Theory of Regulation Fields TRF
Theory of Regulation Fields TRF
Theory of Regulation Fields TRF
Abstract
We propose the theory of regulation fields as a particular method for describing reality. It adds to the methods
already in use and qualifies as a plain generalization. We normally describe reality as a set of objects, changes
and correlations in space-time. Here we will add a structural description in terms of cells and links that form
elementary assemblies. The regulations fields will be our formal tool and in such, we can regard them like
other symbols such as numbers or vectors. We will call grains the particular assemblies made of fields but for
the rest, we will handle them as regular objects. The idea of describing objects, changes and correlations as a
structure of fields comes also from the regulation systems we find in industrial processes. We will mostly focus
on the low-level logics that supposedly regulate our formal grains. The proposal should be regarded more as
pragmatic engineering method than a theory. The method is unchecked and unproven but provides hints on
structural constants and system indetermination. A quantum structure based on a fixed unit action is inherent
in the formulation. The description in terms of grains includes space-time parameters and generalizes to gravity
also. This last requires a separate paper where we will propose a family of grains based on just reversing the
logic of the supposedly massive ones we postulate here. Another necessarily independent paper will propose
a quick derivation of the energy-momentum relationship based on this same method.
Summary:
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
1. What regulation fields are and where the idea comes from....................................................................... 1
2. Basic notions, symbols and conventions of the binal logic ....................................................................... 3
3. Pragmatic interpretation of fields and formal properties of binal grains ................................................... 6
4. Autoregulation chain of binal grains and system indetermination .......................................................... 14
Reference List:................................................................................................................................................. 17
1. What regulation fields are and where the idea comes from
We propose the theory of regulation fields as a particular method for describing reality. It comes in addition
to the methods already in use and we can regard it as a plain generalization. We will therefore progress by
some basic schematizations of the problem. Say that we normally describe reality as a set of objects, changes
and correlations in space-time. Here we will add a structural description in terms of cells and links that form
elementary assemblies. The regulations fields will be our formal tool and in such, we can regard them like
other symbols such as numbers or vectors. We will call grains the particular assemblies made of fields but for
the rest, we will handle them as regular objects. The notion of a grain recalls the one of an elementary particle
but the parameters of a grain can modulate in a given range. In fact, the idea of describing objects, changes
and correlations as a structure of fields comes also from looking at the regulation systems that we find in
industrial processes. This justifies the name of the theory and we will mostly focus on the low-level logics that
supposedly regulate our formal grains.
Fig. 1.a compares our method with the general attitude in describing reality. On the left, we think of objects
and changes in the space-time frame. The correlations are no doubt part of reality but we cannot know to which
point they are also a human construct. On the right, we emphasize that the description remains by evidence a
human model. We search however for a simple repetitive scheme where unit cells form elementary assemblies
and then the assemblies link in more complex structures. The correlations become an integral part of the
structure. We will also describe uniformly the objects, the changes and the correlations in terms of fields.
In the left sketch, space and time play a special role that we need to generalize. Say we have two brand new
pens on a desk. One could hardly distinguish them in themselves but we know they are two because of their
1
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
different position in space. The example is even more appropriate for elementary particles for which we accept
they are identical. In addition, we know that an apple is the same apple but it will be riper tomorrow. In this
case, we think that time distinguishes two different states of the apple, which is a convenient concept also for
us. We will not enter the problem of what is space and what is time but we will propose an idea. They seem to
act practically as logical and substantial spacers between things that are equal at least in part. The problem is
central for us because we will start from identical unit cells. The links in the right sketch will take the form of
structural spacers even before we can think of time and space in our description.
Fig. 1.b shows another central point of the method. We intend generalizing the example of a split bar for
which we know that conservation laws apply. We also know that reality is objective and we may express the
idea by saying that a full and reliable certainty associates both to the integer bar before and to its parts after.
We may also quantify this certainty by dividing ideally a whatsoever item by itself, which always gives 1 or
100% if the item exists truly. For the split state of the bar, we would conclude that the certainty becomes 200%
or even more. In fact, all physical relationships between the parts and of each part with the rest of the world
are objective also. In the realm of certainty, dividing by two gives more than two. This property of reality
seems to work creatively. The hint is that the balance and mathematics of certainty, if any, must work
differently.
On bottom of the sketch, we emphasize that the orientation of the parts is irrelevant. We will see that
conversely, the mutual orientation of two fields is a determining factor both for their balance and for the kind
of configuration that they form.
Fig. 1.c intends to illustrate that the method we propose is fundamentally the same we use daily for measuring
things. In the example, we can reword the problem by saying that we certify the length of the object, or more
in general the value of a whatsoever physical quantity that we intend to measure. We just want our method to
become independent from any preexisting metering bar. We retain that the essence of certainty is comparing
2
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
two or more whatsoever items in a match. We will adopt the specific term of binal certification system because
we will base on matching two fields or two assemblies of the same kind. More in general, one could think of
trinal or higher order systems where three or more items need to match for establishing the certainty.
Fig. 1.d concludes the preview of our particular aims and scope. On top right, we mean that for carrying out
a logical comparison of two items, they must have in any case something in common, say X. For instance,
both the cube and the cylinder are physical objects, which is fundamentally why we can compare them and
conclude they are different. To the limit, we may say that the comparison become fake only if we attempt
comparing a real item with an unreal one. Our nexus X is in general the fact that both items are part of reality.
The point is relevant for us because we will base our structural description on identical unit cells. The sole a
priori is that those presumed cells must be substantial, so they fundamentally correspond to the X of the
example. For quantifying their difference, we will use a metering bar in percent that reflects the Boolean nature
of the comparison. More properly, our logic could not distinguish identical cells and we will have to adopt a
particular notion for their difference. Our percent bar acts ideally as a spacer and establishes two end-stop
positions, namely 0% that reads equal and 100% that reads different. In between, we will presume a trivial
quantitative logic that is always a mix of them. We can regard our percent separation as the analog of a distance.
However, it always has a complement that we may call a logical proximity. When the separation field s reduces,
the amount of identity grows in terms of the proximity field p. The two go conceptually as we show in the
right diagram. Our method also differs in such that the spacer s coincides with the amount of correlation
between two cells. Our logic does not actually distinguish the two concepts. We assume that no correlation
could establish between two identical items and that only the correlation makes the difference. Operatively,
any two of our cells or equal assemblies are more different and more logically distant the more they correlate
with one another, and vice versa. We will in any case enter shortly the practical application.
The binal logic is a neutral descriptive tool. We propose a simple and intuitive formulation. The arguments
we provide only support its conceptual framing in view of practical applications. The theory in itself actually
consist of a set of procedures. As we describe reality in terms of a structural system, we call this description
system reality. We base on a binal certification system and interpret its output as a system certainty within the
scope and limits of the theory. For shortness, we will also write just reality or certainty in the text.
The first key assumption is that system reality is made of a single and fundamentally unknown base material.
The base material is a pragmatic standardization of the objectivity of objects. They have many shapes even at
an elementary level but they all are substantial. This common property corresponds to our supposed base
material. We assume it has no shape in itself and we will have to formulate our description in terms of different
states of a same base material. Our problem is under which conditions this supposed base material can form
structures that we can observe. We deny of course that the base material could have been pre-shaped prior to
reality. We regard it as just as a blank for setting up our description. The logic in itself could be formulated by
just replacing the term base material with reality or other equivalent human concepts.
Fig. 2.a defines the pin as a 0-D logical field. We assume it is our funding structural element in terms of a
single logical cell. We use the notation n-D for the logical dimensionality of fields, where n = 0, 1, 2 in this
block of the theory. We regard the pin as a Boolean probe for the base material or for reality in general. If it
marks 100% YES, that cell is surely part of reality. If it marks 0% YES = 100% NOT, the procedure and the
symbol are fake. The notion of pin is independent from space. We may imagine sampling a big star as a single
unit and we will still get a 0-D logical entity. A pin has no attributes in itself and cannot carry any other
numerical value than its Boolean certainty. As such, all pins are identical to the point that the system cannot
distinguish them from one another.
