume that the gravitational NOT-view
of object 1 by object 2 consists of a NOT-part beyond the regular distance r (remaining relativistic
G1-shape of object 1), and of a YES-part going from observing pole A2 to relational pole A1 (which
makes the gravitational relationship and the r-distance itself).
Again, the situation and the relative system-view is reciprocal for object 1 looking in a NOT at
object 2 (formal). Our r-distance, energy-share, and system-tension, fundamentally associate to the
pair of objects as a whole (second-order coupling of two primary A-C-B assemblies). Therefore,
both gravitational views attain contextually their maximum when showing the respective
Schwarzschild radius of the partner, which in turn actualizes the closest and strongest possible
relationship within the gravitational pair.
27
By this model picture, a gravitational observer does not see a regular partner-object but just a
NOT-view of it (formal). The Schwarzschild radius then acts as a cast-scale (logic-reverse), which
delimits the maximum relativistic G1-shape that a gravitational partner can see.
As such, both the notion of Schwarzschild radius and our operating half-weight geometry keep
apart respectively from regular physical scales and regular G1-assemblies of the kind A-C-B. They
in fact qualify relativistic, which is still objective in the system but comes in general from a
relational coding instead of a primary one.
At a more fundamental level, our auxiliary tool also allows a probabilistic reading of the distance-
gravity interaction between our two reference poles A1 and A2 (formal). We intend here the actual
primary poles on the local side of the gravitational two-body assembly (usual notion of centers of
mass), namely for what they are and for how they are arranged in G1-geometry and in regular 3D
(middle sketch of Fig. 5.a).
Next to that, the strength of their mutual interaction and the model-probability that we associate to
any given distance r between them, also corresponds to our X-parameter in main Chart 4.a. This in
turn reflects the YES-component of the model-relationship, whilst the vertical double-Y span
between our two tracking points A1r and A2r expresses the residual NOT-part of the gravity view in
Sketch 5.a (formal).
As such, we also include in Fig. 5.a a possible scheme for handling probabilistically the
relationship within the background of the inherent model-shooting back and forth pole A2 and its
own primary pole B2=P∞ (see also comments in the figure and highlights boxes on the right).
Intuitively, pole A2 is in charge of a direct model-shooting that weighs one-half of its own primary
mass-energy, whilst the other one-half is back-shooting from B2=P∞ (illustrative only).
Next to that, we have that all poles here are ½ h states, namely A2, B2=P∞, and partner pole A1
itself. As this last qualifies in a NOT within the distance-gravity coding, we may assume that at
some fundamental level the system would not truly make the difference between B2=P∞ and NOT-
A1 (formal). Therefore, Sketch 5.a conserves in any case the nominal primary shooting of object 2
(inherent one-step mode shown on top of objects) but considers that a relational NOT-pole A1
(shown on bottom of objects) introduces a second option for the overall system-shooting (additional
two-step mode also corresponding to our model-α). We also point out that main option dates back to
primary coding whilst the supplemental one is relational, so we assume the two to be logically
independent (self-consistency of the tool).
For the rest, there are no reasons in our auxiliary logics and in the system itself to presume that the
two primary and relational modes could somehow discriminate for what they barely are (½ h
model-shootings). Therefore, we sketch on bottom of same Fig. 5.a the model-probability (formal)
for the two-step relational mode to occur instead of the regular primary one (model-α). This comes
(see also the detail on bottom-left of same Fig. 5.a) in terms of the system cross-section of the
opposite-partner as it could be quoted through our standardized reverse-scale σr/ΣS-OppositePartner = RS-
OppositePartner/r, where ΣS = 1/RS and σr = 1/r [1/m].
If we now get back to our coding chart of Fig. 4.a for the distance-gravity relationship (NOT-
logic) and compare with Fig. 5.a-bottom, we have that the vanishing target with its model-α = 0
corresponds to the maximum Y span in the chart as of the two A1∞ and A2∞ limits (formal). Next, the
maximum target with its model-α = 1 corresponds to the extreme left-end of Chart 4.a and to our
intuitive definition of a NOT-identity condition of the two interacting bodies (A-C-B context). Any
given intermediate target with its given model-α ranging from zero to one corresponds therefore to
our two tracking points A1r and A2r of the chart.
If we base on the model picture of Fig. 5.a, the correlation α = σr/ΣS-OppositePartner expresses both the
model-probability of our two-step shut (e.g. A2A1P∞ in the example by PV of pole A2), and the
fraction of its own half-energy that the gravitational observer tends to share with its partner (our
model-parameters SG1 and SG2). In general, we can write: SG-GravitationalObserver = αGravitationalObserver ∙ (½
28
mGravitationalObserver c2), where αGravitationalObserver nevertheless depends on the opposite-partner, so the

relationship keeps specular but substantially equal in the system. This aligns with our idea of some
inherent symmetry in our distance-gravity Chart 4.a, as we suggested above when comparing with
Chart 3.a for relative velocity.
In addition, we have to highlight other two much unusual implications of our modeling scheme.
First, we emphasize that both interacting poles A2 and A1 in Fig. 5.a are coded wide-shut at some
primary level upstream the relationship. Nevertheless, in the relationships itself (our mid-level
sketch and target cross-sections on bottom) they both stay somewhat open with regard to one
another, which in turn corresponds to some physical distance r in between them.
On the other hand, this unfamiliar behavior of the tool reflects our two modeling criteria by which
system keeps apart from one another its working logics (in this case primary vs. relational), and
accept any system PVs provided they keep consistent (in this case the relational opening of a
partner-pole although it is coded wide-shut in itself). In our example of Fig. 5.a, we claim that pole
A1 lays a concrete physical distance of r meters from pole A2, which acts as system-observer and
thus associates to the wide-shut center of geometry G1. As G1 necessarily opens away from pole
A2, we conclude that either pole A1 could not lay r meters away, or it should open too accordingly,
and specifically the same amount that G1-geometry opens primarily with regard to pole A2 (self-
consistency of the tool).
As we assume that both poles are nothing but bare ½ states, there are no reasons to suspect that
they behave differently to the system, so it is reasonable that such a system-flexibility be equal and
symmetric for both poles when they relate with one another (formal). Globally, we must conclude
that the relational fact by which pole A1 opens of some r meters-equivalent with regard to pole A2,
and pole A2 opens of the same r meters-equivalent with regard to pole A1, is not at all conflictual
within the system. On the contrary, our concrete distance-relationship could not work otherwise
within the particular logical-geometric frame that we choose to adopt to describe our model-objects
and model-relationships. At the same time, we emphasize that the whole argument reflects indeed
all human presets that we cannot avoid to enter the tool, either in a declared way or implicitly.
The second point that positively deserves a comment is the resulting picture of our probabilistic
limiting state (namely the one that we normally associate to the notion of Schwarzschild radius).
We can compare for instance the mid-level sketch of Fig. 5.a with our target cross-sections on
bottom, and specifically with the limiting one on the left (model-α = 1). We thus see that to the limit
(logical end-stop of system), all model-shut proceeds by two-steps (e.g. A2A1P∞ in the example
by PV of pole A2), and it jams in the very short span of the Schwarzschild radius of the gravitational
partner (RS1 in the same example by PV of pole A2).
Intuitively, when the opposite-pole closes to the minimum it can (max. interfering cross-section) it
throttles the primary-pole to the maximum extent (formal) but it could neither stop nor shutoff
completely its primary model YES-check toward geometric infinity (opposite-partner remains
relational and thus second-level within the tool). In practical terms, all traffic of model-shuts from
the primary-pole, and thus the corresponding model-energy, concentrates onto the very tiny scale
going from the primary- to the interfering-pole (segment A2–A1 = RS1 in our example of Fig. 5.a).
This picture aligns with our working hypothesis that to the RS-limit corresponding to its maximum
strength, the model-relationship carries the relational equivalent of one-half the model mass-energy
of the object that plays the formal observer in the pair (formal). More specifically, this concerns the
model-energy SG that the gravitational observer shares individually with its opposite-partner, and
also correspond to our practical instruction for associating RS-OppositePartner with ½ ∙ mGravitationalObserver ∙ c2
when calculating SG-GravitationalObserver (e.g. SG2 comes from RS1 and from ½ E2 = ½ m2 c2 in same
illustrating Sketch 5.a by PV of pole A2).
Regarding the system-tension though, we have to switch to Sketch 4.d (formal) where we take for
instance the PV of pole A2 ideally in K (same individual-reference of main Fig. 5.a). There, we have
that pole A2 directs its primary half-shooting at B2=P∞ (right) and its relational shooting at A1o2
(left). When object 1 come close and throttles completely pole A2, pole A2 sees RS1 in its partner 1
29
and sends to pole A1 all its primary half-shooting that we associate to ½ m2 (maximum individual
sharing of proper half-energy by body 2 as of Sketch 5.a).
The Schwarzschild occurrence is nevertheless specular in our tool. If we switch to the contextual
PV of pole A1 ideally in K (Sketch 4.d again), we have that pole A1 sees at once (formal) the RS2 of
its own opposite-partner object 2, and an incoming half-energy of ½ m2 c2 that the opposite-partner
is sending toward itself (illustrative only). The limiting force thus reflects the contextual PVs of the
pair, and in that case calculates via the RS-OppositePartner and mOppositePartner.
Globally, we end in a model picture where regarding system-tensions and limiting force, we have
to consider the parameters of the opposite-partner, whilst the individual self-share of the
gravitational observer involves its own model-mass, but regulates via the Schwarzschild radius of
the opposite partner. In such, system seems to reflect its model-PVs and model-mechanisms to both
coordinate and balance the two-body arrangement itself.
As a general rule, our tool is equal on primary or relational items provided they classify concrete
via our system-notions of h-states and model-energies. Therefore, we also emphasize that the
model-scale corresponding to RS classifies substantial in the tool as it carries model-energy.
However, we have that on one hand this same concrete scale positively plays in the local (two A-
kind poles involved), whilst on the other it does not fit our standards for regular G1-geometries
(model-shut goes to a reversed-A=false-B instead of a B truly allocated as B in the primary system).
Our probabilistic reading contains by itself the implicit assumption that for the rest, the two primary
and relational model-shootings have nothing-different (bare and equal ½ h states involved).
Nevertheless, the geometric reading does not match and within the tool, the model-scale
corresponding to RS cannot be part of regular G1, so we regard it as logically apart (overall self-
consistency).
Within this same model frame, we may speculate on how we should describe the gravitational
exchange of relational ½ h states between partner-poles A1 and A2 (formal). Fig. 5.b sketches our
tentative coding for such a presumed relational YES-check and model-shooting (illustrative only).
The whole remains at present merely speculative, but we may expect that our coding (if any) will be
similar to the one that we introduce in Subsection 2.2 for model-photons (compare for instance with
Fig. 7.a).
There will be indeed outstanding differences between the two model mechanisms. As we will see
hereinafter, our coding of model-photons implies both the exchange of integer 1h states (full 100%
system-weight), and a logically distinct model-geometry that we denote Gp (and that we openly
claim to be operatively and completely apart from our base-geometry G1). If any, the gravitational
shooting as of our tentative Sketch 5.b involves ½ h states and is homogeneous enough to interfere
with base-geometry G1 (surely in a much complex way).
For the rest, we may expect that model self-consistency would lead to associate with that sort of
presumed gravitational half-photon-like (½ h vs. 1 h carrier) a similar transfer of A-type poles
(instead of C-type). This in turn will determine a comparative system-weight of 50% with a
repointing of just ½ revolution or π per model-pace (Sketch 5.b) vs. the full revolution and 2π-
repointing that we associate to one model-pace of our model-photons (Sketch 7.a).
We may even expect such a relational shooting to form relational configurations (namely
relativistic objects) that would somehow connect A-poles of G1-geometry but in a much complex
way. First, those system-objects (if any) would form an integrated web that we should therefore
handle as a whole. Next, any one of them would make a two-way relational assembly of the kind A-
C-NOT(A), which in our tool qualifies not so differently than our regular A-C-B standard (it is in
fact fundamentally homogeneous). This property too would make impossible to separate the regular
G1-objects from their relational web.
To complete this quick and intuitive overview of the model picture, we sketch in Fig. 5.c the
system perspective upon the NOT-logic of the gravitational coupling. We compare with Sketch 4.b
30
but now we take explicitly the individual PVs of poles A1 and A2 (formal). They both keep the
primary status of a P0 (wide-shut geometry), and are in a NOT with their respective partners, which
thus behave as a P∞ relative to both of them.
We next assume that the actual system reading of their gravitational shooting bases on actual PVs
playing the situation as in Sketch 5.c. As such, both poles A1 and A2 see themselves being shooting
½ h momentum toward infinity (i.e. from behind one another due to the reverse-logic of the
relationship), so the ensuing gravitational force FG behaves objectively attractive both to themselves
and to the system as a whole (formal).
31
Fig. 5: Model picture of object 1 by gravitational partner 2 and probabilistic reading of the tool.
32
A third outstanding point is more general and touch at how we conceptualize and handle
practically the model-relationships. Based on that, we will illustrate also the way that this general
modeling criterion enter specifically our auxiliary coding of distance-gravity.
Fig. 5.d schematizes our general logic of model-relationships (formal). We fundamentally