Fig. 2.b formulates the central problem of binal logic. If we accept the idea of pins, it is evident that in reality
there is a multitude. In that case, however, we distinguish pins trough space and time whilst we search for an
independent description. In the 0-D logical space of a pin, the two statements that there is one pin and that
there are many are equivalent because the system cannot discriminate the two situations. Paradoxically, the
pin is self-certified to any order of logic. When we assume the certainty of at least one pin making its own
substantial 0-D logical field, we may say that there are two in a match, or even three or as much as we could
3
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
materially count. In any case, we just assume the pin and do not know anything of it beyond its Boolean 100%
certainty. Our problem is how we could claim that there is a second pin in our binal certification system.
Fig. 2.c illustrates why geometric symbols are inadequate for our aims. Thinking that our spacer could work
as a segment, does not allow discriminating which pin is what. In the top sketch, the spacer establishes the
certainty of two pins but for keeping consistent, we should give them the same name A. If both are A, however,
there is noting that differentiates the two pins in our logical realm, so the idea of a spacer in between them is
fake. Writing A and B in the sketch would be arbitrary also because they are pins and not geometric points.
We definitely need some logically oriented structural spacer but we could not use a geometric vector neither.
Besides our specification for an independent description, it is clear that a geometric entity could not work
correctly in a logical space.
The three-pin configuration that we show in the bottom sketch would not help neither. We however consider
that reality so far is made of one single cell in the form of a pin, so assuming a single-cell logic would be
acceptable. In fact, we cannot presume some sophisticated logic to operate a priori within this early and very
trivial stage of the system. If we now apply this supposedly compatible single-cell logic to an assembly of two
pins as in the sketch, we produce a difference that even the native system can appreciate. There are two single
cells, where single-cell is a notion clear to it, of which the first is made of one pin and the second is made of
two pins, which is definitely different far beyond the perfect identity of the three pins. Moreover, the single-
cell logic has generated not only two distinct cells but a new double-cell logic also. The argument is just
intuitive but we will actually base on a trivial combination of two cells and two logics.
Fig. 2.d shows the logical flowsheet and inherent range of our binal certification. Pin A is our starting
certainty and the second cell is different because it contains two pins A’-A’. In that cell, a second parameter
regulates the difference between A’ and A’. Both differences can range in principle up to max 100%. When
the difference between A’ and A’ is 0%, both coincide and form pin B. We regard it as a collapsed pair still
different from pin A. If we think of logical links from A to the pair A’-A’, we can schematize them as a
4
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
concordant pair c1-c2 and a discordant pair d1-d2. Upon including the antimatch in our definition of certainty
as a match, we form a self-certified system consisting of two C-D components, where C and D are our logical
bases of description. C-D indicates a logical frame whilst c and d are percent values.
All pins within the assembly are identical, so the difference can only come from the spacers. We regard them
as single-value structural blocks. A spacer qualifies as a 1-D field vs. the 0-D of pins. As such, it is improper
to think that a spacer is made of pins. Moreover, the spacer is our first structural element that can carry a
numerical information. For the moment, we express it as a bare percent. We regard the spacer as a trivial
standardization of a physical quantity before assigning a proper unit of measurement. Finally, binal spacers
always work in a pair, so we sketch them as half-arrows. Each one actually carries half system certainty. For
simplicity, we call them amplitudes instead of half-arrows or half-fields. We use instead the term field for the
certified 1-D assembly of two amplitudes, either concordant or discordant.
Fig. 2.e illustrates intuitively our definition of the logical link between amplitudes. Conceptually, it makes a
third structural element of our system that qualifies as a 2-D field. For it, we adopt the term tile.
The flowsheet of Fig. 2.d actually presumes that any two binal amplitudes, either concordant or discordant,
collaborate with one another in establishing the certainty of both the c-c and d-d- components. Therefore, there
must be a substantial nexus in between each pair. We imagine by absurd that an amplitude or a field could be
divided in parts. Each part will have a link with all parts of the partner, so the amount of coupling will express
naturally as a product. The meaning is different though of what we think in mathematics or geometry. Here,
the concept is rough and exemplifies as the count of the links one by one. Collaborating amplitudes always
match in a certainty, so their inherent coupling is quadratic. Two different fields x and y correlate as x ∙ y.
Fig. 2.f shows in geometric terms the property of binal field that we identify as transversal or Pythagoras
balance. So far, we meant discussing just logical assumptions, definitions and properties in symbols, i.e.
without relying specifically on geometry. If we now accept the idea of a certified binal field that is made by a
pair of amplitudes whose coupling is quadratic, we draw an immediate geometric reading of the kind of balance
it must comply with. We imagine starting from an integer s-s field of 100% and deriving ideally two fractions
c-c and d-d. If we want to conserve the amount of coupling with which we started, we must write c2 + d2 = s2,
where s2 is worth 1 just because we are in the realm of system certainty. We see immediately that the fractioned
C-D assembly conserves also the logical spacing between A and B for any c-d combination. The extremely
trivial mathematics of fields resumes in a quarter circle. Tracking fields by a vector x and an angle φ is an
equivalent method but for our aims, we will focus on the c-c and d-d components only. Basing on this non-
geometric formulation of fields, we regard π/4 as an inherent constant of a binal certification system. We may
also express the idea as 90°, quarter rotation, geometric orthogonality induced by amplitudes coupling, or other
similar human concepts.
With regard to the balance of a bar in Fig. 1.b, we assume that amplitudes and fields do not actually split.
We use the terms fraction and fractioning instead. Upon referring to a geometric visualization as in the sketch,
we may say that becoming orthogonal with regard to one another is the method by which the system
discriminates the two fractions. The 90° visualization symbolizes for us their maximum difference-correlation,
which corresponds to a structural c-d tile in the system. The sketch actually hides but implies, in the logical 2-
D, two coupling tiles c2 and d2 for the individual amplitudes of each fraction, and one rectangular tile c∙d for
the correlation of the two certified fields c and d. All values are for the moment in percent and express the
certainty of the assembly.
We now compare again the transversal fractioning mechanism with Fig. 1.b for a bar. We start from a given
certainty s of 100% and get: a) two distinct certainties c and d of 100% each by conserving the overall
substantial coupling of amplitudes; b) the same Boolean separation we had originally in the system between
two pins. This kind of system is not really generative but just recursive. The procedure may repeat in principle
as many times as we want by fractioning again one or both the fractions. The numerical value of the fields will
reduce progressively but their certainty will remain 100% due to the systematic match of two amplitudes that
is part of the mechanism. In some sense, a field made structure works like Chinese spaghetti.
Fig. 2.g switches pragmatically to a geometric symbolism. We know that fields are not geometric items but
we need to visualize them in a way or another. It is important to remind that we are using symbols. Basing on
sketches 2.d and 2.f, we refer to two limiting conditions where an integer pair of amplitudes is either 100%
concordant or 100% discordant. Then, we express any current situation as a c-c and d-d mix. Visually, we get
the impression that the system modulates c-d by just opening or closing an integer pair of amplitudes. This
5
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
tracks the inherent range of the logic, namely a half circle as our D-D reference is symmetric. In Sect. 3, we
will propose a practical interpretation of our bases. We anticipate that we cannot give a physical meaning to a
pure C or D state. On those borders, the interpretation collapses. Globally, we intend to describe concrete field
assemblies and bits of system reality as a C-D combination, but only the mix qualifies real whilst the basis of
description we fundamentally do not know. For the rest, we will see that the practical application of our
symbols is immediate. C and D are selfish occurrences of amplitudes, so they qualify as a sort of absolute or
self-standing logical reference. Operatively, they play as logical axes and can lay in a direction whatsoever.
One has just to start from the concrete situation he wants to describe in terms of fields. Then, he will have to
fit conveniently our ideal C-D axes on the physical situation itself.
Fig. 2.h summarizes our symbols and conventions for binal fields. We regard them as structural bricks with
distinct functions. They keep logically apart from one another also because of their dimensionality, so a higher-
order element is not made of lower-order elements
i. The pin qualifies as a 0-D field. It makes our starting cell and its certainty is assumed. A pin cannot carry
any numerical value beyond its Boolean 100%. All pins by themselves are identical and indistinguishable
to the system. The central problem is how pins can form structures.
ii. A binal amplitude weighs half a 1-D fields. It provides a concrete separator for pins to qualify different.