consider that any system-relationship must originate from two items that keep distinct in the tool, so
those two items are necessarily in a logical-NOT just because of their system-distinction (self-
consistency). Therefore, the relationship makes the concrete common YES of the pair and keeps
logically distinct from the items that relate to one another.
Next to that, we assume that two system-relationships of the same kind can behave as concrete
construction-bricks (illustrative only), and specifically like poles or formal objects generally do
within the system. Therefore, we indeed consider assembling relationships of the same kind in a
second-order relationship of two or more relationships (formal).
For instance, the primary relationships (e.g. our model YES-check) that we set between the poles
of our elementary objects (e.g. of the kind A-C-B as in Fig. 1.a), can next assemble and relate to one
another, in which case they act across two distinct primary objects (formal). In fact, a reason for
making no substantial difference between poles and relationships is that we define our formal
objects as a mix of both system-items from the start.
In the case of a second-level interaction (two logically distinct relationships across two distinct
objects), we plainly have a relationship of relationships (fundamentally same system-notion by
which a primary relationship is a relationship of poles). From an operative standpoint, we just need
to multiply the parameters of the two model-relationships that assemble in the system. This
corresponds for instance to the logic that we commonly apply in regular probability when we have
two or more events happening together.
Globally, we handle relationships as any other items that relate in the system (implicit NOT-
distinction), so we consider that any two relationships in a pair are by themselves logically
independent (notion of mutual orthogonality). When we next think of assembling them in a
relationship of relationship (formal), we implicitly require that they both be present and contribute
to their mutual assembly (similar logic of chained and independent event).
It is thus intuitive that the strength of this second-order relationship of relationship must depend
on the product of the strength that the two relationships carry individually. This also gives quadratic
effects in the system when the situation is symmetric and the two relationship that assemble onto
one another are equal.
Right below we will see how this can help our gravity coding, but in Subsections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4,
we will apply the same system-notion and practical procedure to our coding of model-photons also.
As a general rule, we assume that system processes and assemble relationships as any other system-
items (formal), but in that case we multiply the strength of model-relationships themselves. The
probability of chained events provides a good example of how we intend and operate practically our
system-relationships within the tool.
We now retain this simple product-rule and get back to our sketch of Fig. 4.c for the share of
system-energy in a gravitational pair of any two bodies m1 and m2 (formal). We also consider the
model picture of Fig. 5.a, where the relationship depends on the probability that both gravitational
shootings from poles A1 and A2 attain their respective partners.
We thus expect the mutual energy-share and the gravitational interaction to depend quadratically
on our parameter σr/ΣS-OppositePartner = RS-OppositePartner /r. It is for this reason that in main Chart 4.a, we
assume the model-parameter X = √σr/ΣS-OppositePartner to be our system-drive for a distance-gravity
situation.
If we next consider a possible probabilistic reading of the tool (compare with Figs. 4.b and 5.a),
we could also regard intuitively our X-parameter as the equivalent of a system-amplitude for the
33
mutual gravitational YES-check (our additional two-step mode), that fundamentally competes with
the primary YES-check within bodies 1 and 2 separately (our primary one-mode shooting).
We thus associate such a competition and the ensuing system balance (formal) to the reduction of
the model time-scale and delayed model-time that a gravitational observer registers in its opposite-
partner (our Y-parameter in Chart 4.a).
Both kinds of model-shootings involve ½ h states, but they keep logically independent (primary
vs. relational). This corresponds to a notion of system-orthogonality that implicitly reflects in our
coding Chart 4.a. As such, we result in a model picture where the relational two-step mode and the
primary one-step mode combine as a couple of vertical and horizontal arrows (formal). These X-Y
arrows then vary with r, but their system-total keeps constant as we assume that the primary mode
comes first and does not change in the model nonlocal (A2P∞ back-shut in Fig. 5.a),
We emphasize that in this passage, we have to assume that due to the system-NOT, a whatsoever
opposite-pole A in gravity behaves as a B=P∞ to the A-pole that plays the observer-shooter in the
pair (formal). Such a modeling instruction is indeed symmetric for both poles A in a gravitational
pair.
This in turn implies that system and its elementary observers do not make any substantial
difference between true proper B in the proper object and its relational B-equivalent in another
object (formal). The whole nonetheless aligns with our general working hypothesis that at some
fundamental and practical level, the system does not distinguish by themselves a bare ½ h state
from another one, neither does it in general for two or more identical h states.
We also emphasize some general issues touching at the system-logics that we assume to operate in
distance-gravity and gravitational relationships. If we compare with our velocity coding of
Subsection 1.2.1, the situation is new and our auxiliary coding seems to require an ad hoc additional
constant, that we identify with G or Flim, or more properly with the system-proportioning of RS/m0 =
2G/c2, or equivalently of SGlim/RS = c4/4G = Flim.
Intuitively, our velocity coding works by a YES-logic, so at some fundamental level there cannot
be substantial geometric distinction between different A-C-B objects. Therefore, system can
manage with the key constant model-c that is already included in all objects of the kind A-C-B
(formal). In real life, the tool maps back in plain geometric velocity, and this parameter seems in
fact to works as a self-standing item somehow independent from the many details of a particular
body (barely illustrative argument).
When we next switch to the NOT-logic that we associate to our second coding for distance-
gravity, it is intuitive that differences in actual G1-geometries and system-weights of different
objects emerge. Therefore, it seems that system needs to add another logically independent constant
to face the new situation, which comes by allocating to system itself a given geometric
proportioning of different objects within the same A-C-B standard (barely illustrative argument).
Next to that, the entire auxiliary picture of distance-gravity contains an implicit assumption that
we must decisively highlight. In fact, it may seem that system allocates first such a new NOT-
proportioning to gravitational relativism and gravitational coding (e.g. in terms of RS/m0 or of
SGlim/RS), then the elementary observers use it practically to regulate their mutual relationships
(barely illustrative argument). This is indeed an evident and naïve conceptual limit of such an
auxiliary model picture.
Another point to emphasize is that our coding chart of Fig. 4.a mostly aims at giving an intuitive
appreciation of the tool and its distance-gravity logics in general, i.e. when mutual distances are
ordinarily much greater than Schwarzschild radii. Should next a limiting two-body assembly truly
form in the system (illustrative sketch of Fig. 4.d), their model-masses and Schwarzschild radii will
sum in the system, so any other gravitational observer will see from outside (formal) a total model-
mass of m1 + m2 and a Schwarzschild radius of: RS = 2G (m1 + m2) /c2 = RS1 + RS1.
Such a fundamentally relational-relativistic object will be substantial as we assume that it contains
and conserves the primary codings of both starting assemblies 1 and 2. At the same time, it will
34
nevertheless classify as an anomaly of G1, as it contains two poles A that exchange mutually and
also play the contextual role of two false B in the local (vs. our G1-standard of plain A-C-B
assemblies as of Fig. 1.a).
We also emphasize that within our distance-gravity coding, which is a second-level relational
context, we play the same system-notions of shared-energy S and system-tension T, which by
themselves date back to the primary definition of our A-C-B standard (Subsection 1.1.4).
Operatively, we just extend those notions from a pair of primary poles A-B to a pair of relational
poles A1-A2, and from the general S and T to our SG and TG for distance-gravity.
We thus recall our instruction SG-GravitationalObserver = αGravitationalObserver ∙ (½ mGravitationalObserver c2), where
model-αGravitationalObserver = σr/ΣS-OppositePartner = RS-OppositePartner /r. Then, we refer to Fig. 5.a and take for
instance the PV of body 2 looking at body 1 (formal). In practical terms, we write its individual
energy-share SG as one-half its own mass-energy times the percent-share α it calculates by referring
to the Schwarzschild radius of its gravitational partner: SG2 = (RS1/r) ∙ (½ m2 c2) = (2Gm1/c2) ∙ (1/r) ∙
(½ m2 c2) = G ∙ (m1 ∙ m2) / r.
This reproduces the regular gravitational potential energy UG, where UG corresponds to our model
picture of an energy-share of SG2 over the common relational scale of r. The PV of the other
gravitational partner body 1 is indeed specular (formal), so we calculate for it: SG1 = G ∙ (m2 ∙ m1) / r
= SG1 = UG = SG1-2. If we next divide this mutual energy-share SG1-2 by the common relational scale r,
we get the system-tension TG1-2 that corresponds to the regular expression of force in classical
gravity, i.e.: TG1-2 = SG1-2 / r = G ∙ (m1 ∙ m2) / r2 = FG.
To resume the system perspective (illustrative only), we may say that within our tool (Sketch 5.a),
pole A1=P01 is part of an individual A-C-B assembly and its system-status is wide-shut, whilst the
gravitational-relationship forces it to open of a given degree r with regard to another pole A2=P02.
This is reciprocal for that same gravitational-partner, and when the two come closer, they approach
their nominal system-status. At the same time, the mutual relationship reinforce, so within this
model picture gravity plays as an inherent aggregating drive.
Nevertheless, the relationship is a couple-effect and it seems reasonable to think that the primary
coding of the two gravitational-partners establishes before the attraction can act, so they both
remain individually set in the system (regular notion of proper object). The end-stop of coming
closer is when both partner attain a sort of NOT-identity with the partner under the Schwarzschild
radius condition, which in our auxiliary tool arises as a second-level instruction (formal) that
regulates the mutual relationship downstream the primary coding.
35
2. Ongoing work on coding photons and electrons within the tool (EA-C-EB and C-C standards)
Our auxiliary schemes for describing unit charges are still under construction, so we limit below to
a few distinctive traits of the general approach. They include a tentative coding of the model-
electron based on a second logic-geometry L2-G2, and are functional to introduce our tentative
codings for model-photons. The arguments we touch remain qualitative at present.
We know this makes a very rough introduction, but still we aim at giving a quick and intuitive
appreciation of the tool as a whole. We will thus see that some of its funding ideas extends
intuitively to photons and charges also. In fact, our main goal is to reach the highest possible
standardization of our auxiliary description, so we can apply a single conceptual frame to different
kinds of objects and relationships.
2.1. Tentative auxiliary coding of model-electrons (logic L2 and geometry G2)
We limit to a few intuitive traits of our model-charge (formal), which allow completing a quick
survey of the general method and entering photon codings in Subsection 2.2. Regarding electric
charges, we limit to retain that they can have two opposite signs: a notion that we normally do not
include in our everyday conceptualization of regular objects, and that in fact we did not touch in our
Section 1.
In addition, we know that Nature can produce pairs of identical objects like for instance the
electron-positron pair e−- e+, where the only difference is the sign of their inherent electric charge.
We also know that differently from the A-C-B objects that we associate with mass and gravity, the
electric charges can both repel and attract depending on their sign, which by evidence requires some
additional and more specific model.
Fig. 6.a shows our tentative coding of the model-electron (formal). It bases on a second and
independent logic-geometry L2-G2: compare with Fig. 1.a, where the configuration of our first-kind
A-C-B assembly bases on logic-geometry L1-G1 (linear scheme of model YES-check).
The new L2-logic works as a transversal relationship between the two direct poles-relationships
RA and RB (playing here as system-pointings). We assume this new-kind second-order relationship
to operate orthogonally to RA and RB. Intuitively, our new configuration EA-C-EB qualifies angular-
rotational, which is logically opposite to the linear scheme and modeling mechanisms of our
starting A-C-B assembly (L2-G2 plays as system-NOT of L1-G1 in our tool).
Fig. 6.b overviews the three base-configurations that we touch in this introductory paper (only
illustrative). Sketch C1 depicts on bottom our starting A-C-B assembly: its left and right
relationships RL and RR (making the OR and the model-time) keep somehow embedded in the main
geometric span between our two ideal ± ½ h states (poles A vs. B, making the AND and the
permanent part of the object).
Intuitively, the geometric 100% opposition between poles A and B is linear-type, so it stretches RL
and RR on opposite directions: a notion that in any case is not part of L1-G1. Basing on new logic
L2, we can ideally conserve the object parameters and our modeling mechanisms whilst we
transform the configuration as we show on top of the sketch. Our two ideal ± ½ h states thus lose by
evidence their geometric opposition-distinction, so former geometric poles A and B form a single
1h state whilst RL + RR merge in a single relationship that weighs twice (2RD = ½ + ½ τ0 = τ0).
This leads to configuration C2, and then to the idea and coding of our model-photon: unless we
accept that the object collapses in a single and indistinct 1 h state (one C-pole only), we must admit
that we end in a working configuration with two distinct poles C and D (two 1 h states). They then
weigh twice as much as our starting A and B, and remain connected by an OR only (2RD = one full
τ0).
36
In subsection 2.2 we will see that if we accept this passage, we found ourselves in front a formal
object that fundamentally reverses the YES-check in a NOT-check, and cannot be tracked in regular
geometry G1 as it works on its own by a sort of independent cast-geometry Gp (p = photon).
Our first ideal transformation C1C2 in fact cancelled the geometric-like END component of the
original object. If we want next to reactivate some model-geometry (permanent AND of two
contextual poles) but without getting back trivially to the starting A-C-B type configuration, we can
think (illustrative only) of just splitting again our two-pole relationship (2RD) through our second
logic L2 instead of L1. This intuitively leads to third-kind configuration C3.
More properly, we see that configurations C2 and C3 make two straight system-alternatives,
which respectively actualize either a primary L2-YES or a primary L2-NOT (mutual relational
pointings of RA vs. RB). The second leads to our auxiliary coding of the model-electron (Fig. 1.a),
where we assume intuitively that the YES-check mechanism to distinguish the two ½ h states still
holds (or conserves) but takes an angular-rotational L2-pattern.
We also assume explicitly that the geometry of the object is different-kind (G2) and fundamentally
consists of two equal slabs quoting π each. It is next intuitive that differently from an A-C-B
configuration the two ½ h states have no inherent G1-asymmetry, so the two contextual switches
toward the respective partner-pole must rotate same way (model-shootings EAEB and EBEA).
Intuitively, the new object works as a bolas system with central C still connected, but through
time-like scales only (by convention we count ½ τe, e = electron, as our two working end-poles
weigh ½ h like in a linear A-C-B assembly). Here too, we start ideally by a digital framing of the
primary coding, where RA and RB fundamentally express two abstract system-directions (our
operative notion of nongeometric pointings). As such, poles EA and EB have no precise position in
G1 neither have they a linear scale (they just mark ideally the two opposite system-pointings that
frame the formal object in G2).
Next to that, the two poles are in a NOT with their respective L2-partner, so we assume they
cannot know exactly the amount of relationship they have with it. Such a relationship is
fundamentally a phase, whose inherent L2-logic ranges from zero (100% L2-YES) to π (100% L2-
NOT).
By the individual PVs of poles EA and EB, this sort of relational-illiteracy traduces in a
probabilistic spread that we assume to be part of the system and uniform over the object geometry.
Intuitively, the two ½ h states code globally in two sharp nongeometric directions (system-pointings
RA and RB), then internal relativism spreads those same ½ h over two π + π slabs (intuitively two
half-plates). We accept the two model pictures to coexist as they express two independent PVs
(respectively system-pair and single poles). Fundamentally, two independent system-PVs stay
logically apart so cannot conflict logically within the system itself.
Differently from an A-C-B configuration (flexible λ0-τ0 scales), the object geometry establishes
now by the maximum inherent YES or NOT (± π), so we assume that this constrains the system to a
precise particle: model-geometry has just one option (a 2π slab), which gives the object a sharp set
of model-parameters. Our Fig. 6.a fundamentally condenses such a model picture in terms of a
tentative auxiliary coding of the model-electron (formal), whilst Fig. 6.c sketches the situation in
3D (nongeometric, out of scale)
We regard the model-electron as a non-G1 item, i.e. fundamentally as a pair of neat abstract
directions in space (RA and RB). They stay undefined in terms of regular distances (e.g. from our
center-pole C) as our second logic-geometry L1-G1 does not contain this notion.
All our formal objects are dynamics, and here the YES-check mechanism remains fundamentally
the same (ideal spot-shooting of pole EA in EB and of pole EB in EA). We however apply a second-
order logic L2 (relationship between relationships), so we can associate it with our human notion of
rotation. Our primary object fundamentally works as an encoder by a repointing of half-revolution =
π per any model-pace.
37
The picture is nongeometric though (non-G1), so the rotational effect extends ideally up to
geometric infinity (the P∞ we have here necessarily matches the one we already set in G1). In
addition, we are forced to see the object as a uniform rotational field, namely an abstract ± ωe
throughout the object itself: our L2-G2 is exempt indeed from the notions of distance from center
and of spatial distribution (those notions pertains to geometry G1 instead).
Such a nongeometric rotation (formal) corresponds to the frequency of the YES-check upon L2:
we adopt the same convention than in A-C-B assemblies, which reads here as one complete
revolution of 2π (two π + π paces) per any complete model-time cycle of ½ + ½ τe (ωe = 2π ∙ νe).
Our primary instructions for the model-electron do not include however the sense of rotation (a
notion uniquely of L2-G2): it remains by evidence one sense or another, but both make a viable and
fair option to the system.
Fig. 6.e sketches the idea at a more fundamental level (illustrative only). We base our L1-G1
logic-geometry on some opposition of the two ½ h states making the A-C-B assembly (say ± ½ h on
top of the sketch). This leaves the system only one distinct combination (+ − equivalent to − +),
whilst our scheme for EA-C-EB assemblies relies on equal ½ h poles (say + + or − − on bottom of
the sketch), which makes two distinct and much balanced combinations.
It is thus inherent in our L2-G2 logic-geometry to produce pairs of identical configurations
(formal), which differ structurally only because of their model-rotation (nongeometric L2-G2
concept). This may support an auxiliary and intuitive visualization of particle pairs as we have for
instance in the case of the electron and positron. Our RA and RB pointings in fact associate with the
time-like properties of our objects, so the reverse pair electron-positron may also formalize as a
couple of identical objects where model-time goes opposite way.
38
Fig. 6: Tentative auxiliary coding of model-electrons and of their G2-geometry.
2.1.1. G1-G2 system-coordination and observing practically from G1 vs. G2 (formal)
We also illustrate intuitively the model picture in Fig. 6.d: our two geometries G1 and G2 are not
at all homogeneous (their funding logics keep apart and orthogonal to one another), so system must
contain logical links for the two system-observers G1 and G2 to coordinate and work together.
Our G2 notion founds on a pair of abstract directions and makes just a slice of G1: our G1 notions
covers in fact all possible linear distances from a geometric point (P0) up to geometric infinity (P∞),
39
and thus all possible volumes we may have in the system. From this perspective too, we see that
structurally G1 tends to produce single configurations, whilst G2 tends to produce pairs that behave
as reverse twins with regard to G1.
We also assume that the geometric infinity is necessarily common to G1 and G2 (model notion of
P∞), so any pole C is necessarily central both to its own G2-geometry and to G1 in general. On the
other hand, the center of G1 is by definition a pole A=P0, so we have that pole C of an EA-C-EB
assembly is not at all part of G1, but operatively it corresponds to a P0 and localizes as a regular
geometric point to the eyes of G1.
Intuitively, this equivalent geometric point makes the center of nongeomeric rotation in our
model-electrons (sketches of Figs. 6.a and 6.c). Above, we concluded that their concrete system-
geometry is made of two half-plates of π each, so the configuration stay blocked onto a precise
particle with given parameters. We thus assume that the system requires a new and independent
constant to quote such a logically independent G2-slice with regard to G1, and we may associate it
for instance with the regular mass me of the electron [kg].
For the rest, the system-notion of unit load W1g (Subsection 1.1.5) allows associating this new
configuration with an inherent angular momentum Me given by the ratio of the h to the inherent 2π
scale (formal): Me = W1g = h/2π [kg∙(m/s)∙m]. The inherent change-energy Ee of our model-electron
also aligns with our general system-notions, so we just multiply such a primary angular momentum
(system unit load) by the ideal refreshing-rate of the object in terms of 2π-slabs per second (formal,
nongeometric): Ee = W1g ∙ (2π/τe) = (h/2π) ∙ (2π/τe) = h/τe (our expression for W1t and for change-
energy in general).
Globally, if we accept that charges may fundamentally come from an abstract nongeometric
rotation in the system, we result in the idea of the model-electron as a unit-rotor in L2-G2. Its
inherent YES-check energy Ee = h/τ0 keeps the same basic form than in an A-C-B assembly, but to
the system it qualifies rotational = NOT linear.
Nonetheless, our EA-C-EB object has a permanent END part that maintains through the rotational
YES-check and generates a concrete geometry of two π + π half-plates. This makes a physical
presence of one precise particle, and G1 too registers its geometry in terms of the mass of the
electron me. Next, to the eyes of G1 its presence-energy E0P writes regularly as me∙c2.
Intuitively, we may say that L1-G1 does not know of angles and rotations, so to continue to work
and keep the system consistent it must translate the new L2-G2 particle in its own L1-G1 codings.
This makes indeed a human reading of the think so we shall regard it as barely formal, but in the
very end, it expresses a simple idea of system-consistency upon different PVs in the system itself.
We also emphasize a special modeling feature of our tool, which concerns the way that we read
angles and directions on behalf of the system, or more properly within our model-geometry G2. We
normally frame angles and directions in regular geometry (e.g. in terms of vectors), so the angle
plays as a much abstract item between two directions that we normally imagine being concrete (e.g.
two horizontal and vertical corners on a wall, or the directions two concrete bodies move in).
By our model picture, G2 angles are system-phases and correspond to relationships between
relationships, where we assume that first-order relationships between poles make solid pointings in
the system (system-directions). Therefore, our second-order relationships between them (system-
phases in G2) make construction elements that we assume to be fundamentally equal and thus
concrete also.
In the very end, our G2-phases qualify as system-relationships, so although they come from a
different mode of relating system items (relationships instead of poles) there are no reasons to think
a priori that they are substantially different from first-order relationships. We will thus adopt the
modeling artifice of combining the system-angles (relationships between two relationships) as if
they were a sort of regular construction brick within the system itself.
40
A straight example is our idea that the model-electron could have a geometry made of a bare angle
on itself (our π model-slab), so we end in visualizing its body in terms of two concrete half-plates
that quote π + π in the system. We will also apply directly the idea to our photon codings
(Subsection 2.2), and specifically to the way that we conceptualize the probability that a photon
emitted by a source S is next absorbed in a target T.
Another marking trait of the tool (sketch of Fig. 6.d), is that geometry G2 configures 2D-
equivalent in respect of G1, which corresponds instead to our regular 3D. We in fact regard G1 as a
comprehensive space-volume ideally going from a point whatsoever to geometric infinity, which in
our tool expresses formally as a condition of wide-open geometry (P∞).
As such, the 1 h on board of L2-G2 objects spreads over just a slice of G1, whilst the same 1 h-
load of an A-C-B object distributes over the entire volume of G1. Intuitively, this may relate to the
idea that Coulomb interactions appear to be comparatively much stronger than gravitational ones.
We also note that our G1 and G2 geometries extend concretely to our P∞, but this is a pole and
formalizes differently from what we normally think of abstract infinity in regular geometry.
Our notion of wide-open geometry is a distinct category, so operatively it makes a second end-
stop for objects with regard to their center, which in turn defines as a wide-shut condition and
primarily is. The whole then remains a modeling artifice, and fundamentally the tool could not
define our two states of point-like and infinite-like unless in a pair (reverse logical-twinning of our
model P0 and P∞).
2.1.2. Positional-criterion and mutual relationships of model-electrons in G1
We now accept for a moment the idea that our model-electrons could allocate as standard unit-
rotors to the system (tentative primary coding of Figs. 6.a and 6.c). If we look however at our sketch
of Fig. 6.d, they all are identical and position absolutely in the same terms. Therefore, to distinguish
and compare two of them, the system needs some additional criterion beyond the charge-sign (our
practical meaning of formal nongeometric rotation in L2-G2).
When we next think of an interaction between any two of such ideal unit-rotors, we implicitly
presume that they are in a NOT, otherwise we should think of just one unit-rotor. We thus tend to
apply our general YES-NOT scheme for system-relationships as in Fig. 5.d, and assume that two
model-electrons can base on a G1 positional-criterion to distinguish and compare each other as in
Fig. 6.f (illustrative only). This tentative scheme makes a first possible instruction where our two
G2-objects fundamentally compare and distinguish in G1 as we normally think of point-particles.
Our positional-criterion r [m] makes a G1 linear-concept, so we consider the regular run from C to
r to have gone in a NOT with L2-G2, and thus to actualize the concrete relationship between our
two unit charges in the eyes of system (formal). As both poles C1 and C2 correspond to identical 1 h
states that the r-distance maintains in a NOT, we must have some relational YES-check shooting
between them (mutual transfer of 1 h states).
If we next accept our primary coding and the key-ideas concerning G1 and G2 geometries (Figs.
6.a, c, d), we conclude that both poles C1 and C2 are not part of G1 but qualify point-like equivalent
in it (our formal notion of wide-shut geometry). Therefore, their further second-level relationship in
a positional-NOT (i.e. downstream the primary coding) implies that they stay somewhat open with
regard to one another, where our distance r is the opening and makes the common parameter of the
interacting couple (relational assembly of two EA-C-EB objects through a positional-criterion in G1).
As such, we assume that the two YES-check C1C2 and C2C1 are always contextual, so the
system moves globally 2 h per model-shot. We also emphasize that in this kind of sketches (Figs.
6.c, d, f), we operate the P∞ as the common outward reference. This is particular to our
nongeometric approach: our P∞ expresses the maximum possible opening of the object geometry,
which fundamentally holds for objects of any kind.
41
It is for instance intuitive that two unit charges that rotate same way to the eyes of the system
(absolute or primary coding by an ideal G2-observer), can next relate in a NOT thus keeping
opposite rotations relative to one another (second-level relational coding). We therefore can have
two identical unit charges (e.g. two electrons) that keep distinct by mutual G2-relativism even if
they occupy a same position in regular geometry G1.
To allocate another identical unit charge and to keep it distinct from the former two, the system
must activate some other NOT-criterion: e.g. our positional NOT, where we distinguish those
charges trough a linear distance r that pertains to geometry G1. The inherent limit for allocating
identical model-electrons in an identical geometric frame (e.g. an atomic orbital) is thus two, and
this comes from the sole options the two charges have for keeping distinct based on G2 only.
Beyond actualizing both attraction and repulsion, electric interactions require a separate Coulomb
constant but show traits in common with classical gravity, namely a 1/r potential and a 1/r2 trend for
the force. This seems to remain compatible with our very first survey of the tool, at least if we limit
to a few qualitative and preliminary considerations.
The picture we give of charges bases in fact on separate modeling mechanisms than A-C-B
assemblies (new L2-G2 logic-geometry), so we expect system to require additional independent
constants for their interactions. At the same time, the bare scheme we have in Fig. 6.f is not so
different from the one we have in Fig. 4.b for gravity: system bases on abstract working fields
rather than usual 3D or 2D geometries, so model interactions based on G1 or on G2 will show
similarities also.
In any case, this holds only in very elementary terms whilst actual differences in the two situations
remain outstanding: gravity moves ½ h states whilst charges move 1 h states, so this triggers two
kinds of codings-configurations and of model-phenomena that are completely different.
Fig. 6.f nevertheless remains our reference to develop a possible G1 relational coding of charges
within the frame of our auxiliary tool. We will indeed adopt the same method and key
standardizations that we assume for all our formal objects, so this section too of the model will take
the form of nongeometric instructions and sketches much similar to the ones we propose above for
relative velocity and distance-gravity.
Differently from regular primary photons that are fundamentally free and self-standing on their
own (Subsection 2.2), we assume that the exchange of 1 h states between poles C1 and C2 of two
distinct unit charges makes a system-relationship, so it corresponds to second-level relational
photons. Their base configuration in the tool is the same (i.e. fundamentally a C-C object), but such
a relational two-way shooting keeps distinct from a purely probabilistic one. In facts, it has to