Amplitudes always work in a pair. They are the first structural element that can stand a true quantity. It is
not yet a definite one, so we standardize it in percent. We symbolize amplitudes as half-arrows but they
are not geometric vector. Beyond working differently and in a different context, amplitudes distinguish
two pins and always have a Boolean component. By the simple fact that we say two pins, we must account
in our system for a 100% logical separation between them.
iii. By the term field, we mean conventionally the certified 1-D assembly of two amplitudes. We may say
that each of them carries half-certainty and is a half-field, but the term amplitude is more practical. We
also use the term C-D coding of amplitudes because it sounds less geometric than logical axis. The binal
coding is trivial, as we only have the concordant-discordant occurrences. The resulting certified fields are
same-level independent from their coding and symbolic visualization. At this introductory level, we
describe any situation as mix of C-D components.
iv. We call tile the structural element that differentiates-correlates two amplitudes or two fields. It qualifies
as a 2-D field. We do not normally represent it in our sketches and assume it implicitly. Globally, two
pins are 0-D and require a 1-D spacer as they are identical in themselves. Such a structural element
actually acts by both differentiating and correlating the two pins. It is implicit that a 1-D spacer connects
the whole 0-D space in a pin with the whole 0-D space in the partner. Similarly, our amplitudes are
identical by themselves and require a dedicated structural spacer. As they are 1-D, we extend the same
scheme where no correlation of two amplitudes means no distinction and vice versa. We also quantify the
global coupling between their two 1-D spaces by the product of the two amplitudes. We sketch
symbolically our tiles as an area, but conceptually they are not. For the rest, any two collaborating
amplitudes either concordant or discordant are equal because we define the certainty as a match or
antimach. Therefore, their coupling tile is quadratic. Two certified fraction-fields conversely correlate via
the transversal balance of the parent fields but modulate independently. As such, they carry two distinct
numerical values and their correlation tile is just rectangular instead of quadratic.
So far, we could make some reasonable argument. The interpretation now becomes arbitrary and justifies on
a pragmatic basis only. Regulations fields are most of all a method for combining the Boolean component of
our description with the continuum we see in real life. The logic is strict, so when we think of another pin there
must be a 100% difference. We define this difference as an integer system step and as we know, it can occur
either in space or in time. Using just this criterion would give an unrealistic description in terms of sharp and
fixed steps. The method we propose allows describing the system steps by two C-D components that modulate
in a continuum within the 0%-100% range of the logic. The step in itself remains a Boolean integer and a
minimal bit of system reality. We will handle formally these steps or unit bits of changing reality as just as
concrete objects made of fields. For them, we adopt the specific term of grains. In our system, there must be
at least one grain before we could think humanly of a space-time reality. All suggested readings of our
symbolism remain in any case questionable.
6
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
Fig. 3.a summarizes a first possible interpretation of amplitudes as commutation commands. The reason is
that we want to catch first the changing component of reality. The C-D coding is our reference standard. In the
sketches, the value of the pair can modulate in general from 0% to 100%:
i. When the commands are concordant, we assume that pin A changes to pin B. If the amplitudes conserve,
the situation goes on replicating in the logical space. The pins have no extension, so we have a count of
dimensionless certainty point that stay ideally sur place whilst commutating A-B. We associate it to the
human notion of time, or more properly to a sequence of logically distinct instants of time. For us, such a
C-coding changes the now state A of the base material to the next state B of the same base material. As
pin A commutates in pin B, the two are alternative and we associate this C-command to the OR-logic too.
The states A and B cannot be contextual. In this case, the instruction is complete. The direct match of
amplitudes establishes both a 100% Bolean difference and a logical orientation of the change. We do not
use the term time but just the bare notion of change on a logical basis. Our commutation is always now-
next and thinking that it could reverse makes no sense. In fact, when A becomes B, it becomes the sole
concrete state of the base material and classifies A again. Any time, we only have the now state in the
system. This is what we normally think of an object in real life.
ii. When the commands are discordant, we assume that pin A cannot commutate and just stays in its logical
cell. Otherwise, pin A should split and this would contradict its definition. We also presume that we are
discussing a concrete and consistent sketch. Our binal assumptions imply that we have also two pins A’
and two d-d amplitudes in the system. If so, they all form an extended assembly where the change is
inhibited. The whole corresponds for us to a single cell blocked in its. All parts of the assembly are now
contextual and we associate such a D-coding to the AND logic too. Globally, the D-coding results in a
permanent A’-A-A’ configuration. The information is incomplete though. The antimatch of amplitudes
certifies a percent separation A-A’, namely the size of the assembly. Conversely, we assume that the
logical direction is structurally undetermined, and that the system does not actually distinguish A’ from
A. In the sketch, we could freely exchange their labels. The D-coding has in any case produced an
extension that, in this configuration, is not oriented. We regard it as a minimal bit of system space but we
keep on quantifying it in percent.
iii. Assuming that the d-d orientation is undetermined implies revising our symbol. We cannot catch a D-pair
in a geometric sketch, e.g. on a horizontal line as in sketch ii. The central pin A is our assumed certainty
and makes a fixed pivot in the logical space. The amplitudes too have a given percent size and make
another fixed term of the problem. Thinking of 3-D as in physical space would not be appropriate. We
only can conclude that the position of our visualization point A’ is also undetermined, and that it draws
ideally a ring-shaped field in the sketch. Our D-configuration becomes a pin-and-ring assembly. For ease
of application, we imagine that only those two components of the cell are solid. The center surely contains
one d-d pair, otherwise there would not be D-cell at all. However, no one can know how it lays. For
instance, we can imagine the inner as a sort of evanescent wire wheel whose hub and rim are pin A and
pin A’. In any case, the concrete assembly only consists of two logical borders and of one structural spacer
of the kind d-d. We assume it makes a no-change single-volume cell neither can one think of partitions or
distributions in it. We regard it as another structural brick whose sole percent parameter for the moment
is d.
iv. We show by absurd that the idea of taking another D-pair from outside and putting it in the D-cell is
illogical. In fact, we appreciate the orientation through a geometric symbol that is fundamentally fake for
fields. Inside the cell, the orientation is structurally undetermined both for the owner and for the incoming
guest, so the system cannot distinguish them. Here again, the two claims that a D-cell contains one D-pair
and that it contains many, are equivalent. Paradoxically, it seems that the system reserves a property cell
to D-the pair forming it, just because any other D-pair that attempts superimposing confuses with the one
already there. Another unusual finding is that A and A’, namely the pin and the ring, are logically
separated but not different. This implies that we can exchange their roles, or more properly that we have
two combinations. In the first, A plays the pin and A’ the ring whilst in the second, their roles reverse.
Our symbolic sketch seems to hides two half-structures whose perfect match however aligns with our
definition of certainty. In a C-pair, the match of amplitudes certifies the difference of pins A and B. In a
D-pair, the match of our pin-and-ring half-structures certifies the difference of amplitudes. This is another
reason for accepting the antimatch of amplitudes as an alternative certainty in our binal system.
7
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
Fig. 3.b summarizes a possible procedure for assembling ideally a grain starting from our C-D bricks. We
regard grains as common objects or assemblies made of fields. Key differences are: a) grains include a dynamic
parameter and are being-changing objects; b) each grain describes one minimal bit of system reality; c)
differently from particles, grains make families whose parameters can take values in a continuum from 0% to
100%. We assume that individual grains conserve or we conserve in any case their energy.
Reading amplitudes as commutation commands expressed the Boolean component of our description. We
refine the interpretation assuming explicitly that the C-coding is an action. As for the base material, we do not
know anything else. The sketch labels the C-D coding by the respective OR-AND logic, which is equivalent.