maintain a given positional NOT of r meters (linear G1-parameter) between the two central poles of
our model-charges (G2-entities, and specifically EA-C-EB objects if we trust our tentative coding of
electrons and positrons as in Fig. 6.a).
In addition, the geometric scale of those relational photons is system-obligated, as it corresponds
to the actual linear distance r between poles C1 and C2. The electric-kind energy-share SE1-2 will
therefore depend on the energy that the relational photons carry, i.e. SE1-2 ∝ 2 ∙ h ∙ νshooting = (2h∙c)∙
1/r. We thus expect an inverse-distance trend for the electric potential, which we visualize as the
intensity of the relational shooting that actualizes the positional NOT in the system.
The auxiliary model for the electric-like force will associate with our notion of system-tension: it
will thus come by the ratio of shared-energy SE1-2 to common relational scale r, so we expect a 1/r2
trend. Ongoing modeling tries to determine whether a limit similar to the Schwarzschild radius
arises in the system when comparing two distinct unit charges, or we should expect instead that this
particular relational coding allows relative parameters to go ideally to infinity (like we have for
instance for mass-energy in a relative velocity situation).
42
We also note that our model picture of charges seems confined in 2D, but this concerns their
primary coding only. In G1, the system-illiteracy regarding angles and directions tends to produce
the spherically symmetric spread that we normally visualize in space when we think of regular
electric fields coming from point-like charges.
2.2. Tentative auxiliary codings of model-photons (geometry Gp)
We normally regard the propagation of light in terms of paths within regular geometry. We play
the notion of event and calculate the probability that a photon transfers from a geometric point to
another point. The first is a source S or some intermediate point of interaction along the path, and
the last is the target T that makes the final destination. We know that depending on the one or more
particular paths we include in calculations, we have a precise probability that a photon coming out
of source S attains target T.
The concrete S and T points that we consider are in facts electrons, and although the problem is
exceptionally complicated, the probability of the event ST splits in elementary steps where we
apply trivial rules on each of them. When we have two contextual paths making two alternatives or
system-option in an OR, we sum their individual probability. When we have two sequential steps of
the kind SS’ then S’T, they both must chain together to bring the photon from S to T, so their
inherent logic is an AND and we take the product of their individual probability.
Differently from straight everyday-life events, probabilities of photons require using complex
numbers, which in the very end corresponds to combine in a sum or product a couple of distinct
parameters instead of one. Complex numbers and probabilities of photons events also allow a
straight visualization in terms of abstract arrows, which fundamentally support our calculations of
probabilities as we can combine them properly by those same elementary rules of sum and product.
Below, we will disregard the notion of event and assume explicitly that sum and product operate
on actual photon-relationships within the system. For the rest, we refer mostly to the method that
Richard Feynman illustrates in his QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. We take it to be
our sharp baseline and attempt reproducing the same key conclusions based on our auxiliary
nongeometric tool for describing model-photons and their model-relationships.
Fig. 7 illustrates our tentative codings of model-photons (formal). In this case, our auxiliary
description requires a primary coding for the object in itself (Sketch 7.a) and two relational codings
respectively for single photons on single paths (Fig. 7.b) and for couples of photons on two
contextual paths (Fig. 7.c).
When we attempt calculating the probability that S emits toward T, they all work together and the
situation soon becomes complicated depending on the possible paths we consider. As we will see,
our tool will remain inherently probabilistic due to the way we set our primary coding of model-
photons.
2.2.1. Primary coding of the model-photon (formal Gp-object and probabilistic reading)
Fig. 7.a illustrates our primary coding of the model-photon (formal). The L2-transformation
argument we presented above remains barely illustrative (Fig. 3.b and Fig. 6.b-configuration C2).
Nonetheless, it leads to formalize within the tool a different kind of configuration that corresponds
to a new C-D assembly of two poles and one relationship.
In Sketch 7.a, we assume that the primary object is C-D, i.e. a 1 h state in C with its pointing P0
that plays as a system-relationship toward another 1 h state. We also assume that upon one model-
pace corresponding to one time-scale τ0, the 1 h state in C relocates in C’ by a λ0-move across
43
regular geometry G1, whilst the P0 pointing rotates of 2π in P0’ through a logically separate
geometry Gp, which is the primary one that defines the object in such an almost collapsed
configuration.
Operatively, the C-D object is fundamentally a system-pointing in its own Gp geometry, so our
primary coding makes it to relocate and repoint regularly in another C’-D’ object (formal). Within
the tool (self-consistency of our logic-geometries), pole C’ distinguishes from C because of a λ0
more (G1-criterion), and pointing P0’ distinguishes from P0’ because of a full rotation more (Gp-
criterion).
Below, we introduce first the basic features of our description, and then we switch to the primary
pointing that we associate with the model-photon to reproduce phase-effects in its relational codings
(Subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3).
We refer first to the inherent C-D object on the left of Fig. 7.a. Our two poles C and D make two
identical 1 h states that stay connected by an OR only (system-pointing P0). Upon comparing with
Fig. 1.a for the A-C-B coding, we assume explicitly that a new primary object of the kind C-D is
logically independent from geometry G1. We next associate it with a separate Gp-geometry (p =
photons), and we regard this new geometry as a self-standing kind that the primary C-D object
defines on its own (same criterion we adopt for assemblies of the kind A-C-B or EA-C-EB).
The new OR-type relationship between poles C and D makes now a single pointing P0 that weighs
100% (vs. two distinct OR-type half-pointings in an A-C-B assembly). By our conventions, this
single P0-pointing corresponds to a full time-scale of τ0 seconds (vs ½ + ½ τ0 in an A-C-B
assembly). Such a modeling criterion also reflects the idea that the surviving OR connects two full 1
h states (whilst the OR in an A-C-B configuration involves half-weight states of ½ h).
The OR-logic implies that within the tool, pole C plays as actual 1 h state, whilst pole D plays as
next 1 h state (formal). This presumed difference of states corresponds in facts to one model-pace
and to one full time-scale of τ0. If however C and D occupy a single position in space and system
provides no additional criteria, our model picture makes no sense in itself.
This is because our tool cannot distinguish two plain 1 h states in a point, so we could not claim
that our 1 h states C and D differentiate by a τ0. We thus assume that in the new C-D configuration,
system adopts a G1 positional-criterion to discriminate poles C and D within the formal object
(same criterion we have in an A-C-B assembly for half- poles A and B).
Operatively, our actual-C and next-D entertain a natural OR-relationship in model-time (more
properly a CD pointing in Gp), but also require a G1-move for the tool to appreciate their
difference. Fig. 7.a sketches the idea by assuming that actual 1 h state in C points both to next-D in
model-time (τ0-relationship) and to next-C’ in model-space (λ0-relationship).
Our next-poles D and C’ are fundamentally a same 1 h state that relates mutually with actual-C,
and that system and actual-C regard either in model-time or in model-space. We take here explicitly
the formal PV of actual-C, as it is the sole pole and the sole 1 h state that is active at the moment
(model concreteness). Our description then concerns the relationships that actual-C has with its
next-state.
The modeling scheme that we adopt is therefore the same of a regular A-C-B assembly, except
that now the object works by a bare OR-logic, so its h states are progressive and must relate
accordingly. The object change comes as usual by model pacing, but now poles C and D=C’ are
identical, so we call intuitively NOT-check the shooting-mode that system adopts to distinguishing
them (logical reverse of A-C-B operations).
We sketch it horizontally in Fig. 7.a as a double-line=double-weight pointing CC’ (formal): the
NOT-check carries here a full 1 h vs. the two ½ h involved in the YES-check of an A-C-B
assembly. Another difference is that a C-D assembly only contains two poles and a single pointing,
so the momentum transfer we associate with its NOT-check goes one-way across regular geometry
G1 (our YES-check conversely cycles by two counter-current shots).
44
With regard to an A-C-B assembly, the inherent logic is a straight OR instead of a prevailing
AND. Therefore, Gp-geometry somehow reverses in a cast-object but for the rest, the G1
positional-criterion and our modeling mechanisms remain fundamentally the same.
This also corresponds to the idea (formal) that a transformation of a linear-type assembly through
a transversal L2-logic does not really affect the inherent way that an object works in the tool. Next
to that, a different configuration corresponds indeed to different modeling properties and different
inherent behavior of our formal object.
In any case, we recover the visualization artifices that we call intuitively tie-rod and containment
effects (Subsection 1.1.4 and Figs. 2.b, c). In the new C-D assembly, the model frequency ν0 of the
NOT-check regulates the extent of the λ0 move that we have in G1 (ν0 = 1/τ0 as in a regular A-C-B
assembly).
We can just regard it as a new implementation of a same positional-criterion in G1. Therefore, we
recover also the c-constant ratio (formal) that we necessarily have in a linear-type shooting that
regulates at once the λ0-span and the τ0-pacing of an object (both correspond formally to one model-
pace). Here too, we stress that our model-c has no special meaning in itself, and only date back to
the way that we set out formal objects in our barely descriptive tool.
We point out that our NOT-check and its λ0-scale apply here to two consecutive states of the
object, whilst in an A-C-B assembly the shooting mechanism involves two contextual poles within
a same object. Our tool is thus unable to allocate a geometry and a model-mass to the primary
object for what it is, i.e. the left C-D element in our sketch of Fig. 7.a (fundamentally a bare OR-
pointing). In fact, the geometric scale λ0 is now logically transversal to the object itself, which also
reflect in the way we draw the coding of our model-photon.
Nonetheless, the key schemes of the object remain fundamentally the same, and the system-notion
of primary unit load W1 applies independent from the model-mass (Subsection 1.1.5). This
formulates as the bare level of the h on the model-scales, so we recover also the well-known
formulae for light, i.e. h/λ0 for momentum [kg∙(m/s)], and h/τ0 = hν0 for energy [J]. These model-
parameters corresponds respectively to our W1g and W1t in Gp-geometry (formal), and again they
reflect nothing more than the particular way that we attempt standardizing our auxiliary description
of model-photons and model-objects in general.
Globally, the outstanding difference from a regular A-C-B assembly is that the inherent C-D
object is now set in Gp-geometry, whilst the positional-criterion operates through a different G1-
geometry. Intuitively, we may say that a C-D object plays both sides of the fence, so a G1 observer
has inherent limits in tracking it exactly as we usually mean for regular objects (details by
Subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3).
Sketch 7.a1 illustrates the situation, as we face a sort of mixed- or multiple-geometry object,
whose primary CD relationship (our P0 pointing) works contextually in Gp and G1. Operatively,
the permanent part of the object has become pole C (one geometrically isolated and self-standing 1
h state), but such a pole C is not part of our G1-geometry (L1-G1 is set by two opposite ± ½ h states
in two A-type and B-type poles).
What we see in linear G1 (and thus in everyday regular space) is fundamentally the NOT-check
shot of the object, which the model picture associates with one λ0-move of pole C per any model-
pace τ0. The whole remains indeed a modeling artifice, but it allows visualizing the strategy that our
formal object takes to relocate across G1 step-by-step (we focus here on a discontinuous pacing as
we take the PV of the primary system). It is next intuitive to associate this new kind of object with a
sort of untraceable presence in G1, which nevertheless transfers momentum and regular energy
within G1 itself.
We need now to complete our modeling position in a point, which is very specific to our model-
photons. We stressed above that the inherent primary object in our sketch of Fig. 7.a is the C-D
element on the left. Pole C is in fact the sole 1 h state active at the moment, and the assembly
fundamentally consists of it and of an abstract P0 that points toward another 1 h state (concreteness
45
of our description). In addition, system needs to distinguish in a way or another the different
elements that we presume to have in our primary coding (self-consistency of the tool).
We also assumed that such a new-kind configuration defines a Gp-geometry on its own, as it does
not fit our specifications for a regular A-C-B assembly. As such, a C-D object is not part of
geometry G1 and it is logically independent from it (operative separation of logics-geometries
within the tool).
We then refer intuitively to the idea (illustrative only) that the new C-D standard could come in
general from an ideal L2-transformation that superimposes on logic L1 already on board of an A-C-
B assembly. We in fact associate such a second logic L2 with a relationship between two primary
relationships, whilst linear logic L1 fundamentally concerns a straight relationship between two
primary poles. If it is so, our second working logic L2 must act transversally to logic L1 (mutual
independence and practical orthogonality of L2 vs. L1).
If we now get back to configuration C2 of Fig. 6.b (Subsection 2.1), we may conclude that upon
an ideal C1C2 transformation, system has fundamentally two options: either the assembly
collapses in a meaningless 1 h state in C with no relations at all, or at least one relationship between
two 1 h states survives (our system-pointing 2RD=P0).
Such a relationship comes by evidence from the operating sub-block that played the OR and the
shooting-dynamic of our A-C-B standard. It also makes a new kind, in such it is not a straight
relationship between poles, but instead it comes ideally from a relationship that acts on preexisting
relationships RL and RD and takes the 100%-YES value of 2RD=P0.
It is next intuitive to see that if a C-D relationship truly survives in our model-photon
(configuration C2), it is an OR and it must regulate through a second logic L2, which in turn
qualifies angular-rotational as opposite to linear logic L1. When we operate in the tool, we assume
openly that our logics L1 and L2 play in a NOT with regard to one another.
We thus get back to the primary coding of model-photons as of Fig. 7.a, and recall that the
inherent primary object consists exclusively of a 1 h state in C and of a system-pointing P0. Once
we accept this model picture, it is intuitive that the inherent C-D object actually funds on angular-
rotational logic L2, and not on regular L1-G1 geometry. This corresponds to our notion of a
separate Gp-geometry, which operatively traduces into the idea that a C-D object works
fundamentally in Gp and only Gp qualifies to define it at a primary level.
We therefore assume that in addition to the G1 positional-criterion we introduced above for our
model-photon, system also requires a native criterion in Gp to distinguish actual-object C-D from
next-object C’-D’. In the tool, this takes the form of a full 2π rotation of pointing P0 (more properly
an encoding of one Gp-cycle), which combines with the λ0 move corresponding to one NOT-check
in G1 and to one model-pace on the whole (G2+G1). In next-object C’-D’, we thus count a distinct
system-pointing of P0’ = P0 + 2π. Operatively, our primary coding claims for a mandatory 2π more
in Gp when system registers a λ0 more in G1, or vice versa as the two are strictly contextual (overall
self-consistency of coding).
Our 2RD=P0 relationship between poles C and D weighs in fact 100%, and a full 2π rotation
corresponds to the whole extent of our second logic L2. A 100% L2-distinction-opposition between
actual-object C-D and next-object C’-D’ cannot read otherwise than one complete rotation in L2:
we take here explicitly the angular-rotational PV of geometry Gp. Thinking of one complete
rotation in Gp, also reflects the idea that in this case, both poles C and D involved in a model-pace
weigh one full h (compare also with the model-electron of Fig. 6, where pointings RA and RB weigh
½ h and encode just π per model-pace).
Such an additional criterion fundamentally tracks the object evolution in Gp through the formal
PV of Gp, so it makes the analogous of our NOT-check artifice for enabling the tool to distinguish
actual 1 h state in C from next 1 h state in C’. Our P0-repointing of 2π per model-pace focuses
however on the inherent Gp-object as a whole (1h state + P0 pointing), and we base on the inherent
L2-Gp logic-geometry of the object itself (the notion of rotation does not pertain to our formal L1-
G1 standard).
46
On the other hand, the G1 positional-artifice that we exploit in our NOT-check is by itself
extraneous to logic L2, and thus to the inherent Gp-geometry of our model-photons. If we compare
with a regular A-C-B assembly, where the YES-check comes directly within the object (Fig. 1.a),
the situation of our new C-D object configuration is indeed anomalous: see Fig. 7.a, where the
NOT-check is logically transversal to the primary object itself.
Globally, our new standard for C-D assemblies (formal) consists of an actual-object barely made
of one pole C (active 1 h state) and of one multilevel-multipointing relationship (equally active at
the moment). We denote R2πτλ such a primary Gp-relationship, and we intend that per any model-
pace corresponding to one τ0 in model-time, pole C and its 1 h state relocate of λ0 horizontally
(regular G1-criterion), whilst the entire C-D object (i.e. pole + pointing) relocates also but Gp needs
to count 2π more in its new P0’ pointing: otherwise the Gp-object would evolve satisfactory in G1,
but Gp itself could not see the change (formal).
In the tool, both PVs of G1 and Gp combine to claim that new object C’-D’ is truly different from
former object C-D, and system registers a consistent evolution of one model-pace for our model-
photon. This also correspond to one time-scale of τ0 having elapsed in model-time, which
nevertheless qualify as a second-order reading, whilst the key drive of the object remain the NOT-
check and the repointing (formal).
At a primary level, our second and very particular Gp-criterion makes an abstract P0P0’ switch,
so the notion of rotation more properly comes downstream when we enter relativism and relational
codings (details right below and in Subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3). In addition, we explicitly assume
that our Gp instruction does not include the sense of rotation, so system has there two possible and
equal options (same criterion that we illustrated in Subsection 2.1.2 for model-electrons).
It is next intuitive that our P0 pointing and its repointing by the model-pacing correspond to our
current category of phase, so the model picture fundamentally aligns with the use of complex
numbers or abstract arrows to calculate photon-events. In this case too, we start by a digital primary
framing of the object, but for the rest the model picture remain probabilistic for several reasons
(details right below), so it allows phases to occur as a continuum when mutual relativism begins to
play.
Our modeling position limits in fact to visualize intuitively a photon-like object as a formal C-D
assembly. Next to that, we introduce two key assumptions with regard to the inherent 2π-
repointings that associate with its λ0-moves in regular geometry G1. The first is that the 2π-
repointing is inherent in the primary object, and thus peculiar to our model-photon. The second is
that such a 2π repointing actually pertains to a separate geometry Gp, which in the tool plays as the
NOT of G1.
As such, a G1-observer cannot completely track a model-photon by its own G1 criteria and linear
parameters, so we need to introduce a separate parameter that is the photon-phase or the use of
vector-arrows in current calculations. Our modeling artifice of a regular system-repointing in the
tool is equivalent, and just expresses the formal PV of a separate Gp-geometry that we assume to
pertain to model-photons themselves.
We also warn that if we stay on our regular sense of human time, the idea may seem confusing, at
first, that actual=present object C-D entertains a physical relationship with next=future object C’-
D’. Our tool is fundamentally neutral on such an issue, and for instance we have no problem in
accepting that for regular A-C-B assemblies that play in an AND, relationships come transversal to
model-space.
As our model-photons are coded in an OR (formal), their mutual relationships of the kind R2πτλ act
transversally to model-time. As we will see below, they regulates in terms of probabilities, but for
the rest the model picture is not so different from when we calculate a regular potential of a regular
body.
47
We note also that in photon-events, established methods can indeed calculate the precise
probability that a photon be detected in T after being emitted in S. Even if they are much complex
and require an ad hoc method, those probability calculations come before the true event had
happened and are valid in general, so in the very end the whole does not work much differently
from our current human category of potential. On the other hand, we work practically by the
category of event, so we tend in general to see probability as a sort of forecast of future.
Another intuitive argument for accepting that formal relationships could act transversally to
model-time is that Nature fundamentally behaves as a stable system. We can thus assume that in a
way or another, the system itself provides a minimum of coordination for its future states to keep
consistent with the former ones. Below we will see that for our model-photons, this formulates in
terms of relational codings, and that such a presumed present-future coordination (formal) is by
itself probabilistic within the tool.
In any case, we will refrain below from framing photon-events in time, and we will work
pragmatically by a system-notion much similar to the one of a regular potential.
If we accept this model picture, we have two areas of system-illiteracy directly within our primary
coding of photons (Fig. 7.a). As a general rule, we regard those system-issues as two specific gaps
of neat operating instructions, where the first is common to all our formal objects and comes from
internal relativism within the coding itself.
The idea is the one we anticipated in Subsection 1.1.6 for regular A-C-B assemblies, and we just
apply it here to our primary model-photons. Distinguishing poles C-D, or actual C-D object from
next C’-D’ object, implies a NOT between them, so the two stay fundamentally unrelated, and from
their individual PVs they cannot know the exact relationship with the partner.
Operatively, this gives flexibility to our description tool in spite of the sharp digital framing we
start with. In a relational context, our model-photons can indeed interact by geometric scales and
phases that range from zero to their respective primary value of λ0 and 2π. In that case, we just
count a straight pro rata of the model-parameter, as we will see in the examples below for single
photons on single paths (Subsection 2.2.2) and for pairs of photons on distinct paths (Subsection
2.2.3).
The second illiteracy-factor is nevertheless outstanding and very particular to model-photons. It
comes from the inherent separation that we assume on a logical basis between the two geometries
where the model-photon plays, i.e. our formal Gp for the C-D body of the object itself, and our
formal G1 for its discontinuous NOT-check across regular space. This expresses intuitively by the
idea that our model-photon plays both sides of the fence, so we have a huge amount of options for
the system to actualize a given move ST within G1.
By this model picture, the object evolution fundamentally pertains to Gp and to its inherent
system-repointing, so in G1 we actually set only the starting and arrival point (e.g. a point-like
source S and a point-like target-detector T in regular space). The actual probability then forms in
the tool by adding up (ideally) all possible and consistent paths that the system allows in G1.
Intuitively, only Gp qualifies to track the model-photons through their phase (system-repointing),
but Gp in itself is completely neutral to the path-options that the system may have in G1.
Therefore, a first point is that any path in G1 remains a viable and indifferent option provided it
keeps consistent with other system-objects, including the ones that we localize regularly in G1. In
the tool, we assume that our Gp observer must nevertheless account for the existing situation that it
finds in G1, but photon-coding relies on Gp only and gives no instruction on the path that a given
transfer ST should take in G1 (formal). As we will see, the self-consistency of the path in itself
with regard to Gp comes automatically by the primary and relational codings that we apply to C-D
objects, but for the rest, no handling other than probabilistic is possible to track model-photons in
G1. This is inherent in our describing tool and in the logical separation that we adopt for our
operating notions of geometries G1 and Gp.
48
A second point of this modeling position is that all G1-type paths are equally possible, and thus
system-probable, and in addition this comes just because the system fundamentally contains no
instruction on them. Intuitively, only Gp-geometry drives the ST photon-transfer and calculates
the opportunities through Gp-rules, so it cannot neither know nor interfere (formal) whit what is
going to happen in G1 upon G1 rules.
Operatively, there is no way in the tool to separate or privilege some of the hypothetical patterns
that we have to set ourselves to calculate the probability of an ST photon-event. We see our
model-photon to fly across Gp-geometry, not really in G1, so system uniquely establishes the points
of first show in Gp (emission in S) and of Gp-retirement (absorption in T). As such, S and T are the
sole geometric points that we can track neatly in G1, whilst the flight instructions (and specifically
the ones to reenter G1 possibly in point T) are in charge to a Gp observer that is fundamentally G1-
blind (formal).
If we accept for a moment this general descriptive framing, and most of all the idea that the
primary coding of C-D objects fundamentally establishes by a logically apart geometry Gp, it is
next intuitive to derive in next two Subsections the relational codings of our model-photons.
Regarding the model-photon itself, we intend in any case a barely descriptive assembly of the kind
C-D as it is the case for all our formal objects within the auxiliary tool.
As we anticipated above, we need in this case two distinct and contextual system-instructions that
complement the primary coding and work respectively on single paths or pairs of paths. Those paths
are not properly part of G1, but fundamentally express the ones that the system and a Gp-observer
allow in a neutral and equal way (formal), so they all may actualize and positively contribute to the
overall probability of a given ST photon-event.
For the rest, we assume that system adopt a potential-like notion of probability (formal), and that
this determines as usual the probability of a photon-event prior that the event by itself truly occurs.
We also assume that in principle, our codings plainly frame in a rigid way the possibility that a
photon-event could occur, and specifically the options that we may have in the system vs. the ones
that conflict with it and thus cannot actualize.
49
Fig. 7: Three-step auxiliary coding of photons (primary, relational, and second-order).
50
2.2.2. Relational coding of single photons on single paths (Gp-G1 system-link)
Fig. 7.b illustrates our auxiliary relational coding for single photons on single paths (formal). Our
real-life problem is to establish the probability that a photon emitted in a point-like source S is next
detected or absorbed in a point-like target T. We normally regard the situation in regular space-time
and think of a photon that moves from point S to point T along a given geometric path. We
calculate the ST amplitude for that path, then add up by a proper method for the many paths we
need to refine our calculations. Ideally, we should sum the effects of all possible paths that remain
compatible with the physical arrangement of our source S and target T.
In this quick introduction, we will focus on the general features of our auxiliary description
without entering calculations. In this case too, we openly assume that all we know from modern
Physics is fundamentally correct, so the tool must merely align. We observe in particular that the
regular method is always confirmed to work perfectly, even if we calculate and compare a very
short and a very long trajectory of the photon in regular space. We should expect that the time for
the photon to move from S to T is much different, but in spite of that, we can combine those
probabilities in one, which supposedly should happen in a same instant of regular time. Globally,
the way that we are forced to calculate the probability of photon-events seem to be independent
from our regular sense of time, so the whole approach soon becomes much abstract.
In the tool, we do not use the notion of event, neither consider we that our model-photon moves.
Our auxiliary description is fundamentally a photogram, and it refers uniquely to the present-instant
that a newborn photon is emitted in Gp and ideally looks around (formal) to calculate the
opportunities it has to reenter G1 in another geometric point.
Our description bases on the system-relationship R2πτλ that we assume to connect the states of our
model-photons in Gp. Intuitively, the closest human category we can recall for the way that we
model amplitudes is the one of a present-instant interaction of the kind R2πτλ, and thus of a system-
potential for a newborn photon to possibly reenter G1 later on.
Operatively, we focus on the first-show of a Gp-object in S, and on the options that the system
gives it to reenter G1 in another point T. By our primary coding, these options depend on R2πτλ, and
thus on the mutual linear-distance r and mutual phase φ that the Gp object in S and its system-
partner in T see relative to one another (formal). The base approach is therefore the same that we
follow to emulate relationships between regular objects within our A-C-B standard (Subsections
1.2.1 and 1.2.2).
In addition, we associate the mutual linear-distance r not properly with G1, even if we establish it
in G1 via the possible hypothetical path that we use to calculate a particular amplitude, i.e. a given
value and phase of our R2πτλ (RC0-C* in Sketch 7.b). We express regularly our r-distance in meters,
but we regard it as a selfish Gp-parameter. This corresponds to the idea that only Gp regulates the
ST transfer, but it has no notion of true-linearity as G1 does. Therefore, the particular path where
Gp and G1 must compare and coordinate with one another can be whatsoever in regular G1-space,
i.e. any length and any direction in any of its points. Intuitively, such a possible and thus equally
probable path is just drawn by a Gp observer that does not know of the straight linearity that applies
in G1 (formal).
Our sketch of Fig. 7.b fundamentally reflects such a present-instant modeling approach.
Operatively, we refer to C0=Cemits=S and take the PV (formal) of newborn model-photon C0-D0,
which qualifies as a pointing-object in Gp-geometry.
We assume that Gp keeps logically on its own, and that pole C0 of our newborn model-photon as
well as the C0-D0 object fundamentally track there. Emission and absorption come through two
poles C of model-photons respectively in Cemits and Cabsorbs. They pertain to L2-G2 but occupy a
given G1-G2 position (Subsection 2.1 and illustrative sketch of Fig. 6.d), so they set our starting
and arrival point in regular space as usual.
51
Intuitively, we think of a field of probabilistic OR-relationships RC0-C* that newborn model-