The whole picture is arbitrary and only aims at tuning binal logic to practical applications:
i. We start ideally from an integer OR-bar whose c-c value is 100%. The bar has no physical meaning in
itself and only expresses a C-certainty. We actually assume two things: a) this certainty refers to an action;
b) its unknown value is the same for all integer OR-bars. As such, this supposed action is not just the
maximum but also the sole that the system can supply. We fundamentally base our formal description of
8
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
reality on a fixed system drive for any kind of grains. The space and time scales of grains come from the
transversal balance of an integer OR-bar that plays ideally as a common or fixed parent field.
Above the OR-bar, we imagine superimposing an AND-cell whose size is d-d, where d can modulate in
general from 0% to 100%. We mean that when we form a given grain, say d = 75%, it conserves as a
common object. However, the procedure describes a family of individual grains that have the same
properties and whose parameters correlate in a way that we will see shortly. We also anticipate that this
specific AND-on-OR procedure only describes a first kind of grain. We can use other combinations and
form ideally other kinds of grains having different properties. In this introductory paper, we will limit to
the AND-on-OR family. We assume it describes massive grains, namely objects made of fields whose
energy is confined within a given spatial scale around our reference pin A.
ii. The AND-on-OR assembly remains a symbol but it is already a possible way of visualizing a grain. We
have adapted the name of the fields to the meaning we presume. We interpret the extended AND-cell as
the concrete body of the grain. We recall it is a single-value structural brick whose binal coding is D. We
do not know its size in meters but its regulation field is worth a given percent λ. In general, we denote the
field by the letter and the physical scale by the subscript 0, e.g. λ0 [m] in this case. Say the round cell
covers the OR-bar determining two internal-external percent fractions. We give them the meaning of a
time scale whose field is τ, and of a frequency whose field is ν. The physical parameters are τ0 [s] and ν0
[1/s]. In percent, the size of λ and τ are the same. The third field ν is the complement of the OR-bar.
A first issue is figuring out an action or just a change in an AND-cell. In a house, we can make a change
moving from one room to another, but our cell is single-room. Its round-shaped symbol and the poverty
of the binal system suggest that the only option for making a change is a rotation of the λ-λ pair. The two
claims that its orientation is undetermined and that it undergoes a change do not contradict one another.
The state of the λ-λ pair is not of being under a given logical angle as we think in geometry but it is of
just being changing. If so, its rotation must conserve, which corresponds to a given dynamic parameter of
the grain. The scheme we propose is: a) the sole concrete reference is field τ, which is C-type and made
of two amplitudes τ and τ that match stably; b) in a D-pair, the two rotating amplitudes λ and λ are
different; c) when one of them aligns with τ, a triple match occurs as the percent value is the same, and a
different triple match follows for the other; d) the system counts ideally the change inside the cell in terms
of half-revolutions or π sub-steps; e) the refresh of the configuration and thus one integer step come after
a full revolution, i.e. 2π; f) we assume that 2π makes the natural measure of one step in all binal grains.
We emphasize: a) the amount of change progresses ideally with the logical angle up to max 2π, where
however it resets to zero as the λ-λ configuration becomes identical, and thus indistinguishable from the
one the grain had one revolution before; b) our supposed change-counter refers to a logical field τ that has
no definite orientation in space, so the description we propose remains smooth and continuous but embeds
a structure where no matter how and when the cycle start, after 2π one integer step completes; c) the
system actually contemplates two equivalent options for the rotation of the D-field, namely clockwise and
counterclockwise, but at this trivial level we cannot say much more and we just assume that this gives
two distinct subfamilies of grains that differ of nothing but the sense of their structural field rotation.
A second issue is why we should interpret the two fractions of the OR-bar as a frequency field ν and as a
time scale field τ. We need also to model how the three fields λ, ν and τ may combine and work together.
This pseudo 3D view of the procedure lends itself to an intuitive reading. First, the AND-cell covers τ,
which is an oriented field, whilst inside the cell the orientation is undetermined in principle, so the two
are logically incompatible. Second, we claim that the λ-λ pair within the body of the grain rotates
conservatively, so we need a dynamic parameter of a given value for quantifying the effect. The only
option is thinking that the AND-cell correlates with the outer fraction of the OR-bar and that fout = ν acts
as a frequency operator regulating the rotation of the object λ-λ. At this point, λ and ν have formed a
structural assembly, namely a being-changing grain that fundamentally must conserve. We assume that
the covered fraction fin = τ correlates with it as a whole and acts as an operator that displaces the grain of
one step along the C-axis. Intuitively, we base on a fixed system drive whose fraction ν enters a single
cell A’-A-A’ where it takes by logic a rotatory state, and whose complement τ displaces it contextually
of one step from Anow to Anext. The assumption of an equal being changing state for all grains visualizes
immediately in our symbolic representation. When the body of a given grain is large, its rotation regulates
automatically low and vice versa. The size of the changing object times the intensity by which it changes
always makes our supposed fixed drive for any bit of system reality. Within the grain, one step is worth
2π. Outside the grain, one step corresponds to one time scale τ. We assume these two descriptions of the
step to complement one another in terms of our two distinct single-cell and double-cell logics.
9
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
Fig. 3.d suggests other two possible options for figuring out concretely the situation in a grain:
i. We mean a representation in a logical realm but we draw the three fields as if they were orthogonal to
each other, which is a geometric contamination again. Besides that, we describe the structure of a given
individual grain by the percent value of its three fields and by two correlation tiles λ∙ν and τ∙ν as in the
sketch. The ideal procedure of Fig. 3.b actualizes the supposed transversal balance of an integer OR-bar,
so any particular grain: a) conserves the certainty of the fixed action by which it supposedly derives; b)
establishes the certainty of its three fields and the certainty of their mutual correlation in the symbolic
form of two tiles. The amount of correlation in both tiles is worth 100% and they both come from
balancing a same 100% bar, so we read them as different forms of a same system drive. The two are
equivalent in terms of binal logic and percent values: a) within the grain, we only can apply the human
equivalent of one field revolution no matter how and when the cycle start; we assume a no-reference
description and write the certainty of the ongoing change in kinematics terms as λ∙ν = 100%; b) outside
the grain, we assume that the C-axis provides an independent logical frame for the change; we regard the
low-level action as a progress of the frequency-energy of the grain along C, so we write this second and
equivalent certainty as τ∙ν = 100%.
We still do not know, neither could we, the physical value of the action. The logic and even our
interpretation only concern the certainty of the action, as well as the idea that it balances structurally in
two fixed certainty tiles λ∙ν and τ∙ν as in the sketch. We come therefore to another crucial point of the
interpretation, for which we recall: a) we are not considering physical quantities in general but structural
scales that correlate with each other in a system step; b) pins and amplitudes do not allow by themselves
a space-time reading; c) a grain makes the minimal bit of system reality to which we can give a concrete
meaning in human terms; d) all grains of a family are certified and weight the same in the binal system.
If we now assume that our presumed grains also correspond to bits of physical reality, we can infer that
any one of these bits weighs the same in the physical system: a) all grains contain two fixed certainties in
the symbolic form of two tiles whose percent parameters modulate; b) we still do not know the physical
value of the tiles and of the fixed action that they supposedly carry, but the certainty of it and the
assumption of a same physical weight of any bit must correspond to two fixed physical quantities for the
whole family; c) in terms of physical parameters, we assume λ0 ∙ ν0 = constant and τ0 ∙ ν0 = constant for
the two tiles of any grain in the family. We have then to fit pragmatically the theory on evidence, and
using SI we choose: a) the speed of light c [m/s] for the first structural tile; b) the constant 1
[dimensionless] for the second tile.
If we next multiply the second tile-equation by the Planck constant h [J∙s], we get immediately τ0 ∙ E0 =
h, that correlates the supposed one-step move of the grain along C with the frequency-energy by which
the step occurs. We refer here to the outside description of the grain by the OR-logic and fundamentally
10
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
regard the step as an object of a given frequency-energy that makes a correlated move in time. These two
physical parameters supposedly autoregulate with one another via the underlying balance of the parent
system drive. Inside the grain, the binal description by the AND-logic is structurally different, so for the
moment we only can quantify in abstract terms the kinematic action as a constant that recalls the speed of
light. Basing on our binal model, the physical action within the belly comes from one field rotation of 2π
or from some equivalent human concept, even if this second form of the action stays hidden in the AND-
cell of the grain. In any case, 2π within the grain is the conceptual counterpart of the time scale τ0 that we
appreciate, still in symbols, outside the grain. The only practical difference is that 2π is structurally fixed
for all grains whilst τ0 modulates with ν0-E0. We will in any case propose shortly below a low-level but
more systematic description of the action: a) basing on our supposed AND-OR logics operating inside-
outside the grain; b) including an explicit model for the AND-cell action as a fixed angular momentum
M0 = h [kg∙(m/s)∙m], where h is again the Planck constant.