photons C0-D0 sees around itself as soon as it shows up in Gp (formal). The logical gap between Gp
and G1 makes system unable to know or restrict the details of the concrete path from C0 to C*
(formal), so the selfish r-parameter that a Gp-observer must consider can develop along a
whatsoever linear-type path of G1.
We may also say (illustrative only) that if Gp were truly separated from G1-G2, this second
geometry would lose from time to time model-photons with no opportunity for them to come back
in a hosting-absorbing model-electron. Hence system requires an additional instruction, although
probabilistic, to set the conditions for a Gp-object to land back again in G1.
We assume that such an instruction takes the form of a model-amplitude RC0-C*, which classifies as
an OR-relationship of the kind R2πτλ in Gp. As such, the potential states of the model-photon must
progress along the path by a regular repointing of 2π per any linear-type λ0-distance. In fact, the
primary coding of Fig. 7.a comes upstream and prescribes it in any case (formal).
For the rest, the linear-like distance along which a G1-observer can imagine to operate to calculate
the amplitude can be whatsoever in regular space, and its probabilistic effect must add up because it
remain an equally-possible option for the system (via the illiteracy we assume of Gp with regard to
true G1-parameters applying in G1).
As the path nevertheless pertains to Gp, we assume that there system adopts an energy-share
criterion much similar to the one that we assume for poles and formal objects in general
(Subsections 1.1.4, 1.2.2, and 2.1.2), where in this case the two system-items that interact in an OR
across Gp are actual-object C0-D0 and potential next-object C*-D*. We thus assume that this gives a
1/r dependence to the linear-like component of our relational coding (these details of the tool are
still under construction at present: see also Subsection 2.1.2).
Our system-instruction RC0-C* has thus two Gp components. The first is phase φ of potential object
C*-D* relative to actual object C0-D0. It proceeds along the Gp-path as of the primary coding of
model-photons (Fig. 7.a), and in Sketch 7.b (details on the right), it corresponds to the regular angle
between actual-pointing P0 in C0 and potential next-pointing P* in C*.
This makes a pair-parameter, so to the limit we may think of the relative phase that formal object
C0-D0 and formal object C*-D* see relative to one another (illustrative only). Due to the way that
the primary coding works, any λ0 more along the linear-like path in G1 cancels the phase-change
relative to C0-D0, so we take as usual a pro rata of the last λ0-span (along a path of a whatsoever
shape in any case).
Our coding concerns the possible retirement of newborn model-photon in C*, i.e. down to
Cabsorbs=T in regular geometry (formal), so its second component is the strength or intensity of our
RC0-C* relationship. Operatively, we assume it to fundamentally obey a shared-energy criterion
(formal), and to reduce therefore as 1/r by the linear-like distance between our two mutually-
comparing objects C0-D0 and C*-D*.
The sole peculiarity is that those objects pertain now to Gp, so when calculating the distance we
take a Gp-PV and the potential path in G1 can be any shape and direction. This in turn makes
available many options to Gp to relocate newborn model-photon from S to T, so we are forced to
take a probabilistic attitude also, and to properly account for all those Gp-options.
In our sketch of Fig. 7.b, we fundamentally assume that objects C0-D0 and C*-D*make two equal
1 h states with their pointings (system-perspective), and as such they entertain in Gp a mutual OR-
relationship of the kind R2πτλ (formal). Then, we apply our general conceptual framing and operating
rules for system-relationships, i.e. same general scheme that we have seen for instance in Fig. 5.d
for gravity.
It is next intuitive that the general arrangement of this first relational coding of photons keeps in
line with the current use of complex numbers or arrows to calculate the probability of photon-
events. More properly, what we are attempting is just generalizing those methods to track possible
similarities with other system-objects, so by evidence our tool and auxiliary description could not
52
add nothing more. Here, we simply suggest that the intensity and phase of those well-established
calculations could correspond respectively to a positional- and angular-criterion in Gp (formal).
2.2.3. Relational coding of two photons on two distinct G1-paths (Gp self-consistency)
So far, we based on the idea that Gp-geometry works somehow on its own and uses two selfish
relational-criteria, which are model-phase φ and linear-like distance r on a path whatsoever. If we
accept this position, it is intuitive that system cannot determine which concrete path the model-
photon will take with regard to regular geometry (our formal G1-G2). We thus assume that beyond
having paths compatible with the concrete arrangement of G1-G2 objects, system requires another
condition to ensure that when retiring a model-photon from Gp down to G1-G2 (formal), the
pointings and relationships within Gp stay nevertheless consistent in themselves.
This leads intuitively to the idea of a second relational coding for pairs of model-photons on two
distinct and system-equivalent G1-paths. Fig. 7.b illustrates such a second instruction (formal) in
the particular case of an almost balanced double-slit situation (bottom of sketch). We thus neglect
the difference in intensity of our two Gp-relationships R1 and R2, and for the rest we schematize by
just two paths to evidence the phase-effect. It is easy to extend the model-construction to complex
situations where more than two paths and different lengths are involved.
We also assume that this second instruction fundamentally works together with the first relational
coding of Fig. 7.b, and that also in this case the system-coding operates on formal-objects two-by-
two. Such a trait of the tool is in fact common to our descriptions of system-relationships, and also
to the ones that we presented above for A-C-B or EA-C-EB assemblies.
In the sketch of Fig. 7.c, we fundamentally operate in Gp and refer phases φ1 and φ2 of
relationships R1 and R2 to newborn photon-object C0-D0 in C0, which is our common source in
S=Cemits (compare also with Fig. 7.b). Next to that, we assume that system-relationships R1 and R2
relate to one another via their relative phase φ12 (second-order relativistic effect).
For our schematic example of an almost balanced double slit, the length-intensity of the two
pointings R1 and R2 is practically the same, whilst their relational phase φ12 can vary widely due to
the small difference of the path lengths along our two concrete G1-options 1 and 2. We assume that
in this case, the object in the system is fundamentally the same (relational-pointing C0-C* of the
kind R2πτλ), so the head of the pointing must be the same in next-pole C* (otherwise system could
not claim that those Gp-relationships point to a single destination point in G1).
Intuitively, this maintains Gp-consistency and makes a sort of recombination rule for properly
interfacing Gp with G1-G2 (formal), should our model-photon truly retire and reenter G1 there: the
center of our recombination-sketch corresponds to point T in regular geometry, and we track it also
as target T in our Sketch 7.b for a single photon on a single path.
As system for the rest is free regarding the possible paths in G1, we can visualize the phase effect
as a pair of twin-pointings R1 and R2 that keep their heads in C*, but for the rest could rotate freely
by their Pole C0 on a circle if we imagine a slight change in their concrete paths. Any pair of fixed-
length paths in G1 thus produces a particular combination of R1 and R2, like for instance the one
that we show in Sketch 7.c.
In Sketch 7.c2 on the right (formal), we fundamentally combine twin-components a and b as we
assume that they are system-consistent: our tool cannot distinguish two identical pointings in a
single G1-point, so they join in a regular sum. Conversely, we cancel twin-components c and d as
we assume that they are contradictory in the system: two opposite and otherwise identical pointings
in a single G1-point cannot subsist.
Operatively, our twin-pointings R1 and R2 relate to one another and combine logically through Gp-
components that reinforce or cancel each other. Yet, their relationship remain probabilistic within
53
the system, so fundamentally it corresponds to the current notion of amplitude for an elementary
ST photon-event.
The tool (formal) just reads it as a potential and probabilistic second-order relationship (compare
Fig. 7.c with Fig 7.b) between the two relationships that actual-object in S=C0 and next-object in
T=C* entertain with one another via two possible linear-like paths. Those two paths correspond in
fact to two neutral and equally probable system-options due to the inherent logical gap between Gp
and G1.
Globally, the sole particularity of our formal handling of system-items is that we face here Gp-
objects and Gp-relationships that obey their selfish-rules with regard to regular geometry G1. In any
case, our auxiliary description reflects the current notion of amplitude and the arrows-method that
Richard Feynman outlines in his QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, so fundamentally
the tool brings nothing new.
In particular, we base here on the assumption that system allocates two distinct Gp-objects R1 and
R2 because they refer to two distinct paths in G1. The idea that system adopts positional-criteria in
G1 is one of our main working-hypothesis, so two paths in G1 distinguish one another and system
must account for them concretely.
Nevertheless, the arrival-point in Cabsorbs down to G1-G2 is only one, so we assume that system
must also maintain (formal) both the inherent Gp consistency and the mutual Gp-G1 consistency.
Operatively, in Sketch 7.b we have two potential amplitudes in terms of relationship R1 and R2 for a
same C0-C* photon-event, but only a part of them is logically sound and the rest is not (formal), so
system only accept their a + b part. This in turn forms within the system an overall and
comprehensive amplitude for a photon possibly landing in that precise point of regular geometry.
2.2.4. Probability rules in general for photon-events within the tool
Our model picture also remains consistent with the probability rules that we apply in general to
photon-events. We specifically assume to work in Gp by two independent parameters, which are
phase φ (inherent in Gp) and linear-distance r (a sort of coordination or interfacing of Gp with G1,
which is only partial though, as Gp simply accounts for the total linear-path regardless of its shape
and direction).
In our sketches 7.c-c1, we thus consider that system has two options for a photon-object to go
from common source S to common target T. In principle, both options are equal by themselves
although their strength and phase keep consistent with the potential path that they may take in G1.
These two options make two contextual pointings (i.e. two contextual operating objects in Gp), so it
is intuitive that we must add them up: we just use arrows or complex numbers as those Gp-objects
contain both a length (more properly a strength) and a phase.
Conversely, in our sketch of Fig. 7.d, we have two pointing-relationships R1 and R2 that are still
contextual according to our model picture but combine differently in the system. They
fundamentally track two chain-events STint and SintT that are now self-standing and
independent from one another (there are no reasons for second emission in Sint=Cint to work
differently from the first one in S=C0).
Based on our general scheme for relationships between two relationships (e.g. Fig. 5.d), we
consider that here R1 and R2 combine by a system-product. This however concerns only their length
(or strength), as it depends on how long are the paths that we consider in G1 for R1 and R2. It is next
intuitive that reemission in Sint=Cint resets the selfish phase counting in Gp, and that in any case
system deals with the arrival-phase in T=C*.
We thus do not have the mutual relativism that we register in Sketch 7.c (φ12-parameter), and here
the phases φ1 and φ2 simply sum, which corresponds to the well-known rule for multiplying
complex numbers (or arrows). Globally, we have in the system either a regular vector-sum of our
54
relational-pointings or a dedicated vector-product where we multiply their length-strength and add

up the phases.
2.2.5. Generalizing the C-D arrangement in a system-standard for linear moving (formal)
We close this quick and intuitive overview of the tool by recalling our assumption that objects of
the kind C-D make a general standard for moving in the system, and thus they apply to our coding
of the relative-velocity situation also (Subsection 1.2.1 and Fig. 3.a). There, we associate explicitly
the two runs C2-C1v and C1-C2v of the relational coding with two relativistic objects of the kind of
our model-photons. Those two runs in fact correspond to our common β-component within the
mutual assembly of two massive moving objects of the kind A-C-B.
It is clear that this modeling artifice is barely formal and that those photons-like objects are much
different from the free and primary ones that we track by our coding of Fig. 7.a. Nevertheless, we
regard the C-D object as an abstract OR-relationship between two distinct 1 h states, so we see no
reasons for the system to read differently a C-D object in a primary or a relational context.
Operatively, both our C-D objects move, and the one that we associate with true photons is just
primary whilst the one that we associate with the moving of massive bodies is just relational.
Conversely, this working hypothesis makes intuitive that at some fundamental level, any moving
particle may contain a light-like component (formal), and more specifically a relational C-D object
that the system itself does not truly distinguishes from a primary one. This may account for the fact
that moving particles show waves properties much similar to those of light (see also Sketch 3.c for
an intuitive visualization of the idea).
In Subsection 1.1.5, we also suggest the general notion of unit load W1 as the level of the h on the
model-scale, which for geometry of massive A-C-B assemblies traduces in an abstract momentum
W1G = h/λ0 [kg∙(m/s)]. It is now evident that such a modeling artifice attempt generalizing the De
Broglie formula that we normally see in terms of a particle or a body that moves relative to us.
We have then a uniform system-reading, where the primary unit load just refers formally to the
inherent scale and change-energy of a massive object, whilst the relational unit load that we
consider here refers to the β-component of Fig. 3.a, and thus to the concrete moving of a massive
object in regular geometry. In the very end, the De Broglie formula associates a λ0-scale with the
moving itself, so the primary and relational linear momentum formulate fundamentally in the same
way within the tool (same system-notion of unit load on a given linear scale).
3. Conclusions
Our auxiliary tool remains unchecked and unproven but tends nonetheless to form model pictures
that seem to remain compatible with current knowledge of physical objects and relationships. This
conclusion limits to the very few situations that we have introduced in this paper, so checking
formalism as a whole would require much deeper investigations.
A distinctive trait is that we use a different method with different aims, so the tool adds as an
auxiliary option without interfering with other recognized models. It in fact bases on the assumption
that all we know from modern Physics is fundamentally correct neither could we find new
knowledge in it.
Our key task stay fundamentally besides and reduces to describe any kind of physical situations by
a same system-language. Our auxiliary description could not subsist on its own, so it specifically
devotes to possibly support regular modeling of physical objects and relationships by usual
methods.
55
Our formal description mostly helps visualizing the general organization of model objects and
relationships, along with the strategies that system seems to adopt to keep logically consistent. A
distinctive modeling artifice is therefore to play multiple points of view at a time. In addition, we
glimpse a complex and very integrated web of objects and relationships, where nothing can in
principle separate from noting.
We also propose a system-illiteracy criterion for probabilities, where we humanly can read a sort
of system-strategy to make Nature stable but somewhat free instead of a bare mechanism. Another
curious feature of our auxiliary description comes from relying on generalized points of view of any
kind on board of system-elements, like for instance formal poles, relationships themselves, and
entire system-geometries.
56