Similar considerations apply intuitively to other kinds of grains for which the curvature parameters σ-σ0
[%-1/m] are active as of our standard C-D chart of Fig. 3.c. In that case: a) the outside description of the
unit action during a step λ0 [m] becomes λ0 ∙ σ0 = 1 [dimensionless] or λ0 ∙ P0 = h [m∙(kg∙m/s)], where P0
[kg∙m/s] is the momentum of a grain that moves materially in space, h [J∙s = m∙(kg∙m/s)] is the Planck
constant, and we have generalized the De Broglie equation as of P0 = h ∙ σ0 upon considering that σ0 is
not just the trivial inverse of λ0 but the structural curvature under which the step λ0 occurs; b) the inside
description remains fundamentally the same because the AND-cell keeps its structurally fixed 2π step, so
we limit for the moment to an abstract kinematic action in the form of a constant that recalls the speed of
light. Detailing these supposed additional families of grains will by evidence require additional papers but
the description method we propose here will by itself extend naturally.
ii. The simplest and probably less contaminated scheme we can propose for a grain comes from combining
ideally the reading of a fixed action by two single-cell and double-cell logics: a) say 30% of the system
drive goes in a single-cell where it takes necessarily the form of a rotation but cannot have a physical
meaning in itself, so the second channel provides a space scale for the rotation in terms of a coupled
reading of the remaining 70%; b) contextually, the primary double-cell reading actualizes the same 70%
as a time scale, but again this makes no sense in abstract terms and the first channel provides the object
that changes in time, i.e. the frequency that was already allocated by the direct single-cell reading and that
remains a frequency for both channels. By its nature, the single-cell only allows one option, whilst the
double-cell can work either as double-cell or single-cell giving two distinct AND-OR options for the
reading.
Fig. 3.e provides an example for illustrating the two distinct readings of the theory: a) the low-level logical
structure bases on a binal percent correlation and presumes a C-D quarter circle with its given family of λ-ν
grains; b) there cannot be however a direct coupling with the actual structural pair λ0-ν0 that we observe on the
physical side. Besides using naked percent values on bottom vs. physical units of measurement on top, the
low-level actualizes a binal certification system with different conservation rules and mathematics.
Say for instance that in the sketch, φ* identifies a given individual grain as we showed in Fig. 2.f. The percent
parameters of the grain are λ*-ν* but they do not correspond to a given physical pair λ0*-ν0*. In fact, the two
values as well as the c-constant of the curve depend on the units of measurement that we choose to adopt for
λ0* and ν0*. Considering light for instance, it is common to express c in [m/s] but using 1 [dimensionless] is
practical also. If we were acquainted for some reason with expressing the frequency in hertz, then c would
measure in [m ∙ Hz]. Depending on these conventions, the λ0-ν0 curve shifts freely in the sketch but the binal
structure underneath always maintains a mathematics of the kind λ0 ∙ ν0 = constant. We only can detect the
regulation fields, if any, via the structures we observe in real life.
Fig. 3.f compares the two distinct descriptions we presume to have contextually in a grain. The binal
formalism allows handling the grains as objects but due to our fixed action setting, a grain fundamentally
describes a being changing state:
i. The AND-cell is for us a single-value brick, so we assume that the system drive h [J∙s] expresses globally
in it. We claimed that the orientation of the λ-λ field is structurally undetermined and that the only
consistent option for modelling some action in the cell is a permanent field rotation. In the symbolic
sketch, we show the corresponding supposed structural scale λ0-λ0, say in [m], even if its orientation is
undetermined too. The binal balance of the h-bar we assumed in input gave a 100% certainty tile λ-ν to
which we associated a fixed correlation λ0 ∙ ν0 = c, where c [m/s] is the speed of light. Next to that, the
11
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
ongoing kinematic action c does not correspond to the physical action h we presume in the cell. The binal
structure consists of one pin and one ring of base material connected by a d-d pair, where the central pin
cannot contribute to the presumed rotational action. The only kinematic action we can figure out must
come from the ring, but thinking of a pure velocity ring makes no sense. The only consistent option left
is assuming that the kinematic parameter c associates to the AND-ring, but the ring itself, or more properly
the base material in it, has another property that we must parametrize on the physical action h. Basing on
SI units, this property must be a mass in [kg].
The formal picture we retain is the one of a solid massive ring that rotates ideally at the speed of light on
the external logical border of the AND-cell. The idea of an integral ring pertains to the low-level of the
binal system: a) it differentiates from the one of an orbiting point particle; b) we do not think neither of
light travelling on a circular path; c) we presume a mass that we cannot locate precisely in any point of
the logical ring just because of our definition of an AND-cell. We also recall that the notion of a binal
ring does not conflict with the need of having truly a λ-λ pair on some actual position within the grain
body, otherwise the AND-cell itself and the whole interpretation would be fake. The formalism only
presumes that there is some concrete and permanent field rotation mechanism within the grain, for which
we just do not know where and when one cycle begins. This last claim is what we call here structural
indetermination. For the rest, the cycle is one field revolution and it marks one system step and one action
h.
The parameter we need to add is the mass m0 of the grain, which we associate to the ring element in our
symbolic sketches. The formalism describes the angular momentum M0 within the AND-cell as M0 = m0
∙ c ∙ λ0 = h [kg∙(m/s)∙m], where h [J∙s] is the Planck constant, c [m/s] is the speed of light, and λ0 [m] is
the size of the grain. The supposed mass of the grain correlates with the inverse grain size as of m0 =
(h/c)/λ0. The notion of mass in the theory of field expresses as the confinement degree of the action around
the central pin of a grain. This corresponds to pin A of Fig. 3.a and is our zero reference for the now of
the system. Referring to our standard C-D chart of Fig. 3.c and still assuming a direct correspondence
between the regulation fields and the structural scale of a grain, we can define the h-confinement factor
as 1/λ0 = σ0 [1/m], where σ0 is the curvature of the ring. In the context of field regulation theory, we may
also use the term closure or contracture for σ0. In general terms, the contracture of a grain and the
confinement of its unit action leave the angular momentum M0 unaffected in the AND-cell but raise the
mass-energy of the grain, which we will describe shortly trough the OR-component of the grain itself.
Globally, on the side of the AND-component we associate a fixed angular momentum M0 = h to any binal
grain. The step is necessarily one full revolution of the field λ-λ that sustains the pin-ring assembly. It
marks the occurrence of exactly the same AND-cell configuration that we had one revolution before. As
the step is fixed and we measure it conventionally as 2π, the step rate of the action in an AND-cell is fixed
too and writes M0/2π = h/2π = ħ. We define the step rate as the action divided the step and assume it is
another fundamental parameter of the binal grains. It simply expresses the rate by which the action
proceeds in general along the step independent on how we describe the step itself.
The only consistent mechanism we can figure out for having more action within the exact configuration
of a given AND-cell, is that the system allocates in it more than one h and increases accordingly the step
rate in discrete multiples of ħ. The system modulation here actualizes similarly to what we think of
changing the car gears. We may assume for instance that three grains weighing one h each collaborate in
a same AND-cell, so the binal system cannot discriminate them. We cannot think neither of the precise
orientations of their supposed three λ-λ pairs because they are structurally undetermined by definition.
We only can apply the claim that after one full revolution the configuration of the AND-cell must repeat
exactly and that the step rate is three times the base or fundamental one, i.e. 3ħ in this example. So, the
apparent step with regard to our standard reference of 2π reduces of a factor of 3, which gives ⅔π or one-
third revolution. Our description however claims that, still in this example, the grain consists of: a) three
superimposed AND-cell working together by the same frequency; b) three λ-λ pairs of which we cannot
know the mutual orientation but that, in any case, after one integral revolution due to the common
frequency recover the same global configuration of before. Visualizing a multiple-h AND-cell by a
random distribution of n λ-λ pairs that make 2π steps or by equally spaced pairs that make steps of 1/n of
2π is practically irrelevant in the context.
ii. We assume that the inherent description of a same grain by the OR-logic is structurally different, as it
contemplates two correlated parameters. Basing on Figs. 3.c-d, the fixed unit action visualizes now in a
given frequency-energy entity, namely ν0-h∙ν0, that makes ideally one move along the C axis representing
time. Our description of this OR-step takes the form E0 ∙ τ0 = h [J∙s], where h is the Planck constant, E0=
12
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
h∙ν0 [J] is the energy of the grain coming from its frequency ν0 [1/s], τ0 [s] is the time scale of the grain,
and ν0 and τ0 correlate trivially as of ν0 ∙ τ0 =1. We note we are representing here the grain for what it is,
so we refer explicitly to its proper energy and proper parameters only. Dealing with mutual relationships
between grains touches at other sections of the theory and will require additional dedicated papers.
With regard to the AND-cell description: a) the step rate is now the energy E0; b) it is not a fixed parameter
but within the family, it can in principle occur in a continuum from 0 to ∞; c) more properly, the
frequency-energy ν0-E0 and the step time scale τ0 must ideally coordinate together for keeping fixed the
action throughout the family. A high energy grain, for instance, will make short time scale steps and vice
versa. Basing on this description and comparing again with the AND-cell: a) the modulation mechanism
by the OR-logic is very different: any individual grain carrying a single h can have a whatsoever step rate
E0 provided its time scale τ0 autoregulates accordingly; b) the hypothesis of a base angular momentum
M0 = h and of a base step rate ħ, as well as the one of a modulation mechanism by multiples of them, do
not apply here; c) there are two grain parameters E0 and τ0 for one single equation E0 ∙ τ0 = h, which we
can regard as a structural indetermination.
We can also combine directly the two distinct descriptions of the unit action: a) as an angular momentum
M0 in the AND-cell; b) as an OR-step in terms of energy E0 times a structural time scale τ0. As both worth
h, we get m0 ∙ c ∙ λ0 = E0 ∙ τ0. This allows deriving another correlation for the mass-energy of a grain as of
E0 = m0 ∙ c2 [J], where c is our supposed structural constant that we fit pragmatically on the speed of light.
We emphasize that this result only comes from the whole set of our arbitrary assumptions and
interpretations. We recall in particular: a) our notion of the c-constant corresponds to the product λ0∙ν0 or
to the ratio λ0/τ0 of the grain scales; b) it is originally a 100% certainty tile in terms of fields, which we
next assume to correspond to a physical constant c for the whole family of grains.
Finally, the inherent momentum P0 = m0 ∙ c [kg∙m/s] that we presume in broad terms within an AND-cell
can be considered a grain parameter in itself, independently from our symbolic representation via a ring
of base material. Using the correlation m0 = (h/c)/λ0 and our definition of the confinement factor, we
obtain P0 = h/λ0 = h ∙ σ0 [kg∙m/s], where λ0 [m] and σ0 [1/m] are the structural size and contracture of the
grain. The combined AND-cell and OR-step description is compatible with the De Broglie formula also.
We actually assume that the correlation between the momentum P0 and the inverse scale or contracture
parameters can extend to any kind of binal grain. Taking for instance the standard C-D chart of Fig. 3.c:
a) the grain does not need to possess a mass for applying it; b) for grains whose logic makes inactive the
parameter λ0 and set σ0 instead, we can use directly h times the contracture.
Fig. 3.g suggests another particular property that seems to emerge when we describe reality states in terms
of binal grains. The notion of system step fundamentally come from our definition and interpretation of a binal
AND-cell. We claim that the λ-λ orientation there is undetermined and no one can know when and where a
field revolution begins. However, it is clear that after one full rotation or 2π, the cell regains exactly its former
configuration. When we switch to the supposed OR-description of the same step, we can think ideally of energy
translating in time but we mean a logical direction, like for instance our C-axis that provides some visual
reference. We cannot however presume there is a zero reference in it for marking the start of this supposed
step in time. Globally, the AND-cell and the OR-step do not differ substantially from this particular point of
view. In both cases, the logical start-and-finish of the step stay undetermined.
Our practical visualization, actually, induces some geometric bias in making the picture. The tile vs. slice
diagram therefore proposes standardizing the low-level notion of system step: a) a step is a step no matter how
we describe it: say in general it weighs 1 or 100% or for instance one h; b) we can regard a system step as a
freely shifting window or logical tile: it makes a bit of system realty and it is made of the step size times the
step rate; c) for tile description, we mean a global picture of the step and it is discrete in itself: any time we
establish a step start, we have for sure one integer step and then the finish of that same step; d) for slice
description, we mean the point- or instant-picture we can always extract ideally from a step in terms of its step
rate: for instance, the slice description of the ongoing action in an AND-cell corresponds to M0/2π = h/2π = ħ,
and the slice description of the ongoing action in an OR-step is the grain energy E0; e) due to the inherent
freely-floating step start, the discrete structure of the tile description stays embedded in the continuum of the
slice description but reveals any time we establish a step start: we can measure for instance an energy for what
is it, but when encountering a pair of structurally correlated parameters, we cannot neglect the unit step to
which they both pertain.
13
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
The last two sections based on: a) an unchecked and unproved binal logic; b) an arbitrary although pragmatic
interpretation of it. We close this introduction to field regulation theory with a practical overview of our
supposed findings. Operatively, the notion of a grain is similar to the one of a particle but: a) in a family of
grains, the parameters can modulate in a continuum; b) when a given set of parameters occurs, the so
configured individual grain conserves; c) the closest conceptual analogy seems to be the case of photons.
Other two outstanding differences are: a) the term particle generally means a static item whilst a grain
describes a being changing state: we do not count for instance the masses or the charges but mostly the unit
actions that we presume in each grain; b) we assume that a grain can adapt its asset and parameters to the
physical situation: the binal balance of the action acts actively in configuring the dynamic state of a grain as a
whole.
Considering fields and grains as concrete items may be practical in applications. However, they qualify more
properly as a formalism that, if confirmed, may complement the current ones. Such a structural low-level
description refers in any case to being changing states more than objects as we normally mean. The modulation
range of grains goes in general: a) from 0% to 100% when considering their naked fraction fields, where both
in any case complement each other to 100%; b) from 0 to ∞ when expressing the grain parameters with their
proper units of measurement.
Fig. 4.a traduces the set of correlations we have discussed so far in an ideal autoregulation chain for a family
of grains. The example refers to the AND-on-OR construction of Fig. 3.b to which we associate a mass. We
assume that similar schemes apply to other families also. The sketch shows left-right the presumed fixed part
as read by the AND-OR logic. The two central boxes recall the corresponding modulating parameters and their
mutual correlations. In both cases, the unit action is fixed, say one Planck constant h [J∙s = kg∙m/s∙m]:
i. The AND-cell description gives a fixed angular momentum M0 = h. The logic of the cell fixes the
configuration and extent of the step, so the step rate h/2π = ħ stays fixed also. We furtherly assume that
the binal balance of the action field produces a constant product λ0 ∙ ν0 = c [m/s], which we regard as the
inner kinematic action of the grain. The modulation then ensues on λ0 and ν0, as well as on the presumed
ring mass m0 as of the inverse size or contracture of the grain.
ii. The OR-cell description presumes a freely modulating step τ0. Only the unit action is fixed, whilst the
step rate and the temporal scale regulate with one another via the product E0 ∙ τ0 = h. The energy vs.
temporal scale chain actually comes from the internal setting in the AND-cell via E0 = h ∙ ν0. We assume
indeed that the action must be the same on the internal and external side of the grain. Finally, in terms of
naked field, λ0 and τ0 actually coincides as of our interpretation of Figs. 3.b-c.