Auxilary Description of Objects and Relationships - Nicolini LGL

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

Auxilary Description of Objects and Relationships - Nicolini LGL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auxiliary System to Describe Physical Objects and Relationships – Draft 0, October 14, 2017

Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © October 2017

Auxiliary System to Describe Physical Objects and Relationships.

1. Describing regular massive objects and their geometric relationships

We regard Nature as a system of physical objects and physical relationships, so we choose a

1.1.1. Introducing the tool and its operating principles

As a result, we fundamentally define an A-C-B object as a straight geometric-field going from a

1.1.2. YES-check mechanism (formal)

1.1.3. Operating features of model-time (formal)

1.1.4. Containment effect and system-notions of energy (S=shared, P=presence, C=change)

1.1.6. Digital coding and probabilistic reading of the model fields

1.2. Relational codings of massive bodies of the kind A-C-B

1.2.1. Relative velocity coding (length contraction and time dilation)

Fig. 4: Relational coding of distance-gravity and limiting conditions.

Our model picture of distance-gravity fundamentally arises from sharing-and-combining in the

mGravitationalObserver c2), where αGravitationalObserver nevertheless depends on the opposite-partner, so the

Fig. 5.d schematizes our general logic of model-relationships (formal). We fundamentally

2.1. Tentative auxiliary coding of model-electrons (logic L2 and geometry G2)

Fig. 6: Tentative auxiliary coding of model-electrons and of their G2-geometry.

2.1.1. G1-G2 system-coordination and observing practically from G1 vs. G2 (formal)

2.1.2. Positional-criterion and mutual relationships of model-electrons in G1

2.2. Tentative auxiliary codings of model-photons (geometry Gp)

Fig. 7: Three-step auxiliary coding of photons (primary, relational, and second-order).

2.2.2. Relational coding of single photons on single paths (Gp-G1 system-link)

Intuitively, we think of a field of probabilistic OR-relationships RC0-C* that newborn model-

2.2.4. Probability rules in general for photon-events within the tool

relational-pointings or a dedicated vector-product where we multiply their length-strength and add

You might also like