Fig. 4.b proposes a low-level scheme for the being changing states of system reality. They fit ideally in a
standard array whose 100% spacing reflects our supposed now-next steps. Such a visualization focuses on the
Boolean component of the logic. On bottom we show our logical C-D references, where: C-moves actualize
in the context our notion of time for massive objects; D-moves correspond to motion in space but their
description comes through other families of binal grains that require additional papers. We limit here to upward
moves, to which we associate energy and a binal correlation between this energy and the time scale of the step.
The 100% spacing of the array measures for us one h [J∙s = kg∙m/s∙m], where h is the Planck constant:
i. We recall on bottom left our supposed AND-cell description of Fig. 3.f: a) its logic determines a fixed
step of one revolution or 2π; b) the step rate h/2π = ћ is fixed also for all grains and all moves within the
array. One level above, we propose a mechanism for the system to modulate within an AND-cell: a) we
assume that its AND-logic cannot discriminate different items within the cell; b) upon adding one or more
action units, i.e. one or more grains, the system must allocate them on reduced substeps; c) these substeps
are equal as any added grain is worth one h; d) the substeps autoregulate as of 2π/n whilst the action rate
becomes nћ, where n is the number of grains or action units in the cell; e) in short, a multiple-h state forms
where the substep rate is higher than normal, say for instance three times, so the angular step lasts lesser,
say one third. Globally, we assume that the inherent autoregulation of an AND-cell is discrete and that it
proceeds by multiples of h and ћ. The cushion for the angular step contextually reduces as of ½, ⅓, etc.,
so the mechanism preserves the balance of the total action in the cell. We can regard this supposed
autoregulation as a sort of shifting down the rotational step for getting or accommodating more step rate
and thus more action inside a single AND-cell.
14
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
ii. We recall on bottom right our supposed OR-step description of Fig. 3.f: a) its logic does not imply
geometric constraints; b) we have assumed a correlated pair (τ0; ν0-E0) that can modulate freely in the
family giving a continuum of possible grains. One level above, we propose a markedly different
mechanism for the system to handle more grains making one move in the array: a) we assume that in this
case, the OR-logic distinguishes the grains; b) each grain stays free of making the step with its proper
parameters (τ0i; ν0i-E0i); c) the individual time scales and energies are different in the group; d) we have
to refer to a common basis for time, which is for us the second [s], and in that second, the total field
revolutions we have in the corresponding AND-cells of the group is Σi νi; e) this sum of the individual
frequencies allows next describing the energy of the group by just multiplying by h [J], which is equivalent
to summing the individual energies in the same group. The argument is general and independent from the
one we suggested above for accommodating more than one h in a single AND-cell. Here we consider that
normally, one revolution of the λi-λi field inside a grain marks one h independent from its OR-parameters.
Summing the frequencies in a group means counting the number of such individual revolutions in a
second. In any case, on the side of our supposed OR-step description, the system does not show at this
particular level any discrete behavior. In fact, it can accommodate on a single OR-step a whatsoever
number of different grains but for the rest, this multiple-h step remains 100% and it is common to all of
them. In a multiple-h AND-cell, the rotational step must be common also but the room is fixed and the
balance must regulate via a discrete substep mechanism. In both cases, we refer to the step rate, not to the
step, and sum the pertinent AND-OR value of the step rate itself.
Fig. 4.c schematizes in simple terms the problem of system indetermination. Say we expect to observe a state
(Ee; te), which we presume to be objective, but we measure (Em; tm) instead. Classically, this may come from
two logically independent errors on both parameters that we could ideally reduce to zero. Most of all, this
implies that the measured state (Em; tm) qualifies fake. Besides the fact the discrepancies (δE; δt) are physically
and logically correlated with one another, thinking of a structural indetermination implies that in principle, the
different state (Em; tm) is objective far beyond any human errors of measurement. Basing on our assumption
and interpretations, we are in a case where in general, two states of true reality just differ from one another. If
it is not an incidental discrepancy, their difference must consist for us of one or more system steps. As we are
interested in the minimal system uncertainty, we will focus below on a single step or, formally, on just one
grain of difference.
Fig. 4.d schematizes on the left a composite state of n grains G1, G2, Gi, etc. Still basing on our assumptions,
each grain carries one h and runs independently with its proper frequency ν01, ν02, ν0i, etc. These individual
parameters express the number of field revolution per second (RPS) in the AND-cells of each grain. The second
[s] is the common reference for physical time, so the sum of the frequencies gives the total RPS of the group.
This also measures the number of h that the group collectively engage in a one-second windows and relates
immediately to the macro energy of the composite state. We are using here our tile-description of Fig. 3.g. The
minimal structural indetermination we may conceive at this level consists of plus or minus one integer h-tile
as we sketch on the right. In any case, the theory assumes first that the column of h on the left makes the now
state and there is no structural indetermination in it. We next accept as reasonable the idea that the measured
state, or more properly the state of the group when measuring, is just different in principle. This second state
becomes in general our next, so we can apply our binal hypotheses to such a presumed minimal difference of
one h. It actually makes a global value just when we adopt the tile description by the AND-logic, whilst the
contextual OR-step description of the same h-difference presumes two correlated parameters as of Fig. 3.f. In
practical terms, our system contains one equation for two variables and we assume that some inherent
indetermination arises here. We note it affects the very low-level logics that support the prime definition of
our supposed grains. With regard to Fig. 4.c, where we wrote (δE; δt) for the indetermination in general terms,
the sketch also recalls on the right our binal notation (E0n+1; τ0n+1) for this same plus or minus h-tile of
indetermination. We furtherly assume that: a) the issue does not limit to measuring a given state of reality; b)
the indetermination at this level is a structural feature of a binal system; c) the minimal indetermination we
have in the act of measuring is fundamentally the same we have in a single h-tile when it projects in an OR-
step whose ν0-E0 and τ0 parameters can freely modulate in principle within the family of grains; d) the
indetermination is conversely restraint in the AND-cell because the step there if fixed to one full rotation or
2π; e) the conservation of the frequency-energy of grains practically wipes off any true indetermination from
the system. In structural terms, one can regard the inherent indetermination left in the low-level of the OR-step
as a sort of cushion that makes the step-by-step progress of the system controlled only in part. This means that
15
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
the control over a now-next transition in the time-energy domain does not come directly from the binal
structure but is mediated via the general conservation of energy. In a broad sense, we may regard this feature
of the system as something that allows regulating step-by-step the dynamic of the grains once conservative
grains have established. Without such a structural cushion, any established system reality would be frozen on
a given set of grains that conserve forever their exact frequency-energy parameters. There would be no way
for the grains to interact with each other and this would make a very unrealistic picture.
Fig. 4: Overview of the grain description for being changing states of reality.
Fig. 4.e bases on the last set of assumptions regarding the system indetermination and focuses now on the
slice vs. tile description of the step as of Fig. 3.g. We claim that the indetermination is inherent in the OR-
component of the step itself. As we presume it to be a general feature of a binal system, we write the minimal
indetermination (δE; δt) as a single-h grain of difference (E0; τ0). For the rest, we refer to the notations and full
set of working hypotheses of Sect. 3 and Fig.3:
i. After recalling the hybrid visualization on the left, the sketch compares in broad terms the AND vs. OR
pictures that we assume to be contextual and complementary in a binal step. We superimpose fictitiously
the two images after standardizing ideally the AND-cell parameters to 100%: a) within a rotational AND-
cell, we presume the certainty of a step rate ћ that lasts identical whilst wiping the full extent of the 2π
step: the slice description of the being changing state lays on top of the rectangle and in this case, we can
even think of some animation in terms of a vertical 100% bar that moves from 0 to 2π; b) the slice
description of the OR-step, in this case without animation, can vary widely within the family and nothing
in principle can restraint it as far as the low-level logics are concerned: the OR-logic states admit a
continuum of equal options that lay ideally on the diagonal of the triangle if compared with the AND-cell
states. The argument is somehow improper, actually, both because the two logics cannot be compared and
because any concrete ν0-τ0 pair, once established in the system, possess a certainty of 100% also, i.e. no
less than the rotational one that we assume in the AND-cell. However, the sketch allows visualizing that
on average, the possible time-frequency or time-energy pairs are centered on the 50-50% point of the
diagram. With regard to it, the indetermination of a particular time-energy state that actualizes in the
system is plus or minus 50%. We associate this inherent system cushion to an indetermination of ½ћ in
our slice description of a binal step by the OR-logic. As we were referring here to a single binal grain, ½
16
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
ћ is also the minimal structural indetermination we can have in this theory. For instance, say the pair of
OR-correlated structural parameters is (ν0-E0; τ0) and we expect a field combination (40%-60%) to occur
in the diagram: a) the indetermination of the frequency-energy value is ideally 60% upward and 40%
downward; b) the minimal structural indetermination actualizes when we expect a fifty-fifty fractioning
of the OR-parameters with regard to the fixed step rate ћ of the AND-cell, so the upward and downward
uncertainties balance equally to 50%.
ii. The sketch proposes another more direct argument that requires however refining the interpretation of the
C-D coding of amplitudes. First, we note that: a) for the AND-cell of a grain, we claim at once that the
orientation of its funding λ-λ field is structurally undetermined and that this same field rotates for sure; b)
the field rotation clearly remains an assumption but the way the system establishes the certainty of this
rotation must reside in the OR-logic, as the AND-cell in itself provides no angular references. Formally,
we may visualize the situation as if the OR-logic were observing the AND-cell from outside. We then
recall: a) field τ pertains to the OR-logic and establishes in the system as a concordant c-c match of its
two amplitudes τ-τ; b) we read it as a neat and self-standing logical orientation, so it can provide indeed
an ideal angular reference for the AND-cell; c) the binal meaning of the c-c coding however keeps distinct
from the orientation in space and remains a 100% certainty, namely that the two amplitudes τ and τ are
positively referred with regard to one another; d) the discordant d-d coding expresses the opposite 100%
certainty, namely that the system has no way of referring the two amplitudes with regard to one another)
in practical terms, two d-d amplitudes do not see each other and their mutual orientation stays 100%
undetermined, which we may call also a 100% indetermination. We finally add the explicit assumptions
that: a) the C and D configurations make two end stop for the logic of referring mutually two equal
amplitudes within the system; b) any intermediate configuration can be expressed as a combination of
these two bases producing a continuum mix of certainty and indetermination with regard to the mutual
logical orientation of a pair. We now apply these low-level concepts to the sketch and to the problem of
referring mutually each amplitude either λ’ or λ’’ to our supposed logical reference τ in the external OR-
logic: a) in naked percent, the value of τ, λ’ and λ’’ is the same as of the AND-on-OR construction of Fig.
3.b; b) we assume as our a priori that the d-d field λ’-λ’’ rotates for sure and regularly within the AND-
cell, which means for us conserving the inherent action and global dynamic of the grain; λ’ and λ’’ are
equal as usual and we use this notation just for ease of visualization, which is in any case correct because
the two are logically distinct by definition. The interpretation of the sketch follows immediately: a) when
λ’ is ideally up, a triple match of amplitudes forms that refers for sure both τ to τ, which is the fixed part,
and λ to both τ, so the logical orientation of λ’ is 100% determined: b) contextually, λ’’ is ideally down
in a configuration that we associate to a 100% indetermination of the kind d-d with regard to both
amplitudes τ and τ, and the same repeats for λ’ and vice versa for λ’’ when they orientations had inverted;
c) this produces a sort of comb-shaped curve for the 100% certainties and 100% indeterminations in the
C-D end stops, as they both invert and repeat any ½ revolution or π. Globally: a) we must keep consistent
with our assumption of a 100% certainty of field rotation within the AND-cell; b) there seems however
be a dumping mechanism when transferring this same certainty to the OR-logic; c) the sketch visualizes
this effect in terms of a certainty of λ’ orientation that decreases whilst the twin-certainty for λ’’ increases
and both trends inverts after ½ revolution or π; d) the supposed OR-reading from outside the AND-cell is
always a balanced 50-50% mix of certainty-uncertainty about the logical orientation of the λ’ -λ’’ pair; e)
if so, the OR-logic cannot establish neither the full certainty of its effective rotation and action rate ħ; f)
in terms of slice description, we can quantify the 50% indetermination implicit in a binal grain as ½ħ.
Intuitively, our two presumed AND-OR channels are logically independent and the OR cannot see directly
an AND-shielded rotation. When one λ in the sketch approaches the τ and thus another triple match is
going to occur, the OR should actually consider in principle two balanced sorts: either another triple match
occurs and confirms the rotation, or it does not. Even from this point of view, the OR-logic cannot
establish the full certainty of the λ-λ rotation in an AND-cell and the system should be given a 50%
indetermination at this level.
Reference List:
The author has limited knowledge and no expertise in Physics. This proposal should be regarded more as
pragmatic engineering method than a theory. It is however clear that no one could have thought of regulation
fields without Physics, so all past and present literature should be cited in principle. This is impossible and we
17
Theory of Regulation Fields – Notion, method and scope. – Draft 0, August 11, 2020
Luigi Gian Luca Nicolini, luigi.nicolini.home@alice.it – Copyright © August 2020
limit to a few general references. As far as the author knows, there is no literature covering directly or indirectly
the regulation fields or comparable methods of description:
• Briatore L., Leschiutta, S. (1977). Evidence for the earth gravitational shift by direct atomic-time-scale
comparison. Il Nuovo Cimento B 37 (2): 219–231.
• Capra F. (1997). Il Tao della fisica (The Tao of Physics). Adelphi Edizioni.
• Davis P. (1996). I misteri del tempo – L’universo dopo Einstein (About Time). Arnoldo Mondadori
Editore.
• Dirac P. A. M. (1959). I principi della meccanica quantistica (The Principles of Quantum Mechanics).
Bollati Boringhieri Editore.
• Dirac P. A. M. (2019). La bellezza come metodo. Raffello Cortina Editore.
• Earman J. (1989). World Enough and Space-time. The MIT Press.
• Einstein A. (2014). Il Significato della Relatività (Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie). Bollati
Boringhieri Editore.
• Einstein A. (1967). Relatività: Esposizione Divulgativa (The Special & General Theory). Bollati
Boringhieri Editore.
• Feynman R. P. (2010). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Italian edition: QED La strana
teoria della luce e della materia). Adelphi Edizioni.
• Feynman R. P., Leighton R. B., Sands M. (2010). The Feynman Lectures on Physics – The New
Millennium Edition, Volume I: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat. Basic Books, Perseus Books
Group.
• Frith C. (2009). Inventare la mente: come il cervello crea la nostra vita mentale (Making up the Mind:
How the Brain Creates our Mental World). Raffaello Cortina Editore.
• Hafele J. C., Keating, R. E. (1972). Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains.
Science 177 (4044).
• Hafele J. C., Keating R. E. (1972). Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.
Science 177 (4044).
• Hawking S. W. (1988). Dal big bang ai buchi neri. Breve storia del tempo (A Brief History of Time: From
Big Bang to Black Holes). BUR Rizzoli.
• Heisemberg W. (2016). I principi fisici della teoria dei quanti (Die physicalischen Prinzipien der
Quantentheorie). Bollati Boringhieri Editore.
• Markosian N. (2000). What are Physical Objects? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 61
• Rovelli C. (2014). La realtà non è come ci appare – La struttura elementare delle cose. Raffaello Cortina
Editore.
• Rovelli C. (2007). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press.
• Schiller C. (2010). Motion Mountain, The Adventure of Physics: Vol. 1, Fall, Flow and Heat; Vol. 2,
Relativity and Cosmology; Vol. 3, Light, Charges and Brains; Vol. 4, The Quantum of Change; Vol. 5,
Motion Inside Matter - Pleasure, Technology and the Stars; Vol. 6, The Strand Model - A Speculation
on Unification. Printed edition by Lulu, www.motionmountain.net.
• Smooth G., Davidson K. (1995). Wrinkles in Time – The Imprint of Creation. Abacus – Little, Brown
and Company.
18
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: