New Physics. Theory of Uncertainty. Puzikov Andrey Pavlovich.

Title: The Theory of Uncertainty: A Discrete Two-Dimensional Model of Cosmological Localization, Mass Defect Calculation, and the Evolution of Fundamental Constants.
Abstract:
This paper proposes an alternative cosmological model based on the concept of absolute uncertainty and the principle of hierarchical localization. Moving away from the postulatory nature of standard quantum mechanics and general relativity, the theory defines physical space-time as an algebraic projection of a two-dimensional discrete potential structure undergoing a global half-cycle of "dissolution" (expansion). Within this framework, time is treated as a sequence of discrete quanta of state, while fundamental physical constants (such as G, h, and e) are derived analytically as dynamic variables that evolve over cosmological scales.By utilizing a discrete localization parameter n = 2¹²⁸ (the determining number of our Universe), the model provides exact analytical solutions for key physical parameters without free adjustable variables. The theory yields an analytical calculation of the cosmic time elapsed since the expansion phase began (T ≈ 13.1 billion years) and calculates the dynamic masses of the electron (9.15 × 10^-31 kg) and the proton (1.6729 × 10^-27 kg). Furthermore, the model explains the nature of nuclear forces through physical body spatial overlap, providing a precise calculation for the mass of the deuterium nucleus (3.34375 × 10^-27 kg), matching experimental data within a 0.005% margin of error. The paper also derives the free neutron beta-decay time t_n ≈ 870.6 s.

Before physical science, which has been undergoing rapid growth in recent centuries, a fundamental dead end is emerging clearer and clearer. The discovered formulas of physical laws have yielded a myriad of useful practical consequences and certain the development of household and space technologies. However, as it turned out, they also lead to a dead end for further comprehension of the basic foundations of physical reality.

What worked so magnificently at one stage of the evolution of human world-understanding not only ceases to work at the next stage but actively retards any attempts to change the basic approaches to comprehending the foundations of the physical world.

The laws of physics, which until recently represented something like plasticine from which inquisitive minds molded more and more new forms, have turned into unshakable dogmas in the 21st century, increasingly resembling religious ones. Adherents of physics have formed a caste into which they admit only those who have not just undergone complete training in all the subtleties of physical science, but have necessarily accepted its basic foundations as absolute truth. Any criticism of the basic foundations is unacceptable in principle, just as criticism of God's commandments is unacceptable in religion.

And the comparison with religion is not far-fetched at all. All the basic foundations of physics, upon which its entire scientific edifice is built, lack rigorous proofs, either experimental or theoretical, and are accepted solely on faith. It is impossible under terrestrial conditions to prove that in the entire Universe there exists only one, strictly structured reality with a single causal relationship; that physical constants do not depend on time and space; that reality as such is always precisely measurable; that the properties of space do not depend on the location of the reference frame (observer) within it; and indeed, the very concept of the objectivity of physical laws can be experimentally proven exclusively within the boundaries of the Earth and human society, but it is induced onto the deep cosmos similarly without proof.

Under these conditions, it is difficult to convey to the scientific world a new understanding of the foundations of physical existence, to point out a way out of the dead end to science.

It would seem that the Internet has provided the opportunity to publish and convey any new idea to the world, bypassing all obstacles, except for one, and this obstacle turned out to be the most insurmountable — the Internet itself. In the chaos of Internet garbage, any fresh thought drowns, and official scientific resources recognize only themselves and their own kind, stuck in a dead end and unwilling to admit it.

Understanding this situation does not add scientific optimism, but evolution takes its course, and a new realization of the foundations of the physical world, and not only the physical one, sooner or later, will find its place in the consciousness of humanity.

The theory I am proposing differs too radically from the classical approach in physical science. This is a different view of physics, starting from its very foundation. Despite the fact that it does not contain complex mathematical formulas, the conceptual design is quite difficult to understand. Human thinking is based on the geometry of the surrounding space, and to step beyond the boundaries of the geometric representation of reality is extremely difficult. Yet without this, it is impossible to understand how this geometric superstructure, in which our existence takes place, is arranged, and what principles lie at its foundation.

Anyone slightly familiar with physics and mathematics can verify that the formulas and calculations I have obtained theoretically fully agree with experimental data. Understanding the logic of constructing the theory is much more difficult. But I still hope that there will be young inquisitive minds capable of understanding and continuing the study of physical reality in the direction I have found.

At the previous stage, my theory was called "Mechanics of Boundlessness". But, on the one hand, continuing to deepen it, and on the other hand, in search of a way to explain it more clearly to others, I decided that the name "Theory of Uncertainty" is more appropriate.

Absolute uncertainty and Boundlessness are essentially the same concept, but for understanding the process, the concept of uncertainty is better suited, from which a certain reality of our physical existence is gradually formed.

In the new version, I am trying to correct some shortcomings of the previous theoretical model, which are completely natural in such a new construction. This does not affect the main conclusions and formulas, but touches upon their justification and methods of derivation. I hope that in this version I managed to interpret the theory more clearly and consistently, avoid vagueness in formulations, and maximize, as much as possible, the approximation of the exposition to traditional approaches in physical science.

Prior to the investigation of the microworld and the emergence of quantum mechanics, it was believed that any physical phenomenon could be precisely measured, and this accuracy depended only on the capabilities of the measurement method and the corresponding instruments. Reality was unique and had no alternatives.

Consequent to the principle of relativity, this single reality was projected differently into different frames of reference, but at the same time it remained single and without alternative.

Experiments with elementary particles did not fit into this concept based on two basic principles: precise measurability and a single reality. At the very least, one of these principles had to be abandoned, and the founders of quantum mechanics preferred to abandon the second — the principle of a single reality. The concept of a quantum superposition of alternative realities arose. According to quantum mechanics, when measuring the quantum-entangled state of particles, a choice of one of the alternative realities occurs, and all other alternative realities cease to exist (at least for us) for a possible choice. This is considered proven in experiments.

I have no desire to delve into the subtleties of psychological processes in the minds of the founders of quantum mechanics that led to the emergence of this concept. I will only emphasize that this concept is based on an unproven assumption and leads to a number of logical inconsistencies.

The unproven assumption is the statement that the chosen reality, along with the alternatives, existed prior to the moment the measurement was made. I have no desire to delve into the description of logical inconsistencies; it is sufficient to note that the statement that something (alternative realities) existing at one moment in time ceases to exist at another moment in time (at the moment the measurement is made) is quite extravagant and does not match all the basic principles of conservation in physics.

It was much more logical to abandon the principle of precise measurability. In this case, instead of a cumbersome conceptual construction — the quantum superposition of alternative realities — we come to the conclusion that reality represents certain frameworks of certainty within which uncertainty remains.

Quantum uncertainty instead of quantum superposition — this is the single reality.

By producing a measurement in the region of uncertainty, we form reality, rather than choosing one of the existing alternatives!

If we discard the habit of seeing something concrete in everything, then it logically suggests the conclusion that prior to the moment of measurement there existed not a set of quantum alternatives, not their superposition, but uncertainty as the only true reality. To put it more precisely — uncertainty within the frameworks of the previously chosen certainty. That is, we have a situation with certain external parameters, representing a certain process of particle interaction. But the reality inside this process represents a region of uncertainty in which there do not exist separately taken particles in separately selected locations and with specific parameters. It is precisely this uncertainty of individual parameters of particles with certain external parameters of the group that represents the single reality. No other "alternative realities" exist!

This fundamental principle of forming reality out of uncertainty forms not only the microworld but also the macroworld based on it. Only by placing this principle at the foundation of the new physics will we liberate it from the dead-end, completely groundless principle of precise measurability.

The entire physical reality of our existence is formed from the initial uncertainty by successive steps of evolution. Each step of this process imposes new limitations (forming conditions) on a system with incompletely certain parameters, leaving the possibility for the next steps.

Thus, the evolution of our existence represents not a sequential choice from diverging realities, but a certain complex line on a white sheet of paper. We cannot change the position of the last point of the line, but we can direct the next point in any direction.

If we trace the process of evolution to the very beginning, we will come to a certain absolute uncertainty, to a "white sheet" on which anything can be drawn. Although the comparison is not entirely correct, since a white sheet is something certain, whereas absolute uncertainty is uncertainty precisely because it is not certained by any conditions and limitations.

Immediately I want to warn against a standard error of human thinking. Our brain tries to establish a certain equality between that which is not defined by anything and the so-called "nothing". Recently, the formula "Everything from nothing" has even been heard sometimes. But the so-called "nothing" represents the complete conceptual opposite of absolute uncertainty. "Nothing" means that it is neither one, nor the other, nor the third... and so on, until everything existing in our reality is enumerated. That is, "nothing" arises as a consequence of our entire evolution and cannot be its cause. This contains a very subtle boundary of understanding, but completely accessible to any person if the attention is clearly concentrated on the problem.

Let us write down our conclusion in the form of the first basic postulate:

Physical science deals with real physical experiments-measurements produced by people. Each person represents a certain system in which the entire external and internal world is reflected. This system of reflecting reality consists of a combination of a large number of sensors, mental settings, emotional and logical processes. In physical science, such a system of reflecting reality is considered subjective. By definition, physical science operates exclusively with objective data and concepts. In the process of the evolution of physical science, special methods were developed for obtaining objective data and working with them. At their core, these methods reduce to the principle of repeatability of experimental results by different experimentalists under identical conditions. Thus, one way or another, all methods of the objective approach of physical science reduce to the general human system of reflecting reality — the statistical resultant from subjective personal systems.

It should be recognized that the so-called "objectivity" of physical science represents a general human subjectivity.

The objective model of the physical world, considered and studied by physical science, represents a projection of the entire internal and external world into a reference frame associated with the collective consciousness of humanity.

Since this work is dedicated exclusively to physical science as a reflection of the already formed physical reality in general human subjectivity, we will not touch upon the processes that form the subjective features of this reality, but will try to describe the logic of the main processes that form the physical world.

What is called a reference frame in modern physics represents a mental projection of physical reality into the frameworks of certain physical conditions. Such reference frames can be real, those in which the human observer is physically present, and projected ones, in which the human observer cannot be present. Modern physics makes no distinction between real and projected reference frames, which is a mistake.

The mental projection is based on the belief that space and the laws of physics acting within it do not depend on the position in this space of the real reference frame associated with the planet Earth, in which all practical results of physical experiments and measurements are reflected.

This belief has neither practical nor logical justification, except for the established tradition based on the analogy with the independence of physical laws from the location on the surface of the planet and in its immediate vicinity.

Therefore, the concept of a reference frame applied in this work differs from the concept of a reference frame applied in physical science.

Any real reference frame represents a reflection or projection of the entire physical world into a certain physical process. At the same time, the physical process with which the reference frame is associated represents certain forming conditions for this projection.

Since any physical process is a part of absolute uncertainty, let us give the following definition:

A reference frame associated with any part of absolute uncertainty is called a projection of absolute uncertainty into this part.

In this case, a reference frame associated with a part of absolute uncertainty that is already in a projection into another reference frame is possible. Let us give the following definition:

An embedded reference frame is one associated with a part of the projection of absolute uncertainty into another reference frame.

Since an embedded reference frame represents a projection of a projection of absolute uncertainty into its forming conditions, the forming conditions of the embedded reference frame are superimposed on the forming conditions of the reference frame in which it is embedded.

In the relativity of an embedded reference frame, its own forming conditions are superimposed on the forming conditions of the reference frame in which it is embedded.

Let us consider absolute uncertainty in the reference frame associated with it. This reference frame represents a projection of absolute uncertainty into itself.

In this reference frame, only absolute uncertainty itself exists with all its unlimited potential and complete uncertainty.

Let us prove the following theorems:

Absolute uncertainty in the reference frame associated with it is not limited by anything and has no bounds.

Suppose there exists something that is not encompassed by absolute uncertainty. In this case, a defining limitation is imposed on absolute uncertainty, expressed in the fact that absolute uncertainty does not encompass this something. This contradicts the principle of absolute uncertainty. The theorem can be considered proven.

Consequently, any statement that there is nothing in absolute uncertainty or that some property is not realized in it will be false.

Thus, we can assert that in absolute uncertainty there exists a process of separating parts.

In this connection, let us prove the following theorems:

In the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty, any part of absolute uncertainty is identical to the entire absolute uncertainty.

If in any part of absolute uncertainty there are certain defining conditions, it follows from this that absolute uncertainty itself is limited by these defining conditions in this part of its own, which contradicts the principle of absolute uncertainty. Consequently, parts of absolute uncertainty cannot have defining conditions, and thereby are completely identical to the entire absolute uncertainty. The theorem can be considered proven.

It follows from Theorem (t2) that all parts of absolute uncertainty are parts of any part of it.

This property can be called a projection into each other.

Suppose that absolute uncertainty is asymmetrical with respect to one of its parts; this would mean that absolute uncertainty is divided into two parts not identical to each other, which contradicts теореме (т2). The theorem can be considered proven.

It follows from Theorem (t2) and Theorem (t3)) that any part of absolute uncertainty is symmetrical with respect to any other part of it.

Any material phenomenon, any form, is a consequence of a certain forming process, which must have a beginning in the form of the simplest physical manifestation. This simplest physical manifestation is a "random" fluctuation in absolute uncertainty, representing the initial separation of a part. The term "random" is taken in quotation marks, since in the absence of any limitations in absolute uncertainty, the probability of such a "randomness" is equal to unity.

The separation of a part in absolute uncertainty represents a process, which does not contradict теореме (т1), since any process is possible in absolute uncertainty. But, on the other hand, any process represents a certain forming condition in the relativity of the separated part. To avoid contradiction with Theorem (t2), which asserts that all parts of absolute uncertainty are identical to it and are completely indefinite, any process in absolute uncertainty must be simultaneously complemented by its symmetrical opposite.

Any defining process in absolute uncertainty, in the reference frame associated with it, is simultaneously complemented by an opposite defining process so that in sum these opposite processes constitute complete uncertainty.

The opposite symmetrical process to the process of separating a part is the process of "dissolution" or merging with the whole.

The process of separating any part in absolute uncertainty is simultaneously accompanied by a symmetrically opposite process of dissolution of this part in such a way that in the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty, this simultaneous process of two opposites represents complete uncertainty.

However, in the reference frame associated with any of the separated parts of absolute uncertainty, the picture is completely different.

Let us give the following definition:

Localization is the process of separating a part of absolute uncertainty in the reference frame associated with this part.

In accordance with Definition (d2.2), the reference frame associated with the separation of a part is embedded in the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty. This means that all defining conditions of absolute uncertainty must identically reflect in the localization.

The process of localizing a part divides absolute uncertainty into two parts. Since no other limitations exist in this process, both parts are identical, and the only condition for their difference is the condition of choosing one of them as a reference frame. Based on Theorem (t2) and Conclusion (c2.3) both parts project into each other, and each of them is a part of the other, Fig. 3.1.

This condition of division into two parts, in accordance with с Theorem (t2) by the principle of identity of parts and the whole, must project into each of these two parts, Fig. 3.2.

Thus, a random fluctuation produces the separation of four identical parts in absolute uncertainty. In accordance with Conclusion (c2.3), all these parts are simultaneously parts of each of them.

At first glance, it may seem that from the principle of identity of parts it should follow that each new part of the division process must, in turn, divide into two parts, and this process of division with the separation of new parts will be infinite. However, this is not the case. The division of each of the parts into two identical secondary parts does not mean the addition of new parts. Into each of the two secondary parts of one part of the primary division, an analogous secondary part of the second part of the primary division is projected, Fig. 3.3, a).

This process of division into two parts and mutual projection into each other is completely identical and symmetrical with respect to each of the four parts of the primary division, Fig. 3.3, b). At the same time, all other parts project into each of them.

Thus, the process of separating parts by dividing each of the parts into two parts closes upon itself and terminates with the separation of four identical and equal parts.

A random fluctuation, as a primary act of localizing a part in absolute uncertainty, in the reference frame associated with the separated part, causes a simultaneous process of separating four identical parts.

The act of choosing a part of absolute uncertainty as a reference frame represents its own forming conditions.

Since the act of choosing is a forming limitation, and in the absence of other defining conditions, this forming limitation reflects on the ratio of identical parts. The chosen part is smaller in size than the second, complementary part to the whole, in which it is chosen.

This forming condition creates a primary spatial relationship between the two main parts of the localization. By the principle of identity, the choice of one of the two parts projects also onto two opposite processes, separation and "dissolution" of the part, with the choice of one of them as the primary process of separating the part.

Thus, a simultaneous process of two opposite processes in the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty projects into the reference frame associated with the separated part as two successive processes: the process of separation and the process of "dissolution" of the part with which the reference frame is associated.

The defining condition of localization in the reference frame associated with the separated part is that the separated part is smaller than the second part, which complements the separated one to the whole.

Two opposite processes of separation and "dissolution" of a part in localization represent a sequence.

Let us give the following definitions:

The material part of localization is the locally separated part of absolute uncertainty that forms the localization.

The potential part of localization is the projection of absolute uncertainty into the reference frame associated with the material part of the localization.

From the condition of limitation by one common forming limitation and Conclusion (c2.3) the conclusion follows necessarily:

The material part of localization is a part of the potential part, and the potential part is a part of the material one.

Let us give the following definitions:

The main parts of localization are: the material part, which forms the local phenomenon, and the potential part, which represents the projection of absolute uncertainty into the reference frame associated with the material part.

The secondary parts of localization are four identical parts separated by projecting the process of division into two parts into both main parts.

The entire localization, as a whole complex phenomenon consisting of two main parts, represents a part of absolute uncertainty, which can similarly be chosen as a reference frame.

By this choice of a new reference frame, a new localization of the next order is created.

Let us call the primary localization a localization of the zeroth order, and the one formed on its basis — a localization of the first order.

Two main parts of the localization of the previous order constitute the material part of the localization of the next order.

The localization of the first order is not embedded in the localization of the zeroth order, just as, vice versa, the localization of the zeroth order is not embedded in the localization of the first order. Consequently, their certaining conditions do not fully extend to each other.

Only two conditions project into the localization of the first order.

The first condition — the number of parts of the internal division of the localization of the zeroth order is equal to the number of parts of the internal division of the material part of the localization of the first order.

Since the localization of the zeroth order consists of four parts, this condition projects into the localization of the first order by separating four identical parts of its material part.

The process of division into two main and four secondary identical parts in the localization of the first order is analogous to the process of localization of the zeroth order.

Thus, from the superposition of defining conditions, it follows that each of the secondary parts of the material part of the localization of the first order consists of two identical parts. Into these conditions, absolute uncertainty is projected as a potential part. Correspondingly, each of the secondary parts of the potential part similarly consists of two identical parts.

In accordance with Conclusion (c2.3), all parts of one secondary part project into each part of the second secondary part, and, correspondingly, all parts of one of the main parts of the localization project into each part of its other main part, Fig. 4.1, a).

Thus, the number of parts in each of the main parts of the localization of the first order is equal to 4, and the total number of parts in it is: 4² = 16.

The second condition is that the entire process of the localization of the zeroth order, consisting of two successive simultaneous acts, projects into the localization of the first order as two successive simultaneous acts of separating a part. Identically to this, the process of "dissolution" of the part must similarly consist of two successive simultaneous acts.

Thus, the process in the localization of the first order represents a sequence consisting of two simultaneous acts of separating a part and two simultaneous acts of its "dissolution".

In turn, all parts of the localization of the first order represent a separated part that forms the localization of the next, second, order, consisting of 16 identical parts, Fig. 4.1, b). The total number of identical parts in the localization of the second order is 16² = 256, and the sequence of processes of separation and dissolution of the material part consists of 4 simultaneous acts.

Thus, a sequence of localizations is formed.

The number of simultaneous acts of separating the material part in a localization is equal to the number of parts in each secondary part of the localization. In the localization of the zeroth order it is equal to 1, in the localization of the first order — 2, of the second order — 4. In the localization of each subsequent order, it is equal to the square of this number in the localization of the previous order.

Let us call this number the defining number of the localization and denote it by the symbol n.

The defining number of localization is a positive integer n, equal to the number of simultaneous acts in the process of separating its material part.

The defining number of the localization of the next order, starting from the localization of the first order, is equal to the square of the defining number of the localization of the previous order.

Correspondingly, the number of parts in each main part will be equal to n², and the total number of parts will be equal to n⁴.

The material and potential parts of a localization with a defining number n consist of n² of their identical parts, and the total number of parts in the localization is equal to n⁴.

In the primary localization or localization of the zeroth order n = 1, in the localization of the first order n = 2, in the localization of the second order n = 4, in the localization of the third order n = 16.

We can write down the formula for the defining number of localization by the sequence of formation of localizations, starting from the localization of the first order:

Let us calculate the size of localizations of the first values of k:

The logic of the process tells us that our physical Universe is a localization in absolute uncertainty.

In the following chapters, based on the complete coincidence of theoretical calculations with experimental physical data, we will prove that our Universe is a localization of the eighth order with a defining number n = 2¹²⁸.

In the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty, all four parts separated by a random fluctuation are identical and equal to each other. In accordance with Conclusion (c2.3), each of them must include the other three with all their parts. This condition determines what we understand by dimensions of space. Let us consider this using the example of a two-dimensional space.

On Fig. 5.1, a) two completely identical and equal parts that do not coincide with each other are depicted. At the same time, each of them satisfies the condition of symmetry with respect to the other.

In accordance with Conclusion (c2.3), all parts of one of these two parts project into each of the parts of the other part, Fig. 5.1, b) and c).

In the case of localization, there are four such non-coinciding parts projecting into each other. Two of them are parts of the material part, the other two are parts of the potential part. But, based on the same Conclusion (c2.3), all of them must project both into the material part and into the potential part.

Thus, in the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty, the process of a random fluctuation is certain by four dimensions.

In accordance with Conclusion (c2.4), each of these four dimensions must be symmetrical with respect to any of its parts and have no discontinuities, from which the conclusion follows:

In the reference frame associated with absolute uncertainty, all four dimensions of the process of separating a part are symmetrical with respect to any of their parts and are closed upon themselves.

This condition projects into all localizations, but their additional conditions are superimposed on it.

Thus, a localization in its internal structure has four dimensions, and the number of parts in each of them is equal to its defining number n.

This four-dimensional structure consists of two two-dimensional structures, which are the two main parts of the localization.

A localization represents a four-dimensional structure formed by two two-dimensional main parts projecting into each other.

The number of parts in each of the four dimensions of a localization is equal to its defining number n.

In accordance with Definition (d4.1) and Conclusions (c3.3) and (c3.6), both opposite processes of separation and "dissolution" of the material part consist of n simultaneous acts.

It should be noted that in the process of separating the material part, along the sequence of simultaneous acts, an increase in its concentration or density occurs, and in the process of dissolution, this concentration successively decreases. Accordingly, in each successive simultaneous act of the dissolution process, the material part is separated, but with a lower concentration. Thus, hereinafter we will call a simultaneous act of separating the material part each act of its simultaneous separation, both in the process of its separation and in the process of its dissolution.

The act of a random fluctuation contains within itself the condition of the origin of reference. This condition determines the sequence of simultaneous acts in the process of separation and dissolution of a part. This sequence of simultaneous acts of separation is realized along the two-dimensional space of the potential part.

The choice of one of the two main parts of the localization projects identically as the choice of one of the secondary parts of the potential part as the dimension along which the sequential process of separation and dissolution moves.

The principle of the origin of reference and the direction of motion projects onto this chosen dimension.

A certain dimension is a dimension onto which the principle of the origin of reference and the direction of motion of the sequential process of separation and dissolution of a part is projected.

These limiting conditions deprive the certain dimension of the property of complete internal symmetry with respect to its parts, and its size reduces relative to the dimension to which these limitations do not extend.

he second dimension of the two-dimensional structure of the potential part is not subject to additional limitations, and, in accordance with Conclusion (c5.1), it is certain by the conditions of complete internal symmetry and closedness.

An uncertain dimension is a dimension with respect to which the condition of complete internal symmetry and closedness is fulfilled.

Let us denote the certain dimension of the potential part of the localization by the symbol T_u, and the uncertain one — by the symbol T_d0.

From the condition of uncertainty of the dimension T_d0, as well as the fact that the sequence of simultaneous acts of separating the material part is projected onto the certain dimension T_u, the conclusion follows:

The material part of localization is not localized along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part and is uncertain with respect to it.

The initial condition of division into two parts projects into each dimension as two directions of motion along it. This same condition projects into the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part as its two opposite sides.

Correspondingly, the simultaneous acts of separating the material part in the process of their displacement along the potential part must symmetrically reflect on the two sides of its two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0. This means that the process moves symmetrically along both of its sides.

Simultaneous acts of separating a part occur symmetrically on both sides of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0, and the entire process moves along them symmetrically in one direction of the certain dimension T_u.

The sequence of simultaneous acts of separating a part does not impose any additional restrictions on the ratio of the sizes of the certain T_u and uncertain T_d0 dimensions, from which the conclusion follows:

The principle of the ratio of the sizes of the certain T_u and uncertain T_d0 dimensions remains unchanged throughout the cycle and does not depend on its stages.

On the other hand, each stage of the cycle along the certain dimension T_u must be projected onto the uncertain dimension T_d0.

Thus, the size of the material part R_t along the certain dimension T_u in each act of the sequence of its separating is projected by a corresponding size along the uncertain dimension T_d0, taking into account the unchanged principle of the ratio (Fig. 6.1).

This diagram should be understood purely schematically, as this process has no geometric interpretation. The properties of geometric space are formed by additional conditions, which will be shown in the following chapters, and do not extend to the space of localization. This two-dimensional space of the potential part of localization should be understood purely algebraically, as a set of conditions.

The certain dimension of the potential part T_u is defined by two opposite extreme moments of separating of the material part: the beginning and the end of the separating process. This property represents a projection into it of the primary process of division into two parts.

After the completion of the separating process (Fig. 6.2, a), the opposite process of its "dissolution" begins (Fig. 6.2, b). Both processes are symmetrical.

In the process's own relativity, it continues in the same direction (Fig. 6.2, a, b). But at the same time, the certain dimension T_u inverts relative to its beginning and end, and the process moves along it in the opposite direction.

Given that localization has no external space and is completely closed, and the process occurs only in its own relativity, the transition from the process of separating of a part to the process of its dissolution represents a point of refraction of the certain dimension T_u.

The scheme depicted in Fig. 6.2, a, b would be more correctly represented as in Fig. 6.2, c. Both processes pass along opposite sides of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part, like "two sides of the same coin."

This inversion of the direction of the certain dimension T_u is identically projected by the swapping of all secondary parts formed by the projection of the primary process of division into two parts.

The two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of localization refracted at the beginning and at the end of its certain dimension T_u after the completion of a half-cycle, with a symmetrical inversion of all parts formed by the projection of the primary process of division into two parts.

After the completion of both successive processes, the localization returns to its initial state. For the understanding of the process, it should be noted that, on one hand, this does not mean a return to a starting point, but on the other hand, there are no reference points in absolute uncertainty, and localization represents a reference point for itself.

A half-cycle of localization is a sequence of instantaneous acts of separating of the material part of localization along n parts of the certain dimension T_u of its potential part.

A cycle of localization is a sequence consisting of two of its opposite half-cycles.

The interaction of the parts of localization is certain by a set of dynamic and static conditions. Static conditions determine what we are accustomed to understanding as space.

Space is a set of static conditions that determine the interaction of the parts of localization.

One such static condition is the presence of two dimensions of the potential part and two dimensions of the material part (Conclusion (c5.3)).

However, it should be taken into account that in the reference frame associated with the material part, its own two dimensions do not affect its displacement along the potential part. From this follows the conclusion that the space of the potential part of localization is two-dimensional.

Since one of the dimensions of the potential part, T_d0, is uncertain, this two-dimensional space of the potential part is formed by the certain dimension T_u.

Following the habit of the geometric representation of space, and taking into account the determining conditions, there is a temptation to represent the potential space of localization in the form of a flat circle. However, it is crucial to emphasize that this two-dimensional space has no geometric representation. It is not a projection, a part, or a consequence of the three-dimensional space of the physical world. On the contrary, as will be shown below, physical geometric space is a projection of this space of localization into additional limiting conditions.

The internal space of localization has no geometric representation and is certain by the algebraic sum of conditions.

These conditions are:

1. The certain dimension of the potential part T_u in accordance with Conclusion (c6.3), is smaller than the uncertain dimension T_d0 in a constant ratio of sizes throughout the entire cycle of localization.

2. The certain dimension T_u has two points of refraction, corresponding to the beginning and end of each half-cycle.

3. The maximum size of the certain dimension T_u determines the size of the internal space of localization.

4. The uncertain dimension of the potential part T_d0 is symmetrical relative to any of its parts and is closed upon itself.

5. The uncertain dimension T_d0 is symmetrical relative to any part of the certain dimension T_u.

6. Each of the dimensions has two directions of motion along it and two opposite sides relative to the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of localization.

From these conditions, the following conclusions follow:

The position of the material part in the internal space of localization is uncertain.

The position of the points of refraction of the certain dimension T_u in the internal space of localization is uncertain.

It is important to emphasize: it is not geometric logic that dictates the presence of two sides of a plane, two opposite directions of a line, and the presence of right and left sides when moving in three-dimensional physical space, but rather the logic of the forming conditions in absolute uncertainty is projected into our familiar space of existence by this geometric logic.

The sequence of instantaneous separatings of the material part characterizes the course of the process, and we can define it as a sequence of states of the material part in time.

This definition of time differs fundamentally from the one adopted in modern physics. The model of modern physics assumes a continuous flow of time with the possibility of arbitrarily small measurements. This model, logically emerging from the primary postulate, defines time as a sequence of instantaneous states—quanta. Time within such a quantum does not exist.

Thus, it is precisely the sequence of states of the material part that is what we perceive as the flow of time. The rapid change of states compared to the registration capabilities of human sense organs creates the illusion of a continuous flow of time.

Time is discrete and consists of separate states. The sequence of these states determines the sequence of causes and effects.

A quantum of state is each instantaneous act of separating of the material part during the cycle of localization.

The sequence of quanta of state sets the measure of time as the number of instantaneous states in a given interval of time.

Time represents a sequence of quanta of state, the number of which in each interval of time determines its size in units of time.

Let us denote the size of a quantum of state in units of time as d_t.

Thus, the concept of "the present," or a "moment of time," represents a specific quantum of state, rather than a conventional boundary between the past and the future.

To each quantum of state individually, the concept of the flow of time is inapplicable, and internal processes are uncertain.

Instantaneous processes are processes occurring within the limits of a quantum of state.

Based on the fact that the displacement of the sequence of instantaneous acts of separating (dissolution) of the material part of localization occurs along the certain dimension T_u, we shall call it the base dimension.

The base dimension is the certain dimension T_u of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of localization, along which the sequence of quanta of state of the material part, or time, is realized.

The intervals between two successive instantaneous acts of separating of the material part of localization throughout the entire sequence must be identical, as they are formed by a single set of forming conditions.

The process of repeating instantaneous acts of separating along the base dimension T_u through equal intervals sets the primary measure of extension, which is identically projected into all parts and processes within the localization, determining their commensurability.

We define the projection of a quantum of state onto the base dimension T_u as a quantum of extension.

A quantum of extension is the projection of a quantum of state onto the base dimension T_u.

From this definition, the following conclusion follows:

The size of the material part of localization along the base dimension T_u is equal to the quantum of extension.

Let us denote the size of the quantum of extension in units of length as d_r.

The size of the quantum of extension d_r has no comparative characteristics in localization.

The size of the quantum of extension d_r represents a baseline measure relative to which all other linear dimensions of parts and processes in localization are projected.

In accordance with Definition (d4.1), the number of quanta of state in a half-cycle of localization is equal to its determining number n.

R_n = nd_r (8.1), where R_n is the full size of the base dimension T_u in units of length.

T_n = nd_t (8.2), where T_n is the size of the half-cycle of localization along the base dimension T_u in units of time, or the time of the half-cycle of localization.

Each moment of time is certain by the number of completed quanta of state, which we shall denote by the symbol n_t. Accordingly, we can write:

T = n_td_t (8.3), where T is the time corresponding to the number n_t of quanta of state completed in the half-cycle.

The velocity of displacement of the material part in quanta of state along the base dimension T_u is equal to d_r/d_t .

This velocity of displacement of the material part correlates in absolute uncertainty only with itself, and therefore is a universal constant.

No part of the material part can outrun its motion in the space of localization. This gives us reason to denote it in the same way as velocity of light is traditionally denoted in physics — by the letter c.

In the following chapters, we will prove that light moves in a vacuum precisely at this velocity.

The velocity c = d_r/d_t of displacement of the material part in quanta of state along the base dimension T_u is the maximum possible velocity of motion in localization.

In accordance with conclusion Conclusion (c4.2), the material part of localization with determining number n consists of n² of its identical parts.

Relative to the reference frame associated with the material part, the process of its separating does not create any limiting conditions for its parts, and their relationships among themselves and the material part itself remain uncertain.

In the reference frame associated with the material part, all its parts are not localized relative to it.

Any part of the material part, representing one or a group of its elementary parts, can be chosen as a reference frame.

A local reference frame is a reference frame associated with a portion of the material part of localization that is localized along both dimensions of its two-dimensional structure.

In accordance with Definition (d2.2), the following conclusion follows:

A local reference frame is embedded within the reference frame associated with the material part of localization.

The choice of a local reference frame represents an additional limiting condition, from which the conclusion follows:

Processes occurring in one local reference frame and representing a consequence of the limitations forming it are not projected into another local reference frame.

Upon localization of any of the n² parts of the material part, all other parts are localized by the principle of identity. This localization of all parts of the material part occurs in each local reference frame according to its limiting conditions.

The conditions for the localization of all n² parts of the material part of localization are relative and depend on the chosen local reference frame.

From this conclusion follows an important conclusion:

Processes occurring in different local reference frames represent different realities, each of which is formed exclusively under the limiting conditions of its own local reference frame.

By the principle of identity with the potential part, the space of the material part of localization must be formed by certain and uncertain dimensions.

Let us denote the certain dimension of the material part of localization by the symbol R_u, and the uncertain one by R_d.

From the condition of the identity of the primary parts of localization, in accordance with (Conclusion (c6.4)), a similar conclusion follows regarding the material part:

The two-dimensional structure R_uR_d of the material part of localization refracted at the beginning and at the end of its certain dimension R_u, with a symmetrical inversion of all its parts formed by the projection of the primary process of division into two parts.

In accordance with Definition (d9.1), the localization of all n² parts of the material part in the local reference frame occurs along each of its two dimensions R_u and R_d.

This process of localizing parts along the uncertain dimension R_d must be identically projected onto the uncertain dimension T_d0.

From this condition, in conjunction with the condition of the uncertainty of the material part along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part (Conclusion (c6.1)), it necessarily follows that the localization of the parts of the material part along the dimension T_d0 occurs identically to their localization along the uncertain dimension R_d of the material part relative to its size.

The uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of localization is projected into the material part identically to its uncertain dimension R_d and relative to its size.

In accordance with Conclusion (c8.7), in the relativity of the local reference frame, the entire material part of localization moves along the base dimension T_u with the identical velocity c and is projected by the size d_r of one quantum of extension in each quantum of state. From the condition of the uncertainty of processes within a quantum of state, the following conclusion follows:

All parts of the material part are localized along the base dimension T_u by a single size equal to the quantum of extension d_r, and have no differences in their positions relative to it.

The base dimension T_u is projected into the local reference frame by the sequence of its quanta of state, and is not reflected in the spatial relationship of the parts of the material part.

Taking into account conclusions (c5.2) and (в9.9):

The space of interaction of the parts of the material part in the local reference frame is three-dimensional and is formed by the two dimensions R_u and R_d of the material part and the projection of the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part.

It is not difficult to guess that this is precisely the space we are accustomed to perceiving as physical space with its three-dimensional geometry. Below, we will prove this with precise calculations based on experimental data.

Physical (geometric) space represents a three-dimensional projection of the four-dimensional space of localization into the local reference frame.

It should be emphasized that this projection is carried out not by geometric, but by algebraic rules. Geometric rules arise only as a result of this projection and extend only to physical space itself and to its secondary projections, and, as will be shown below, these rules are satisfied only in the immediate vicinity of the center of the local reference frame.

Hereinafter, for convenience, we shall call the certain dimension R_u of the material part the certain dimension of physical space, and the uncertain R_d – the uncertain dimension of physical space..

In accordance with theorems (t2) and (t3) and the absence of any additional limitations imposed on the projection of the material part into the local reference frame, it follows that the material part is symmetrical relative to its separated part with which this local reference frame is associated.

This means that the separated part with which the local reference frame is associated invariably remains in the center of the material part and, accordingly, of physical space.

The determining condition of a local reference frame is that the separated portion of the material part with which this frame is associated always resides in the center of physical space.

The properties of the certain dimension T_u of the potential part are identically projected onto the certain dimension R_u of the material part. Accordingly, it must have two opposite points of refraction.

Since the center of physical space represents an separated point on its certain dimension R_u, it must coincide with one of its points of refraction.

The point of refraction of the two-dimensional structure R_uR_d of the material part is projected into the center of the local reference frame.

Thus, the two opposite sides of the two-dimensional structure R_uR_d must be projected into physical space in an unfolded projection. In accordance with the presence of two opposite points of refraction, there are two distinct projections corresponding to the processes of separating of a part (Fig. 9.1, a) and its "dissolution" (Fig. 9.1, b).

The material part of localization is projected into physical space relative to the center of the local reference frame by an unfolded projection of the two opposite sides of the two-dimensional structure R_uR_d.

From this conclusion, the following necessarily flows:

Physical space is relative and depends on the choice of the local reference frame.

Thus, not only are physical processes in a local reference frame relative in accordance with Conclusions (c9.4) and (v9.5), but physical space itself is relative.

As we can see, the process of separation the material part is accompanied by a decrease in the radius of physical space, and conversely, the process of "dissolution" is accompanied by its increase. Considering the process of expansion of our Universe, we arrive at the conclusion:

Our Universe represents a localization in the process of "dissolution" of the material part.

The Universe we see and the physical world we perceive represent a projection of the localization of the Universe into the local reference frame in which our planet was formed.

The certain dimension R_u of the material part of localization is projected into physical space by two opposite directions "from the inside out" relative to the center of the local reference frame.

The uncertain dimension R_d of the material part must satisfy the condition of symmetry relative to the certain dimension R_u, the condition of symmetry relative to any of its parts, and the condition of closedness. Furthermore, the ratio of the sizes of the certain R_u and uncertain R_d dimensions of the material part must identically correspond to the analogous ratio of the potential part, which in accordance with conclusion (c6.3) is constant throughout the entire cycle of localization (Fig. 9.2, a).

From these conditions, the following conclusion necessarily flows:

The uncertain dimension R_d of the material part of localization in its maximum size is projected into physical space by two circles passing through the center of the local reference frame and unfolded oppositely.

Since the uncertain dimension R_d in its maximum size is projected into physical space by a circle, and the certain R_u by its diameter, and taking into account the condition of a constant ratio of the sizes of the certain and uncertain dimensions (Conclusion (c6.3)), the following conclusion necessarily flows:

The ratio of the size of the uncertain dimension to the size of the certain dimension defines the number π, known in geometry as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

In accordance with Conclusion (c9.7), the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part is projected into physical space in an analogous manner (Fig. 9.2, b).

Let us denote the projection of the uncertain dimension T_d0 into physical space as T_d.

The projection T_d of the uncertain dimension T_d0 into physical space is identical to the uncertain dimension R_d and perpendicular to it.

With respect to the maximum sizes of the dimensions R_d and T_d, we can write:

As can be seen, only in the relative proximity to the center of the local reference frame is physical space such as we are accustomed to perceiving it, and as modern physics describes it. In this case, the directions of the uncertain dimensions R_d and T_d represent straight lines perpendicular to each other and to the certain dimension R_u, Fig. 9.2, c).

Physical space corresponds to the geometric principles of three dimensions as mutually perpendicular straight lines only in the immediate vicinity of the center of the local reference frame.

Identically to the motion of the material part along the base dimension T_u, the radius of physical space must increase proportionally to the number n_t of completed quanta of state, and in each quantum of state be equal to the path R_t traversed by the material part.

The radius of physical space is equal to the path R_t traversed by the material part of the primary localization along the base dimension T_u in the quantum of state n_t.

This radius R_t of physical space determines the maximum size of its certain dimension R_u in the quantum of state n_t.

|R_u| = R_t = n_td_r (9.3), where R_t is the path traversed by the material part along the base dimension T_u in the half-cycle of dissolution of the material part.

Physical space represents a three-dimensional ball, the radius R_t of which is equal to the full length of its certain dimension R_u in the quantum of state n_t.

The radius of physical space R_t increases across quanta of state at the maximum possible velocity c.

In accordance with Conclusions (c9.20) and ((c9.7)), we can write:

R_td = πR_t = πn_td_r (9.4), where R_td is the maximum size of the uncertain dimensions R_d and T_d of physical space in the quantum of state n_t.

From formula (9.3), it follows that in the first quantum of state in the sequence of time, the material part was compressed to a size n times smaller than its potential size in the final act. Thus, the process of expansion at the maximum possible velocity c is nothing other than the "Big Bang," to the conclusion of which practical measurements and observations of our Universe point.

The "Big Bang," as the beginning of the existence of our Universe, represents the beginning of the sequence of its quanta of state in the second half-cycle of its localization, which is the process of "dissolution" of the material part.

Thus, the "Big Bang" is not only the first moments of the existence of our Universe, but its state throughout the entire half-cycle. As the size increases at the maximum possible velocity c, the relative changes in sizes in a small local area, such as our immediate cosmos, become practically imperceptible compared to the historical period of scientific observations.

The process of localizing a part inside the material part simultaneously represents the localization of a part in absolute uncertainty.

This process is identical to the process of localizing the material part itself. From this, it follows that each of the n² parts of the material part forms its own localization, identical to the primary one. For convenience, let us give the following definitions:

A primary localization is each localization in the sequence of localizations generated by a random fluctuation.

An elementary localization is the localization of each of the n² identical parts of the material part of a primary localization with determining number n.

Elementary localizations are identical to the primary localization. From the principle of identity of parts and the whole (Theorem (t2)) follows the conclusion:

The determining number n of the primary localization is equal to the determining number of each of its elementary localizations.

From this it also follows that an elementary localization must consist of material and potential parts, and its size and internal space must be certain by the two-dimensional structure of the potential part with certain and uncertain dimensions.

Let us denote: the certain dimension of the two-dimensional structure of the potential part of an elementary localization by the symbol r_u, and the uncertain one by the symbol r_d.

Elementary localizations are identical parts of the primary localization, and in accordance with its determining condition of division into n parts, are n times smaller than it along each of the two dimensions.

Accordingly, the full size of the certain dimension r_u of the potential part of an elementary localization is n times smaller than the full size of the certain dimension T_u of the potential part of the primary localization.

|r_u| = r_n = |T_u|/n = R_n/n = d_r (10.1) , where r_n is the full size of the certain dimension of the potential part of an elementary localization.

The full size r_n of the certain dimension r_u of the potential part of an elementary localization is n times smaller than the full size R_n of the certain dimension R_u of the primary localization.

The size of the half-cycle of an elementary localization along its certain dimension r_u is equal to the quantum of extension d_r.

The separated and localized parts of the material part of the primary localization represent projections of elementary localizations into it. These localized parts of the material part form all material phenomena in the physical world. Let us call them fundamental particles of matter.

Fundamental particles are projections of elementary localizations into physical space.

From the principle of division into n parts (Conclusion (c5.4)) along each of the two dimensions R_u and R_d of the material part of the primary localization, the following conclusion follows:

The size r_t of a fundamental particle along the certain dimension R_u of physical space is n times smaller than the full size of physical space along this dimension.

Taking into account formula (9.3):

r_t = R_t/n = d_rn_t/n (10.2) , where r_t is the size of the fundamental particle along the dimension R_u in the quantum of state n_t.

The size r_t of a fundamental particle is dynamic and depends on the number of completed quanta of state n_t.

Since a fundamental particle is a projection of an elementary localization, the following conclusion follows:

The uncertain dimension r_d and certain dimension r_u of an elementary localization are projected into physical space by the uncertain and certain dimensions of the fundamental particle.

A fundamental particle, as a projection of an elementary localization into physical space, must be three-dimensional.

The potential space of an elementary localization is certain by the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d of its potential part with one certain r_u and one uncertain r_d dimension. Considering also that the uncertain dimension r_d of the potential part of an elementary localization is projected into physical space perpendicular to the certain r_u, and the only determining condition for it is the maximum size of its extension, which in accordance with Conclusion (c9.20) is equal to πr_t, we arrive at the conclusions:

The uncertain dimension r_d of a fundamental particle, by its uncertain position relative to the uncertain dimensions R_d and T_d of physical space, forms a two-dimensional surface in projection onto them.

A fundamental particle represents a three-dimensional ball in physical space with an uncertain internal space, the diameter of which is certain by the maximum size r_t of its certain dimension r_u, and the surface is formed by the uncertain position of its uncertain dimension r_d, in its maximum size πr_t.

Since the uncertain dimension r_d has two opposite sides, the following conclusion follows:

The enclosing sphere of the internal space of a fundamental particle has the inner and the outer side, each of which is formed by one of the two primary sides of the uncertain dimension r_d of its potential part.

The material part of an elementary localization must be projected into physical space as a material object.

The physical body of a fundamental particle is the projection of the material part of an elementary localization into physical space.

From the condition of the uncertainty of the position of the material part in the internal space of an elementary localization, in accordance with Conclusion (c7.3), the following conclusion follows:

A fundamental particle represents a three-dimensional sphere in physical space containing the location of its physical body, the position of which relative to the sphere is uncertain.

The conditions for the projection of the physical body of a fundamental particle into physical space are identical to the conditions for the projection of the entire particle. In this case, the conditions of physical space are superimposed on the conditions of the internal space of the fundamental particle.

The physical body of a fundamental particle represents a three-dimensional sphere in physical space with an uncertain center, residing simultaneously under the conditions of the projection of the internal space of the elementary localization and under the conditions of physical space.

Given the uncertainty of the position of the physical body inside the fundamental particle (Conclusion (c10.11)), let us call the value r_t the size of presence of the fundamental particle.

The size of presence r_t of a fundamental particle is the diameter of the spherical region of physical space representing the region of uncertainty of the position of its physical body.

By the principle of identity with the primary localization, the ratio of the size of the physical body of a fundamental particle r_p to the size of presence r_t must be equal to the analogous ratio of the size R_t of the material part of the primary localization along its certain dimension R_u to the size R_n of the base dimension T_u.

r_p/r_t = R_t/R_n = n_t/n (10.3), where r_p is the size of the physical body in the quantum of state n_t.

Taking into account formula (10.2), we can write:

The physical body of a fundamental particle represents its material part. Thus, we can call the size r_p the physical size.

The physical size of a fundamental particle is the diameter of its physical body r_p in physical space.

In accordance with Conclusion (c9.5) , a distinct alternative physical reality is formed in each local reference frame. Therefore, in the further consideration of physical processes, we assume that they occur within the relativity of one local reference frame and represent one alternative reality..

A physical reference frame is a reference frame associated with any physical object under the conditions of physical reality realized in the chosen local reference frame.

Thus, the concept of a "physical reference frame" corresponds to the concept of a "reference frame" adopted in modern physics.

A violation of the symmetry of one fundamental particle relative to another triggers a cycle of compensation for the violated symmetry, which forces them to move towards each other. We will examine this issue in the chapter "Gravitation," but for now, it is important for us that the particles begin to displace relative to each other.

This displacement occurs during the transition from one quantum of state to another.

As an identical part of the material part of localization, in accordance with Conclusions (c9.9) and (c8.7), each fundamental particle in its own relativity moves along the base dimension T_u at a constant velocity c = d_r/d_t.

Any physical reference frame associated with any of the fundamental particles, or a group of them, in its own relativity moves along the base dimension T_u at the maximum possible velocity c.

At the same time, the uncertainty of the position of fundamental particles along the projection T_d of the uncertain dimension T_d0 allows them to displace along it relative to each other due to various physical processes.

This displacement occurs during the transition from one quantum of state to another.

From the condition that the sequence of quanta of state of the material part shifts along the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of the primary localization, it follows that any motion of fundamental particles, as parts of the material part, is possible only along this two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0. But if we take into account that, on one hand, motion along the base dimension T_u in the own relativity of each portion of the material part of localization always occurs at the identical velocity c, and on the other hand, only one of the dimensions of this two-dimensional structure — uncertain T_d0 is projected into physical space, the following conclusion necessarily flows:

Any motion of material objects in physical space is carried out along the projection T_d of the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the two-dimensional structure of the potential part.

In accordance with this conclusion, for the convenience of further reasoning, let us give a corresponding name to this projection:

The mobile dimension is the dimension T_d, which represents the projection of the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the two-dimensional structure of the potential part of the primary localization into physical space.

The conditions of localization that determine the velocity c of displacement of the material part and its components along the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part do not limit the spectrum of possible directions of this process in any way.

This means that there is no single direction of the base dimension T_u with respect to different fundamental particles.

As a consequence of this difference in the direction of the vector of the base dimension T_u in the reference frame associated with one particle, its projection onto the mobile dimension T_d arises in the relativity of another particle (Fig. 11.1).

Figure 11.1 shows a moving reference frame T_uvT_dv moving with velocity v relative to the reference frame T_uT_d.

The vector of motion along the base dimension T_u of the reference frame T_uvT_dv is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d of the reference frame T_uT_d by a vector of motion with velocity v, relative to it.

The direction of the vector of the base dimension T_u differs in the relativity of two fundamental particles moving relative to each other.

Mutual motion of material bodies in physical space represents projections of their motion along their own directions of the base dimension T_u onto the mobile dimension T_d in the relativity of each other.

Thus, the condition of the direction, certain by the vector of its motion, is superimposed on the condition of the uncertainty of the mobile dimension T_d in the relativity of each moving physical object.

The direction of the mobile dimension T_d of a physical reference frame is certain relative to each moving physical object by its motion vector.

In accordance with Conclusions (c9.19) and (c9.21), the mobile dimension T_d is projected into physical space in the relativity of each physical body in an unfolded projection relative to its two primary sides by two circles passing through its center.

From the condition of the uncertainty of the mobile dimension T_d, it follows that the motion of fundamental particles, as identical parts of the material part, in accordance with Conclusion (c6.2) must occur simultaneously along two opposite sides of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part.

The motion of a fundamental particle in physical space occurs simultaneously along two sides of the mobile dimension T_d in the unfolded projection of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d of physical space.

Taking into account the position of the fundamental particle in its own relativity at the center of physical space, the direction of the mobile dimension T_d must coincide with its radius.

However, in accordance with Conclusions (c9.19), (c9.21) and (c9.22), the alignment of the direction of the mobile dimension T_d with the radius of physical space occurs only in the immediate vicinity of the center of the reference frame (Fig. 11.2).

The projections of the two sides of the mobile dimension T_d into physical space begin to diverge as the distance from the center of the local reference frame increases, and the position of the fundamental particle becomes uncertain.

The further from the center of the reference frame, the larger the diameter d_s of the region of uncertainty (Fig. 11.2).

When a physical reference frame moves relative to a local reference frame, in its own relativity the physical reference frame will be at the center of physical space at each moment of time, and the size d_s of the region of uncertainty relative to it will be close to zero. But relative to the local reference frame, this moving reference frame will be in a region of uncertainty, the size d_s of which will increase as it moves away from the center of the local reference frame.

Thus, physical space contains no straight lines in the relativity of motion processes at cosmic distances. From this, the following conclusion necessarily flows:

The concept of motion along a straight line for physical bodies on cosmic scales is a mathematical abstraction that does not exist in real physical space.

The local reference frame in which our planet Earth was formed is located at the center of the Universe. At the same time, distant cosmic space, together with cosmic objects, becomes increasingly uncertain with respect to spatial and, consequently, physical properties as the distance from the Solar System increases.

If one were to travel (for example, on a spacecraft) to distant cosmic distances, the geometry of the Universe would change.

Since we receive all information about the distant cosmos thanks to the motion of particles, this effect of spatial uncertainty, which increases with distance from the Earth, introduces distortions into modern physical calculations that do not take it into account. The erroneous principle of extrapolating near-Earth geometry to distant cosmic distances forces physicists to invent non-existent "dark energy" and "dark matter."

The material part in each quantum of state gains velocity of displacement along the base dimension T_u only relative to itself. Given the absence of other dimensional relations in absolute uncertainty except with itself, this gained velocity in a quantum of state correlates with nothing but the quantum of state itself, and in each subsequent quantum of state, the process of gaining velocity is repeated anew.

The process of gaining velocity by the material part in a quantum of state is identically repeated in the next quantum of state.

Thus, in each quantum of state, the force of the cycle imparts an acceleration to the material part:

In accordance with Conclusion (c8.2), time does not exist within a quantum of state; accordingly, the concept of "average velocity" cannot exist either.

The material part of localization moves along the base dimension T_u with the identical velocity c = d_r/d_t and the identical acceleration a₀ = d_r/d_t² in each quantum of state.

Each fundamental particle in its own relativity moves along the base dimension T_u with the maximum possible velocity c (Conclusion (c11.1)). The direction of the vector of this motion relative to each particle is certain by various projections of the primary cycle of localization.

In the absence of influences on the process of motion of a fundamental particle in the primary cycle of localization, the direction of its motion vector along the base dimension T_u is constant.

This means that if the projection of the primary cycle remains unchanged with respect to a fundamental particle, its velocity of motion relative to the local reference frame is preserved. Thus, we have found the cause that determines the inertia of motion in physical space.

Let us give the following definitions:

Inercial motion , or inertia , is motion under the condition of preserving its own relative direction of the vector of the base dimension T_u.

An inertial reference frame is a physical reference frame associated with one fundamental particle or a group of fundamental particles moving by inertia.

Hereinafter, for convenience, when a physical reference frame (Definition (d11.1)) is mentioned, it will be assumed that an inertial reference frame is meant.

However, unlike classical physics, where straight-line uniform motion is considered inertial, it follows from this theory that only the motions of cosmic bodies in circular orbits are inertial, and in accordance with Conclusion (c11.7), straight-line motion does not exist in physical space.

In the case of orbital motion, the angle φ between the directions of the base dimension T_u in the relativity of each of the cosmic bodies remains unchanged relative to any inertial reference frame (Fig. 12.1).

But such circular inertial motion of cosmic bodies is possible only under the condition of an insignificant radius of the orbit compared to the size of the Universe, at which the vector of the base dimension T_u preserves its direction on opposite sides of the orbit.

Due to the expansion of physical space, at large distances, the direction of the base dimension T_u relative to distant cosmic objects deviates. Since this deviation is a consequence of the motion of the primary cycle, no additional forces arise, and the motion of cosmic bodies remains inertial.

At large distances comparable to the dimensions of physical space, the direction of the base dimension T_u deviates from the analogous direction at the center of the local reference frame.

Thus, at large distances, this motion will have a shape resembling a diverging spiral, which we observe in the form of galaxies (Fig. 12.2).

This is an additional confirmation of this theory.

Inertial motion on galactic distances represents a diverging spiral, the magnitude of divergence of which at small distances, comparable to stellar systems, tends to zero, as a result of which the inertial motion of planets occurs in circular orbits.

To this conclusion, we are forced to add another important conclusion:

The principle of the inertia of uniform straight-line motion when applied to cosmic scales is a systemic error of classical physics.

If any influence on an elementary particle leads to a change in its relative direction of the base dimension T_u, this changed state is preserved by the principle of inertia (Conclusion (c12.3)) after the influence ceases.

The velocity of motion of fundamental particles in physical space, imparted by any influence in a quantum of state, is added to the already existing velocity and is preserved after the influence ceases.

Thus, if some interaction of particles imparts an acceleration a of motion along the mobile dimension T_d to any of them in a quantum of state, its motion becomes uniformly accelerated:

v = an_id_t (12.2), where n_i is the number of quanta of state in which the acceleration acted.

Following the traditions of mechanics, let us call the influence of the primary cycle of localization and its projections into the local reference frame, which imparts acceleration to the parts of the material part of localization, a force and denote it by the symbol f.

The material part of localization in projection into the local reference frame consists of n² of its fundamental particles. As will be shown below, a fundamental particle, as a projection of an elementary localization, can be divided into separate projections of separate parts of the elementary localization.

Thus, any material objects and physical bodies consist of full and partial projections of elementary localizations. Accordingly, we can divide material objects into composite ones, consisting of a set of fundamental particles and other projections of elementary localizations, and elementary ones, representing individual full or partial projections of elementary localizations.

Let us give the following definition:

Elementary particles are full and partial projections of elementary localizations into physical space.

The only characteristic that determines the separating, and consequently the materiality, of an elementary particle is its size in relation to the size of the localization.

Let us give the following definition:

Definiteness along a dimension is the ratio of the maximum size of extension of the dimension, relative to which the elementary particle is locally separated, to the size of its presence along it.

It is precisely the size of presence of an elementary particle that determines its definiteness along a dimension, since within this size of presence, the position of the particle is uncertain.

Local separating, both of the entire material part and of each of its components, occurs within the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part.

This separating determines the motion of the separated part throughout the cycle and must be proportional to the force acting on it.

The greater the value of definiteness along each of these dimensions T_u and T_d0, the greater the value of the active force of the cycle.

The force of the cycle acting on an elementary particle is proportional to its definiteness along each of the dimensions of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of localization.

The material definiteness of an elementary particle is the product of its definiteness along each of the dimensions of the two-dimensional structure T_uT_d0 of the potential part of localization.

The force of the cycle acting on an elementary particle is proportional to its material definiteness.

f = kua (13.1), where f is the force imparting acceleration a to the particle, u is the material definiteness of the particle, and k – is a coefficient of proportionality.

Comparing this formula with the traditional formula of mechanics f = ma, we arrive at the following conclusion:

The mass of an elementary particle represents its material definiteness expressed in units of mass.

m = ku (13.2), where m is the mass of the elementary particle, and k is a coefficient of the system of units.

In accordance with Conclusion (c11.4), the own relative direction of the base dimension T_u of a fundamental particle in motion differs from its direction in a reference frame at rest. As a result, the projection of the quantum of extension d_r in the relativity of the moving fundamental particle onto the base dimension T_u of the frame at rest is reduced. This reduction of the projection of the quantum of extension d_r causes a reduction in the projections of all linear dimensions of the moving reference frame relative to the one at rest, which leads to a change in the material definiteness of the elementary particles in motion.

A state of rest is a state of a fundamental particle whose velocity of motion relative to the local reference frame is equal to zero.

Given the conditions for the formation of a local reference frame and the uncertainty of the dimension T_d0, the entire material part of the primary localization can have a directed motion along the dimension T_d0 in the relativity of the local reference frame. This similarly affects the material definiteness of elementary particles. In this regard, let us give the following definition:

An ideal reference frame is a local reference frame relative to which the material part of the primary localization has no directed motion along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the primary localization.

Let us calculate the material definiteness of a fundamental particle at rest in an ideal reference frame.

In accordance with Conclusion (c9.8), the size of a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u is identical to the size of the entire material part and is equal to the quantum of extension d_r. Thus, we obtain:

u_nu = R_n/d_r = n (13.3), where u_nu is the definiteness of the fundamental particle along the dimension T_u.

From the condition of the uncertainty of the material part of the primary localization along the uncertain dimension T_d0 (Conclusion (c6.1)) and in accordance with Conclusion (c9.21), the definiteness of a fundamental particle along the dimension T_d0 should be considered relative to the size of the mobile dimension T_d of physical space, which in accordance with formula (9.4) is equal to πR_t.

When fundamental particles move in physical space, they are projected onto the mobile dimension T_d by their size r_t. Accordingly, we obtain:

u_nd = πR_t/r_t = πn (13.4), where u_nd is the definiteness of the fundamental particle along the dimension T_d0.

For the ideal reference frame:

u_n0 = u_nuu_nd = πn² (13.5), where u_n0 is the material definiteness of a fundamental particle at rest in the ideal reference frame.

Let us take the mass of a fundamental particle at rest in an ideal reference frame as the unit of mass and denote it by d_m. In accordance with formula (13.2):

For any a fundamental particle at rest in the ideal reference frame, we can write:

u_ni0 = (R_n/d_r)(πR_t/r_ti) = πn²r_t/r_ti (13.8), where u_ni0 is the material definiteness of an elementary particle at rest in an ideal reference frame, and r_ti is its size of presence.

Taking into account formulas (13.7) and (13.8):

m_i0 = kπn²r_t/r_ti = d_mr_t/r_ti (13.9), where m_i0 is the mass of the elementary particle at rest in an ideal reference frame.

Let us find the value of the force f_n0 acting on a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u in an ideal reference frame, given that in each quantum of state this force imparts to it an acceleration a₀ = d_r/d_t² (formula (12.1)).

Figure 14.1 presents a reference frame at rest T_uT_d and a reference frame T_uvT_dv moving with a velocity v relative to the frame T_uT_d.

The size of the quantum of extension d_rv of the moving reference frame is reduced in projection onto the base dimension T_u of the frame at rest.

From the identity of the triangles, we find:

d_rv/d_r =

(c²-v²)/c =

(1-v²/c²) (14.1), where d_rv is the size of the projection of the quantum of extension of the moving reference frame in units of length.

The size of the quantum of extension of a moving reference frame is reduced in projection onto the base dimension T_u of the ideal reference frame proportionally to

(1-v²/c²).

All linear dimensions in each reference frame are certain by the ratio to its own quantum of extension d_r, from this follows the conclusion:

All linear dimensions in a moving reference frame are reduced in projection into the ideal reference frame proportionally to

(1-v²/c²).

At the same time, in the own relativity of the moving reference frame, the quantum of extension remains unchanged.

In the own relativity of any inertial reference frame, all linear dimensions do not depend on the velocity of its motion and are certain by the quantum of extension d_r .

Thus, this relative reduction in the size of the quantum of extension d_r does not affect the dimensional relations of the parts of the material part in the relativity of the moving reference frame. However, it affects the material definiteness of elementary particles in localization.

For the material definiteness of a fundamental particle in motion with velocity v relative to the ideal reference frame, we obtain:

u_nuv = R_n/d_rv = R_n/d_r

(1-v²/c²) = n/

(1-v²/c²) (14.3), where u_nuv is the definiteness of the fundamental particle in motion along the dimension T_u.

u_ndv = πR_tv/r_tv = πR_t

(1-v²/c²)/r_t

(1-v²/c²) = πn (14.4), where u_ndv is the definiteness of the fundamental particle in motion along the dimension T_d0.

u_nv = u_nuvu_ndv = πn²/

(1-v²/c²) (14.5), where u_nv is the material definiteness of the fundamental particle in motion.

In accordance with formulas (13.2) and (13.7), let us find the mass of a fundamental particle in motion relative to the ideal reference frame:

Since a local reference frame is associated with a group of fundamental particles, it can have motion in physical space along the mobile dimension T_d, Fig. 15.1, a).

Furthermore, considering the conditions for the formation of a local reference frame, it can have motion along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the primary localization together with its entire material part. In this case, this motion is not reflected by motion in physical space, since the entire physical space moves together with the local reference frame (Fig. 15.1, b).

The motion of the entire material part of localization along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of localization in the relativity of a local reference frame is not reflected by motion in physical space, since the entire physical space moves along with it.

In accordance with conclusions (c9.12) and (c11.1), in its own relativity, any local reference frame is located at the center of physical space, is stationary relative to it, and moves at velocity c along the base dimension T_u, and its own quantum of extension is equal to d_r. From this follow the conclusions:

The motion of the entire material part of localization along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of localization in the relativity of a local reference frame does not affect the linear dimensions and their ratios in the local reference frame.

However, in accordance with Conclusion (c14.1), this motion affects the material definiteness and, accordingly, the mass of fundamental particles.

The local reference frame in which our planet Earth was formed must be certain by the dimensions of the physical processes that formed this local reference frame. Since all the forming processes of the Solar System are closed within its limits, we can draw the following conclusion with a high degree of probability:

The Solar System represents the local reference frame in which our planet Earth was formed.

In accordance with experimental data, the velocity of motion of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System in physical space is too small compared to the maximum velocity c and does not affect the mass of elementary particles.

However, as further calculations based on experimental data will show, the velocity of motion of the entire material part in the relativity of our local reference frame is quite high.

Let us denote this velocity as v_g, and the mass of a fundamental particle at rest under Earth conditions as d_mv.

In accordance with formula (14.6), the mass of a fundamental particle at rest under Earth conditions will be equal to:

Taking into account formula (13.9), for any elementary particle at rest in a local reference frame, we can write:

m_i = m_i0/

(1-v_g²/c²) = d_mr_t/r_ti

(1-v_g²/c²) = d_mv r_t/r_ti (15.2), where m_i is the mass of the elementary particle at rest in the local reference frame.

The quantum of extension of any physical reference frame having a velocity of motion v relative to the local reference frame, in accordance with Conclusion (c14.1), is similarly reduced in projection onto the base dimension T_u of the local reference frame with the coefficient

(1-v²/c²).

The size of this reduction, in accordance with Conclusion (c14.3), does not depend on the velocity v_g of motion of the entire material part of the universe relative to the local reference frame.

The size of a moving elementary particle in a local reference frame and its mass depend on the projection of its own quantum of extension onto the base dimension T_u of the local reference frame.

From this follow the conclusions:

All linear dimensions in a moving reference frame are reduced in projection into the local reference frame proportionally to

(1-v²/c²).

The mass of an elementary particle in motion relative to a local reference frame increases relative to its mass in a state of rest proportionally to 1/

(1-v²/c²).

m_iv = m_i/

(1-v²/c²) = d_mr_t/r_ti

(1-v_g²/c²)

(1-v²/c²) = d_mvr_t/r_ti

(1-v²/c²) = d_mv r_t/r_tiv (15.3), where m_iv is the mass of the elementary particle in motion in the local reference frame, and r_tiv is its size of presence.

Taking into account formula (15.1) for a fundamental particle in motion:

m_nv = d_mv /

(1-v²/c²) = d_m/

(1-v_g²/c²)

(1-v²/c²) (15.4), where m_nv is the mass of the fundamental particle in motion with velocity v relative to the local reference frame.

Conclusion (c15.6) is valid for any physical body consisting of elementary particles, their parts, and identical projections that possess a rest mass.

m_v = m₀/

(1-v²/c²) (15.5), where m₀ is the mass of the physical body in a state of rest in the local reference frame, and m_v is the mass of the physical body in motion with velocity v relative to the local reference frame.

The mass of a physical body during its motion in physical space with velocity v relative to a local reference frame increases proportionally to 1/

(1-v²/c²).

Thus, with respect to the change in the mass of a moving body, our model fully agrees with the formulas of relativistic motion accepted in physics.

However, the conclusions of this theory coincide with the conclusions of Relativity Theory only partially. The difference is that in RT, the reduction in the size of a moving body occurs exclusively along the vector of its motion. According to this theoretical study, this reduction in size occurs identically along all three dimensions of physical space.

Also, it follows from this theory that time, as a sequence of quanta of state of the Universe, flows identically in all reference frames. Moreover, time as such is not a spatial dimension, and the realization of the sequence of quanta of state of the material part along the base dimension T_u does not turn it into a dimension of time. The size of the projections of various processes onto it can change, but this is not reflected by a change in the speed of the flow of time. Also, motion along the base dimension T_u can occur, as will be shown later, in two opposite directions, but time as a sequence of quanta of state cannot be reversed, and at each moment of time there exists only one quantum of state, representing the present for all processes in the Universe.

Time, as a sequence of quanta of state of the Universe, flows identically for all moving physical objects, regardless of the velocity of their motion.

From the formulas obtained in this chapter, it necessarily follows that the mass of elementary particles and, accordingly, of physical bodies does not depend on the stage of the cycle of the primary localization, which is certain by the number of completed quanta of state n_t.

Mass, as a material characteristic of locally separated parts in localization, does not depend on the stage of the primary cycle and the number of completed quanta of state n_t.

For the magnitude of the force f_n, acting on a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u in a local reference frame, we obtain:

Each fundamental particle in its relativity moves only along the base dimension T_u with the identical velocity c under the action of the force of the primary cycle.

Since each quantum of state along the base dimension T_u correlates only with itself, the work of the force of the primary cycle along the base dimension T_u is reset in each quantum of state and is produced anew in the next quantum of state.

The energy of motion of a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u is the work of the force of the primary cycle in displacing it within a quantum of state.

The energy of motion of a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u transitions from one quantum of state to another.

The motion of a body of mass m along the base dimension T_u in accordance with Conclusion (c12.2), occurs with a constant acceleration in the quantum of state a₀ = d_r/d_t². In accordance with formulas (13.1) and (13.2), a force f acts on it:

This force produces a displacement of the body in the quantum of state by a quantum of extension d_r.

We can find the energy of motion of a body along the base dimension T_u in a quantum of state as the work of this force:

Thus, we arrive at the well-known formula in physics.

The energy of mass represents the energy of motion along the base dimension T_u.

The energy of mass does not depend on the stage of the primary cycle and the number of completed quanta of state n_t.

The process of separating and localization of a part inside the material part is identical to the primary cycle of localization.

Each separated elementary part in the material part relates to the entire material part as to the potential part of the localization in the relativity of which it was separated.

Considering that the primary localization is in the half-cycle of "dissolution" of the material part, this process is identically projected onto the relationship of the parts of the material part. This means that each fundamental particle strives to "dissolve," that is, to fully merge with the entire material part, represented by the entire set of fundamental particles. As a result of this process, fundamental particles are attracted to each other.

This is precisely what we perceive as gravitation.

All cosmic bodies are parts of the material part of localization and consist of fundamental particles.

The stable mutual circular motion of cosmic bodies, in accordance with Definition (d12.1) and Conclusion (c12.3), is inertial. This means that no other forces act in this process except for the projection of the force of the primary cycle.

In accordance with Conclusion (c11.2), in the reference frame associated with one of the interacting bodies, the second moves along the mobile dimension T_d. Thus, considering the closedness and symmetry of the mobile dimension T_d, the circular orbit of the inertial motion of one body around another represents a full projection of the mobile dimension T_d with respect to the moving body.

This full projection of the mobile dimension must consist of two half-cycles separated by points of refraction.

Based on the principle of symmetry, each of the two half-cycles is projected by a half-orbit, and the points of refraction A and B, reside in uncertainty in their position along the entire circumference of the orbit. The only determining condition for the points of refraction, A and B, is that they are located relative to each other on opposite sides of the orbit. The countdown can begin from any point of the orbit, and, accordingly, the completion of a full cycle from two half-cycles will occur at the same point (Fig. 17.1).

A circular orbital revolution of one cosmic body around another with which the reference frame is associated is identical to the primary cycle in the reference frame associated with the material part of localization.

Let us call this circular process a gravitational cycle.

A gravitational cycle is the projection of the primary cycle of localization onto the mutual inertial motion of two cosmic bodies.

The ratio of the two primary parts of localization, material and potential, is projected into the gravitational cycle by the ratio of the two physical bodies interacting in it.

A half-orbit along the mobile dimension T_d represents the full size of the uncertain dimension of the gravitational cycle, and the radius of the orbit, which coincides with the certain dimension of physical space R_u, represents the full size of its certain dimension.

Considering that all physical bodies consist of a set of fundamental particles, all gravitational cycles represent the sum of the gravitational cycles of the fundamental particles composing them.

Let us consider a gravitational cycle in a reference frame associated with a single fundamental particle.

Since the primary and gravitational cycles represent a cyclic displacement of a fundamental particle, their identity must be expressed in the identity of the work of forces in each of them.

The identity of the primary and gravitational cycles is expressed in the identity of the work of the force that produces the displacement of a fundamental particle along a half-cycle.

To compare the work of forces acting in identical cycles, gravitational and primary, it is necessary to take into account the differences in their limiting conditions.

One important condition is that the primary cycle in the reference frame associated with the material part of localization moves in the absence of directed motion of the material part along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of localization. The gravitational cycle takes place under the conditions of a local reference frame relative to which the entire material part can have motion relative to the uncertain dimension T_d0.

To equalize these conditions, let us consider the gravitational cycle in an ideal reference frame (Definition (d13.5)).

In the primary cycle, a force acts on each fundamental particle from the components of the potential part of localization in an amount equal to the square of its determining number n.

The determining number of the gravitational cycle must be certain by analogy in accordance with Definition (d4.1), Conclusion (c8.6) and formula (8.1) by the ratio of the size R of its radius, as a certain dimension, to the size of the fundamental particle r_t relative to which it is formed.

n_g = R/r_t (17.1), where R is the radius of the orbital cycle, and n_g is the determining number of the gravitational cycle.

Thus, for the complete identity of the cycles, on the opposite pole of the gravitational cycle formed relative to the fundamental particle, there must be n_g² fundamental particles (Fig. 17.2).

Let us call this condition a full gravitational cycle.

A full gravitational cycle relative to a fundamental particle is a gravitational cycle in which the number of fundamental particles at the pole opposite to it is equal to the square of the determining number n_g of this cycle.

The second condition for the difference between the cycles is that the primary cycle moves along the certain dimension T_u of the potential part, while the gravitational cycle moves along the uncertain T_d. Since the uncertain dimension is π times larger than the certain one (Conclusion (c9.20)), in each quantum of state the gravitational cycle covers a π times greater distance. For the compliance of the work performed by the force of the cycle, it is necessary that the force of the gravitational cycle be π times smaller than the force of the primary cycle. Conclusion (c17.5):

The action of the cycle's force along an uncertain dimension is π times weaker than along a certain one.

The third condition for the difference between the cycles is that in the primary cycle, the work of the force in a quantum of state relative to a fundamental particle is made up of its displacement along the certain dimension T_u and along the uncertain T_d, by increasing its size relative to it. Thus, in the primary cycle, in addition to the displacement of the fundamental particle in a quantum of state along the certain dimension T_u displacement occurs along all n parts of the uncertain dimension T_d, while the gravitational cycle moves along an unchanged orbit, being projected in each quantum of state onto only one part of the uncertain dimension T_d. For the compliance of the work performed by the force of the cycle, it is necessary that the force of the gravitational cycle be n times smaller than the force of the primary cycle.

In the aggregate of all these conditions, for the force of a full gravitational cycle we obtain:

f_gn = f_n0/πn (17.2), where f_gn is the force of the effect of a full orbital cycle on a fundamental particle in an ideal reference frame.

Taking into account formula (13.10) for the force of the primary cycle, we obtain:

This force represents the gravitational effect on one fundamental particle from the n_g² fundamental particles of the opposite pole.

Accordingly, the force of gravitational attraction between two fundamental particles f_g0 will be n_g² times smaller than the force of a full orbital cycle. In accordance with formula (17.1):

Taking into account formula (10.2):

This force represents the force of gravitational attraction between two unit masses d_m.

All components of this formula, except for the mass of the fundamental particle, do not change during the transition from the ideal reference frame to any local reference frame. To this we add that the mass of any physical body is made up of the masses of fundamental particles, their parts, and projections.

Thus, the force acting between any two masses in any local reference frame will be proportional to the ratio of each mass to the unit mass d_m.

f_g = (m₁/d_m)(m₂/d_m)d_mс²n_t²d_r /R²πn³ = m₁m₂с²n_t²d_r /R²πn³dm (17.6)

Let us equate the obtained formula of the force of gravitational interaction to the one accepted in physics:

We obtain the value of the gravitational constant:

All components of this formula represent constant values, except for n_t – the number of quanta of state completed by the localization.

The gravitational constant grows proportionally to the square of the completed quanta of state n_t.

Let us pay attention to the fact that if in accordance with formula (10.4) in the formula for the gravitational constant, replace d_rn_t²/n² with r_p we obtain the formula: G=c²r_p/πnd_m. Next, if we substitute into this formula instead d_m known neutron mass and value n = 2¹²⁸, corresponding to the 8th order localization (formula (4.1)), we will get the value for r_p, which coincides with the experimental value of the neutron diameter within the experimental error. Taking into account the order of the numbers used, this "coincidence" is more than enough to understand that we are on the right track. But what awaits us next is a much more "amazing" coincidence of a number of theoretically obtained values with the corresponding experimental data.

As we have already noted, the entire material part of the primary localization in a local reference frame can have a directed motion along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of the primary localization with a velocity v_g, Fig. 18.1, a).

In accordance with Conclusions (c2.2) and (c9.4), this condition of the local reference frame is determinative for all processes in it, including the localization of fundamental particles.

The directed motion of the material part of localization along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of its potential part in the relativity of a local reference frame is identically projected into a fundamental particle by the directed motion of its physical body along the projection of the uncertain dimension r_d of the potential part of the elementary localization.

This identity is expressed in the equality of the ratio of the velocity of directed motion along the uncertain dimension to the velocity of motion along the certain dimension in the relativity of both cycles.

v_pd/v_pu = v_g/c (18.1), where v_pd is the velocity of the directed motion of the physical body of the fundamental particle along the uncertain dimension r_d, v_pu is the velocity of its motion along the certain dimension r_u.

The increment in the size of the physical body of a fundamental particle r_p over one instantaneous interval d_t is equal to r_t/n.

Accordingly, the velocity of displacement of the physical body of a fundamental particle in a quantum of state along the internal certain dimension r_u is equal to:

Let us apply formula (10.2) and (8.4):

We obtain the value of the velocity v_p:

Thus, in each quantum of state, an acceleration is imparted to the physical body:

a_p = v_pd/d_t = v_gn_t/d_tn² (18.5), where a_p is the acceleration of motion of the physical body along the dimension r_d in the quantum of state.

Taking into account formula (8.4):

The time of occurrence of physical processes is so much less than the time of the full cycle of the Universe that the size of presence of the fundamental particle r_t can be considered unchanged. Accordingly, the velocity v_p and acceleration a_p are unchanged.

In accordance with Conclusion (c10.12), the physical body of a fundamental particle is simultaneously under the conditions of the projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization and under the conditions of physical space, motion through which is carried out along the mobile dimension T_d.

Thus, taking into account conclusion Conclusion (c11.2), the motion of a physical body in the internal space of a fundamental particle along the uncertain dimension r_d is projected into physical space by motion along the mobile dimension T_d, and the physical body acquires a velocity v_pd of motion along it in a quantum of state (Fig. 18.1, b).

As a result of this motion of the physical body along the mobile dimension T_d with velocity v_pd the direction of the base dimension T_u relative to it deviates, and the velocity gained in the quantum of state, in accordance with Conclusions (c12.3) and (c11.4), is preserved. The entire process of gaining velocity is repeated in each subsequent quantum of state, and the motion of the physical body along the mobile dimension T_d becomes uniformly accelerated.

The motion of the material part of localization in the relativity of a local reference frame along the uncertain dimension T_d0 of the potential part of localization is projected into the internal space of a fundamental particle by the uniformly accelerated motion of its physical body along the projection of the uncertain dimension r_d of the potential part of the elementary localization.

This motion of a physical body with acceleration a_p along the uncertain dimension r_d occurs in the region of uncertainty, which represents the projection of the internal space of the fundamental particle into physical space. From these conditions, the following conclusion follows:

The uniformly accelerated motion of the physical body of a fundamental particle along the uncertain dimension r_d within the limits of the uncertainty of the internal space of the fundamental particle does not affect its inertial motion in the local reference frame.

The physical body of a fundamental particle, in accordance with Definition (d10.4), is a projection into physical space of the material part of the elementary localization. In accordance with Conclusions (c10.4) and Conclusion (c9.20), the full maximum size of the uncertain dimension r_d of the elementary localization is equal to πd_r.

As a result of the physical body of a fundamental particle traversing a distance equal to its maximum size πd_r along the uncertain dimension r_d, it will find itself at the point of refraction of the cycle and will transition to the next half-cycle.

In accordance with Conclusion (c10.8), the two-dimensional surface of the enclosing sphere of a fundamental particle is formed by the uncertain position of the uncertain dimension r_d and has two sides.

The second side of the uncertain dimension r_d in projection into physical space is unfolded into the outer side of the closed sphere of presence of the fundamental particle. From this condition, the following conclusion follows:

After the completion of the first half-cycle of elementary localization along the uncertain dimension r_d, in projection into physical space, the next half-cycle is projected onto all physical space.

At the same time, the condition of the maximum size πd_r of the uncertain dimension r_d is preserved. This condition determines the maximum size of the projection of the potential part of the elementary localization into physical space. As a result, the physical body of the fundamental particle finds itself outside the projection of the potential part.

As a result of the physical body of a fundamental particle shifting along the uncertain dimension r_d by a distance exceeding πd_r, the fundamental particle, as a projection of the elementary localization, will decay into two separate parts: a separate projection of its material part and a separate projection of its potential part.

At the moment of decay of a fundamental particle and its transition into the projection of the next half-cycle of elementary localization, the previous half-cycle is projected into physical space by a new elementary particle. The logic of the process leaves no doubt that the decay process of a fundamental particle fully corresponds to the process of beta decay of a free neutron. The newly formed elementary particle is an antineutrino, the physical body of a neutron, as a fundamental particle, which has emerged into physical space, becomes a proton, and the separated potential part becomes an electron.

The fundamental particle of our Universe, as a localization in absolute uncertainty, in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System, is a free neutron.

The beta decay of a free neutron as a fundamental particle into two separate parts with the formation of a new elementary particle occurs due to the directed motion of the material part of the localization of the Universe along the uncertain dimension T_d0 in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System.

Let us find the time t_n of the life of a free neutron as a fundamental particle before its decay. According to the formula of the distance traversed in uniformly accelerated motion and our found formula (18.6):

The interval of time t_n = nd_r

(2π/cn_tv_g) represents the life time of a free neutron before its decay.

In the following chapters, we will confirm all the conclusions made with precise calculations based on experimental data.

In the previous chapter, we came to the conclusion that the physical body of a fundamental particle, as a projection of the material part of an elementary localization into physical space, becomes a proton after the decay of the fundamental particle.

In accordance with Conclusions (c6.4) and (c10.1), upon passing the point of refraction of the cycle of elementary localization in projection into physical space, the projections of all parts of its dimensions formed by the primary principle of division into two parts must invert to the opposite. This means that the physical body of the fundamental particle at the moment of its decay must invert relative to the projection of the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d of its potential part.

Since the physical body simultaneously resides under the conditions of physical space, such an inversion relative to the projection r_ur_d of the potential part of the elementary localization must be accompanied by an inversion relative to physical space itself. However, the physical body is part of the material part of the primary localization and cannot invert relative to its two-dimensional structure R_uR_d.

As a result of these conditions, an inversion of the projection of the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d of the potential part of the elementary localization into physical space occurs. Accordingly, the directions of the projections of the dimensions r_u and r_d change to the opposite.

The decay of a fundamental particle is accompanied by an inversion of the projection of the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d of the potential part of the elementary localization relative to the separate projections of its material and potential parts into physical space.

A proton represents a separate projection of the material part of an elementary localization into physical space, after the decay of the fundamental particle, with the direction of the projection of its internal certain dimension r_u inverted to the opposite.

The decay of a fundamental particle does not impose additional conditions on the size r_p of the physical body, which is certain exclusively by the stage of the primary cycle.

In accordance with Conclusion (c9.16), our Universe, as a localization, is in the half-cycle of "dissolution" of the material part. Accordingly, the direction of its certain dimension T_u can be defined as "from the inside out."

Identically to this, the direction "from the inside out" projects into physical space the direction of the internal certain dimension r_u of the potential part of the elementary localization in the relativity of the fundamental particle.

Thus, the change in the direction of the projection of the certain dimension r_u with respect to the proton represents a change in direction from "from the inside out" to "from the outside in."

In the relativity of a proton, an elementary localization is projected by a half-cycle of separating of the material part corresponding to the motion "from the outside in."

Up to the moment of decay, a neutron represents a spherical region of uncertainty of the position of its physical body in physical space (Conclusion (c10.11)), the size of which along the internal uncertain dimension r_d in the quantum of state n_t is equal to πr_t.

The moment the physical body emerges from this region of uncertainty along the mobile dimension T_d is coupled with uncertainty regarding its physical size r_p.

Thus, the size of the presence region of the proton along its uncertain dimension r_d increases to the size πr_t + r_p, Fig. 19.1.

Taking into account these conditions, we find the presence size of the proton:

r_tp = (πr_t + r_p)/π = r_t + r_p/π (19.1), where r_tp is the presence size of the proton.

Taking into account formula (10.4):

A proton represents a spherical region of diameter r_tp of uncertainty of the position of its physical body in physical space.

Since a proton represents a partial projection of the internal cycle of an elementary localization, the following conclusion follows:

In continuation of the logic of neutron decay, a separate projection of the potential part of an elementary localization must represent an electron.

By the condition of identity with the primary localization, the positions of the points of refraction of the certain dimension r_u of the elementary localization, in accordance with Conclusion (c7.4), are uncertain in its internal space.

Thus, the internal space of a fundamental particle, as a projection of an elementary localization, represents a region of uncertainty not only with respect to containing its physical body, but also with respect to the points of refraction of the projection of the certain dimension r_u, which represent projections of the beginning and end of each half-cycle of the elementary localization.

This condition of uncertainty of the points of refraction of the projection of the dimension r_u is preserved after the decay of the fundamental particle with respect to the separate projection of the potential part of the elementary localization.

Thus, taking into account Conclusion (c19.1), an electron represents a presence region in physical space of the boundary of the end of the half-cycle, which is projected relative to the proton by the direction "from the outside in" (Fig. 19.2).

An electron is an elementary particle and represents a presence region in physical space of the boundary of the half-cycle of an elementary localization in a reverse projection with the direction of the process moving "from the outside in."

At the moment the physical body of the neutron emerges from the region of uncertainty represented by the fundamental particle, the entire path traversed by the physical body along the uncertain dimension r_d, is superimposed on the mobile dimension T_d by a linear segment.

In accordance with Conclusions (c6.2) and (c10.1), the motion of the physical body along the uncertain dimension r_d is carried out simultaneously along both of its opposite sides to the full extent of its size πd_r.

Identically to the projection of the mobile dimension T_d into physical space in an unfolded projection relative to its two sides, this path, traversed simultaneously along two opposite sides of the uncertain dimension r_d, is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d in an unfolded projection.

At the moment the physical body emerges from the region of uncertainty formed by the projection of the potential part of the elementary localization, the entire path traversed along two opposite sides of the uncertain dimension r_d is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d by a linear segment in an unfolded projection by two opposite directions of size πd_r with an refraction point between them.

This condition defines the electron as a separate projection of the potential part of the elementary localization into physical space.

The internal space of an electron is certain by the unfolded projection of the two sides of the two-dimensional structure of the potential part of the elementary localization.

The path traversed by the physical body in the internal space of the fundamental particle is projected with the uncertainty of the presence size πr_t of the physical body along the uncertain dimension r_d with respect to the size πd_r of each of the two opposite cycles (Fig. 19.3).

Thus, the size 2πd_r + 2πr_t is a determining condition for the presence region of the electron at the moment of its formation as an independent elementary particle.

r_tev = 2πd_r + 2πr_t = 2π(d_r + r_t) (19.3), where r_tev is the presence size of the electron at the moment of its formation along the mobile dimension T_d.

Taking into account formula (10.2):

An increase in the size of the electron presence region from r_t to r_tev cannot occur instantaneously. The maximum velocity of motion in physical space cannot exceed c (Conclusion (c8.7)). At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that the path traversed along the uncertain dimension r_d, by means of its unfolding, is projected onto a straight path along the mobile dimension T_d (Fig. 19.4).

The ratio of the proton mass to the electron mass is quite large, and the velocity v_p that it acquires in the process of "repelling" with the electron can be neglected.

Thus, taking into account the maximum velocity of motion c, the electron in the process of its growth acquires a velocity c/π of its motion along the mobile dimension T_d in the local reference frame.

In accordance with formula (14.2) and Conclusion (c14.2), let us find the presence size of the electron in a state of rest.

r_te = r_tev/

(1-c²/π²c²) = r_tev/

(1-1/π²) = 2πd_r(1 + n_t/n)/

(1-1/π²) (19.5), where r_te is the presence size of the electron in a state of rest.

The decay of a fundamental particle occurs along the mobile dimension T_d .

Since the mutual displacement of the material and potential parts of the elementary localization occurs along its internal certain dimension r_u, the following conclusion follows:

Upon the physical body of a fundamental particle passing the point of refraction of the cycle at the moment of its emergence into the external physical space, the dimension r_u is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d.

In this case, the interaction of the material and potential parts of the elementary localization is projected into physical space by the interaction of the proton and the electron.

Due to the decay of a fundamental particle, the force of the internal cycle of the elementary localization is projected into physical space by the force of interaction of the projections of the two primary parts of the decay: material and potential, representing a proton and an electron.

Using the terms accepted in physics, we arrive at the following conclusions:

Electromagnetic forces represent the projection of the force of the internal cycle of an elementary localization into physical space.

An electric charge represents an indivisible potential of force, as a projection of the interaction between the two primary parts of an elementary localization.

Considering that the number of opposite charges in the relativity of any local reference frame is equal to the number of separate projections of the two primary parts of elementary localizations, we arrive at the following conclusion:

In the relativity of any local reference frame, the number of positive charges is equal to the number of negative ones.

In its own relativity, the electron moves along the projection of the certain dimension r_u of the potential part of the elementary localization in the direction opposite to the proton. Thus, in accordance with Conclusion (c19.4), the dimension r_u is projected with respect to the electron in a direct projection — by motion "from the inside out.

Since traditionally the electric charge of a proton is considered positive, and that of an electron negative, the following conclusion follows:

A negative charge is certain by a direct projection of the direction of the certain dimension r_u of the elementary localization into physical space, and a positive charge by its reverse projection.

Since the proton and the electron reside simultaneously under the conditions of physical space and under the conditions of the projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization, the following conclusion follows:

Particles possessing an electric charge reside simultaneously under the conditions of two spaces: the physical space and the space formed by the projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization.

The conditions of this second space are precisely what is called an electromagnetic field in physics.

The internal cycle of an elementary localization is carried out along the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d of its potential part.

Since the entire process of transition along a half-cycle is carried out inside the region of uncertainty of the neutron, in which the points of refraction of the projection of the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d are uncertain, the electromagnetic field, as a projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization, is projected onto the two-dimensional structure of the two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d of physical space.

An electromagnetic field represents a projection of the forces of the internal cycle of an elementary localization onto the two-dimensional structure T_dR_d of physical space.

Since, in accordance with Conclusion (c20.1), the certain dimension r_u is projected into physical space onto the mobile dimension T_d, accordingly, the uncertain dimension r_d is projected onto the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space.

The logic of the whole process suggests the following conclusions to us:

The force acting in the internal cycle of an elementary localization along the certain dimension r_u on the material part is projected relative to charged particles by the force of their electric interaction acting along the mobile dimension T_d.

The force acting in the internal cycle of an elementary localization along the uncertain dimension r_d on the material part is projected relative to charged particles by the force of their magnetic interaction acting along the uncertain dimension R_d.

The directed motion of the material part of localization along the uncertain dimension T_d0, which led to the decay of the fundamental particle, continues to be identically projected onto the interaction of separate projections of the material and potential parts of the elementary localization.

This interaction occurs along the projection of the uncertain dimension r_d into physical space. Since the uncertain dimension r_d is projected onto the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space, a condition is imposed on it—the impossibility of displacement along this dimension in physical space (conclusion (c11.2)). As a result of these conditions, this interaction is expressed in a force acting on charged particles along the uncertain dimension R_d.

The direction of this force determines the spin and magnetic properties of the electron.

The direction of the spin and magnetic properties of the electron are certain by the identical projection of the directed motion of the material part of the localization of the Universe along the uncertain dimension T_d0.

The process of dissolution of the material part in the internal cycle of an elementary localization is projected with respect to the proton and electron by the force of their attraction in physical space.

From the principle of symmetry and identity (theorem (t3) and Conclusion (c2.4)) follows:

The force of repulsion of two charges of the same sign is equal in magnitude to the force of attraction of two charges of different signs.

The projection of the force of the internal cycle of the elementary localization into physical space occurs due to the decay of its projection — the fundamental particle. Accordingly, the magnitude of this force in physical space must be certain by its magnitude in the internal cycle of the fundamental particle.

Thus, to find the formula for the force of electric interaction, it is necessary to find the force of the internal cycle of the fundamental particle acting along the certain dimension r_u.

In accordance with formula (18.2), the velocity v_pu of the motion of the physical body of a fundamental particle along its internal cycle in a quantum of state is equal to r_t/nd_t.

Accordingly, its acceleration in a quantum of state is equal to:

In accordance with formula (13.1):

f_p = ku_pa_pu = ku_pr_t/nd_t² (21.2), where f_p is the force of the internal cycle of the fundamental particle, and u_p is the material definiteness of the physical body of the fundamental particle in its internal cycle.

In accordance with Conclusion (c8.5) and (c9.8), the size of the entire material part of the primary localization and of the fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u is identical and equal to the quantum of extension d_r.

Thus, the size of the material part of the primary localization along the base dimension T_u is n times smaller than its full size. Identically to this, the size of the physical body of a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u is n times smaller than its size along this dimension.

Accordingly, the definiteness (Definition (d13.2)) of the physical body of a fundamental particle along the base dimension T_u in the relativity of the internal cycle is n times greater than the definiteness of the fundamental particle itself with respect to the primary cycle.

Along the uncertain dimension r_d of the potential part of the elementary localization, the physical body is not separated, and, accordingly, its definiteness along the uncertain dimension T_d0 is equal to the definiteness along this dimension of the fundamental particle.

Thus, with respect to the material definiteness (Definition (d13.3)) of the physical body of a fundamental particle, we arrive at the conclusion:

The material definiteness of the physical body of a fundamental particle in its internal cycle is n times greater than the material definiteness of the fundamental particle with respect to the primary cycle.

Taking into account the motion of the material part of localization in the local reference frame with velocity v_g, in accordance with formula (14.5), for the material definiteness of a fundamental particle with respect to the primary cycle, we obtain:

u_n = πn²/

(1-v_g²/c²) (21.3), where u_n is the material definiteness of the fundamental particle in the local reference frame.

Taking into account формул (21.2) and (13.7), we obtain for the internal cycle force:

f_p = ku_pr_t/nd_t² = kπn²r_t/d_t²

(1-v_g²/c²) = d_mr_t/d_t²

(1-v_g²/c²) (21.5)

Taking into account formula (15.1):

Let us also apply formula (10.2) and (8.4):

It is also necessary to take into account that the force acting along the internal certain dimension r_u is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d, which is uncertain.

In accordance with Conclusion (c17.5), the action of the cycle force along an uncertain dimension is π times weaker than along a certain one.

f_en = f_p/π = d_mvc²n_t/πnd_r (21.8) , where f_en – is the projection of the internal cycle force of a fundamental particle into physical space.

This force will act between the projections of the two primary parts of the elementary localization at the moment of the fundamental particle's decay. Thus, the distance at which this magnitude of the electrical interaction force will act is equal to its size of presence r_t.

This interaction at a distance of r_t corresponds to the projection of a half-cycle with a determining number equal to 1. Thus, the determining number n_e of the electrical cycle must be calculated identically to the gravitational cycle (formula (17.1)) as the ratio of its size R to the size r_t.

Taking into account formula (10.2):

Analogously to the gravitational cycle (Chapter 17), this same force f_en must act on a unit charge from the direction of n_e² charges of the other pole in an electrical cycle of any size.

We obtain the formula for the interaction force of two charges at a distance of R:

Since an increase in the charge on each side correspondingly increases the interaction force, this force is proportional to the product of the number of unit charges at each pole:

f_e = (q₁/q₀)(q₂/q₀)f_e = q₁q₂f_e/q₀² = q₁q₂d_mvc²n_t³d_r/πn³q₀²R² (21.12), where q₀ is a unit charge or a coefficient of the system of units, and q₁ and q₂ are the interacting charges.

Let us compare this with the formula of electrical interaction known in physics:

We obtain the value of the electrical constant:

This formula contains the variable value of the number of quanta of state completed by the Universe n_t.

The electrical constant grows proportionally to the cube of the number of quanta of state n_t, completed by the Universe.

Let us note that by dividing formula (21.13) of the electrical constant by formula (17.8) of the gravitational constant, we obtain the formula for the number of quanta of state n_t completed by our Universe:

If we neglect the difference between the mass of the neutron d_mv in the local reference frame associated with the Earth and its mass in the ideal reference frame d_m then we easily find the value for n_t, as the ratio of the electrical interaction force of two unit charges to the gravitational interaction force of two neutrons. We obtain the value:

The power of the obtained number leaves no doubt that our Universe represents a localization of the eighth order (formula (4.1)) with the determining number:

It was precisely this finding (only the proton mass was used instead of the neutron mass) that suggested to the author the direction of all further research. As a result, much more precise values were obtained, including the velocity v_g of motion of the entire material part of the Universe in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System, the result of which is the difference between the neutron mass d_mv and its theoretically calculated mass d_m in the ideal reference frame. Therefore, we will not rush with calculations, and will first find a few more important formulas that will allow us to obtain the theoretical value of the neutron mass.

Upon the approach of a proton and an electron until the moment the proton crosses the boundary of the region of the electron's presence, the proton, moving in physical space along the mobile dimension T_d, simultaneously moves along the projection of the certain dimension r_u of the elementary localization.

At the moment of entering the internal space of the electron, the proton passes through the point of refraction of the projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization. From this moment its motion in the relativity of the projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization is carried out along the projection of its uncertain dimension r_d, at the same time, it continues to move with respect to physical space along the mobile dimension T_d.

When the proton covers a distance exceeding the size of πd_r in the internal space of the electron, which corresponds to the maximum size of the projection of the uncertain dimension r_d, its direction, in accordance with (Conclusion (c19.9)), changes to the opposite (Fig. 22.1, a).

Thus, oscillatory motions of the projection of the elementary localization cycle boundary arise relative to the proton in the internal space of the region of the electron's presence, creating a stable state of the hydrogen atom.

This oscillatory process occurring in the region of the electron's uncertainty represents a projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization and is not reflected in physical space by the motion of charges (Fig. 22.1, b).

In physical space, only the oscillatory motions of the compound of the proton and electron as a coherent material object are reflected, corresponding to thermal oscillations.

The hydrogen atom represents a projection of the internal cycle of an elementary localization into physical space as a stable process of oscillations of the projection of the elementary localization cycle boundary relative to the proton in the internal space of the region of the electron's presence.

The internal process of the hydrogen atom is not reflected in physical space by the motion of electric charges.

The size of the hydrogen atom is certain by the size of the region of the electron's presence, which, in turn, is certain by the minimum value of two sizes of the uncertain dimension r_d of the potential part of the elementary localization, and in their sum is equal to 2πd_r.

The increase in this size due to the electron's loss of energy is insignificant. Thus, we necessarily arrive at an important conclusion:

The sizes of atoms during the course of the second half-cycle of the Universe remain unchanged, while the size of the Universe increases by n = 2¹²⁸ times.

From this conclusion it follows that the sizes of solid cosmic bodies, such as our planet, change insignificantly during the course of the Universe's cycle, while the cosmic distances between them increase. Thus, taking into account conclusion Conclusion (c17.6), we arrive at the following conclusion:

The acceleration of free fall on the surface of the planet increases proportionally to the square of completed quanta of state of the Universe n_t.

This increase in the forces compressing the planet is, perhaps, one of the main reasons for the internal heating of the planet.

If the oscillatory motion of the cycle boundary in the region of the electron's presence in one direction relative to the proton reaches the size of 2πd_r, this corresponds to the displacement of the proton, as a projection of the material part of the elementary localization, by a full cycle of two half-cycles along the unfolded projection of its internal uncertain dimension r_d. As a result, in accordance with Conclusion (c8.7), the separate projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization in the form of a proton and an electron must transition into the projection of the next cycle, having performed an inversion through the point of refraction.

Since the proton is part of the material part of the primary localization, it cannot invert relative to physical space. Accordingly, the electron inverts relative to the sides and directions of the projection of the dimensions r_u and r_d.

The electron represents an unfolded projection of two half - cycles of the elementary localization; therefore, this inversion must correspond to a full cycle—that is, consist of two half-cycles (Fig. 23.1, a).

Each of the half-cycles of the elementary localization is projected by a full pass along the projection of the certain dimension r_d.

This process of projecting the full cycle of the elementary localization along its certain dimension r_d into physical space represents a new elementary particle.

It is not difficult to guess that in this case we are dealing with a photon.

Since the entire process of transition through the cycle is carried out inside the region of the electron's uncertainty, in which the points of refraction of the two-dimensional structure r_ur_d are uncertain, and in accordance with Conclusion (c20.8), the photon, as a projection of the full cycle along the two-dimensional structure of the potential part of the elementary localization, is projected onto the two-dimensional structure of the two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d of physical space.

A photon represents a projection of the full internal cycle of an elementary localization along the uncertain dimension r_d onto the two-dimensional structure of the two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d of physical space.

From this conclusion, in accordance with Definition (d13.1), the following flows:

The inversion of the electron through a full cycle relative to physical space returns it to its initial position relative to it, but at the same time it loses a part of its mass spent on the separating of the photon.

As a result of the separating of a photon, the size of the electron's presence increases, and its mass decreases.

When emitting a photon, the electron transitions into the projection of a new cycle of the elementary localization. Accordingly, they are bound by the condition that each new cycle must reside outside the previous one.

Since the electron represents the projection of the potential part of the elementary localization into physical space, the photon, as a projection of its previous cycle, must reside outside physical space.

But this condition is superimposed on the condition of the maximum possible velocity of displacement c in localization. As a result of these conditions, the photon shifts outside physical space across quanta of state at the maximum possible velocity c.

Given that motion in physical space is possible only along the mobile dimension T_d, the photon must move along it.

The motion of a photon is carried out along the mobile dimension T_d of physical space at the maximum possible velocity c.

The entire full cycle of the photon is projected onto the mobile dimension T_d by the size r_y, Fig. 23.1.

Taking into account the uncertainty of the internal space of the electron, the sequence of components of the photon formation process within its quantum of extension r_y is uncertained (Fig. 23.1, b).

The sequence of internal processes of a photon, as a projection of the full cycle of an elementary localization, is uncertain within the limits of its own quantum of extension.

Along the second uncertain dimension R_d, the size of the photon is certain by the condition of its formation through the transition of the electron into a new full cycle.

The size of a photon along the dimension R_d is certain by the size of the electron along it and is equal to πd_r.

Taking into account the principle of formation of photon sizes, we arrive at another conclusion:

The sizes of a photon do not depend on the number of completed quanta of state n_t.

The direction of the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space relative to the photon is not limited by anything except the condition of perpendicularity to the mobile dimension T_d, and is certain by the conditions of the photon's separating.

This direction of the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space relative to the photon determines its property called polarization in physics.

The polarization of a photon is certain by the orientation of the direction of the uncertain dimension R_d in physical space relative to it.

The motion of a photon is carried out along the uncertain dimension T_d, which has no localized parts or reference points. From this, it necessarily follows that the condition of the photon moving at the maximum velocity c is satisfied relative to any reference frame. Thus, we arrive at a conclusion that corresponds to the core postulate of the Theory of Relativity:

A photon moves at the maximum possible velocity c relative to any physical reference frame, regardless of the velocity of its motion in physical space.

The size of the quantum of extension of a photon r_γ is traditionally called its wavelength in physics.

r_γ = сd_tγ (23.1), where d_tγ is the size of the quantum of extension of the process in units of time.

The photon is locally separated only along two dimensions, T_d and R_d, and is uncertain along all others; accordingly, its material definiteness with respect to the conditions of its motion must be certain relative to these two dimensions.

The material definiteness of a photon is certain relative to the two-dimensional structure of the two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d of physical space.

The size of a photon along the mobile dimension T_d is equal to r_γ, and its definiteness along this dimension, in accordance with Definition (d13.2), is equal to πR_t/r_γ.

Along the second uncertain dimension R_d of physical space, in accordance with conclusion (c23.6), the size of the photon is equal to πd_r.

Taking into account the size πR_t of the uncertain dimension R_d, the definiteness of the photon along it is equal to πR_t/πd_r.

On the basis of definition (d13.3) and Conclusion (c23.10), let us find the material definiteness of the photon:

u_γ = (πR_t/πd_r)(πR_t/r_γ) = πR_t²/d_rr_γ (23.2), where u_γ is the material definiteness of the photon.

Let us apply formula (9.3):

Let us find the energy mass of the photon by formula (13.2):

Let us apply formula (13.7):

The frequency of a photon in physics is called the value of the ratio of its velocity of motion c to its wavelength r_γ.

The sizes of a photon do not depend on the stage of the primary cycle. Accordingly, the frequency of the photon also remains unchanged.

The frequency and size of a photon do not depend on the number of completed quanta of state n_t and do not change during the course of the primary cycle.

The energy of a photon must be certain by the work of the cycle force of symmetry restoration in its quantum of state during motion along the dimension T_d:

e_γ = m_γa_γr_γ (23.6), where a_γ is the acceleration of gaining the velocity c by the photon in its quantum of state.

Let us apply formula (23.1):

Taking into account formula (23.4):

Let us replace the wavelength with frequency in it:

Comparing this formula with the formula adopted in physics:

The value of Planck's constant and the energy of a photon grow proportionally to the square of completed quanta of state n_t.

Finally, we have obtained all the formulas we need, making it possible, on the basis of experimental data on some physical characteristics of our physical world, to obtain the theoretical value of its other fundamental characteristics and compare them with their experimental value. This will allow us not only to prove the correctness of our theoretical model, but also to obtain some completely new precise data for science regarding the physical characteristics of our Universe.

Let us divide formula (23.12) of Planck's constant by formula (17.8) of the gravitational constant:

All components of this formula are known to us except the determining number n of the localization of our Universe. We have already arrived in Chapter 21 at the preliminary conclusion that our Universe represents a localization of the eighth order with the determining number n = 2¹²⁸ ( formula (4.1) and (21.16)). Let us perform the calculation with respect to this value.

We obtain the value of the unit of mass:

The experimentally obtained mass of a neutron is:

Such a match with a discrepancy of only 0,4% leaves no doubt that our Universe represents a localization of the eighth order with the determining number n equal to 2¹²⁸. It makes no sense to perform calculations for other orders of localizations, since the difference will be by dozens of orders of magnitude.

Our Universe represents a localization of the eighth order with the determining number n = 2¹²⁸.

25. Exact Value of the Velocity of Motion of the Local Reference Frame Associated with the Earth

The slight difference between the unit of mass d_m and the mass of the neutron d_mv is explained by the motion of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System. Using the formula (15.1) we obtained earlier for the increase in the mass of a fundamental particle (neutron) in a local reference frame moving with velocity v_g relative to the fundamental reference frame, we can find the exact value of this velocity.

The material part of the primary localization in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System moves along the uncertain dimension T_d0 at a velocity of 26 013 292 m/s.

The fact that the found velocity value v_g corresponds to reality will be demonstrated by the further calculation on its basis of the free neutron decay time, which precisely coincides with the experimental one.

As we already noted in Chapter 21, the obtained formula (17.8) for the gravitational constant and formula (21.13) for the electrical constant allow us to find the exact value of n_t — the number of quanta of state completed by our Universe.

Let us divide these formulas by each other:

Let us substitute the known tabular values:

And the value of the unit of mass we found (24.4):

Let us find the coefficient of the ratio of the full half-cycle to the completed part:

The localization cycle of our Universe has passed 1/275 part of the size of its second half-cycle.

Now we have all the necessary values to calculate the size of presence r_t of the neutron and its physical size r_p, as well as the size of the quantum of extension in units of length d_r and the quantum of state in units of time d_t.

From formula (17.8) let us find the size d_r:

Using formulas (10.2) and (10.4) let us find the sizes r_t and r_p:

The approximate physical size (diameter) of a neutron (r_p) obtained experimentally is 1,6•10^-15 m.

Let us find the approximate size (diameter) r_a of a hydrogen atom in accordance with Conclusion (c22.3):

Based on the obtained values, let us calculate the main characteristics of the Universe and compare them with those known to science.

Let us find the lifetime of the Universe by formula (8.3):

T = n_td_t = 4,13620•10¹⁷ s = 1,31•10¹⁰ years, or 13,1 billion years. (28.1)

As we can see, this result fully complies with modern scientific data.

Let us find the time of the full half-cycle of the Universe by formula (8.2):

T_n = nd_t = 1,13791•10²⁰ s = 3,60•10¹² years, or 3,6 trillion years. (28.2)

Thus, our Universe in 3.6 trillion years will complete the second half-cycle of its localization, and physical space will begin to compress, so that in the next 3.6 trillion years it will return to the super-compressed state that preceded the "Big Bang."

Let us find the radius of the Universe in accordance with formula (9.3):

According to formula (18.8) we obtained earlier, let us calculate the free neutron decay time:

All components of this formula are known to us and we can calculate this time:

The experimentally certain free neutron decay rate is 880 and 865 seconds in various experimental setups. The result obtained needs no comment.

Let us find the size of the electron's presence, applying formula (19.5):

Let us find the mass of the electron by formula (15.2):

The experimentally known mass of the electron is considered to be: 9,10938291(40)•10^-31kg. The difference of 0,47% is another vivid confirmation of this theory.

In accordance with formula (19.2), let us find the size of the proton's presence:

This size of the proton's presence corresponds to its state at the moment of exit from the projection of the internal space of the fundamental particle. It must be taken into account that at this moment its energy is spent on the emission of an antineutrino. As a result, its size of presence must increase.

Let us find the mass of the proton by formula (15.2), based on the value r_tp = 3,64825847•10^-13 m :

The mass of the proton must be less than 1,6729916•10⁻²⁷ kg by the value of the energy of the emitted antineutrino.

The experimentally known mass of the proton is: 1,672621777(74)•10⁻²⁷ kg

Thus, depending on the additional conditions of free neutron decay, the antineutrino energy must correspond to a mass energy of the order of 3,6•10⁻³¹ kg, which is consistent with experimental data.

The third particle of the free neutron beta-decay ( Chapter 18) is the antineutrino.

In accordance with Conclusion (c18.8), and given that the potential part of the elementary localization is projected into physical space by the next half-cycle along the uncertain dimension r_d, the projection of its previous half-cycle forms the antineutrino.

In accordance with Definition (d13.1), the antineutrino represents a new elementary particle.

An antineutrino is an elementary particle representing the projection of the potential part of an elementary localization in its full half-cycle along the uncertain dimension r_d, corresponding to the process of dissolution of its material part.

It is not difficult to guess that the particle opposite to the antineutrino, representing the projection of the second, opposite half-cycle of the elementary localization along its uncertain dimension r_d, is the neutrino.

A neutrino is an elementary particle representing the projection of the full half-cycle of the potential part of an elementary localization along the uncertain dimension r_d, corresponding to the process of separating of its material part.

Projections of successive half-cycles must not be projected into the same space. Taking into account the conditions of motion in physical space, the neutrino and antineutrino recede from it along the mobile dimension T_d at the maximum possible velocity c.

The neutrino and antineutrino move in physical space at the maximum possible velocity c, and the concept of rest mass with respect to them is meaningless

Since each reference frame in its own relativity resides at the center of physical space, and the neutrino and antineutrino move relative to it at the velocity c, a conclusion follows that is analogous to the conclusion regarding the photon:

The neutrino and antineutrino move at the maximum velocity c relative to any inertial reference frame, regardless of the velocity of its motion.

The size r_y of the neutrino and antineutrino quanta along the mobile dimension T_d determines their definiteness along this dimension, and, accordingly, their energy.

The direction of the projections of the elementary localization half-cycles in the relativity of the neutrino and antineutrino determines the logic of their reactions with other particles.

An antineutrino can enter into reactions with a proton and an electron and cannot enter into reactions with a neutron and a positron, whereas a neutrino, conversely, can enter into reactions with a neutron and a positron, and cannot enter into reactions with a proton and an electron.

This theoretical conclusion is in strict compliance with modern experimental data.

Each charge represents a projection of one of the two primary parts of an elementary localization. Accordingly, the second charge of the same sign, which resides in the physical space uniting them, is perceived by the first as its own part.

Thus, considering that with respect to charged particles, the cycle of elementary localization is projected by the half-cycle of the part's separating (Conclusion (c19.4)), when like charges move in the same direction, a force arises that attracts them to each other.

When like charges move in opposite directions, the certain dimension of the elementary localization is projected oppositely relative to them. As a consequence of this, they perceive each other as parts of the opposite primary parts of the localization. Since the cycle of the elementary localization is projected relative to charged particles by the half-cycle of the part's separating, the opposite primary parts in this projection repel each other.

This interaction of moving like charges determines magnetic forces.

Since the mobile dimension T_d, along which the charges move, is uncertain, this motion of charges is relative in different reference frames.

Magnetic interaction is a consequence of the projection of the internal cycle of an elementary localization into physical space, arising due to the motion of charges relative to the reference frame.

Like charges attract each other when moving in the same direction in physical space

Like charges repel each other when moving in opposite directions in physical space.

The internal cycle of an elementary localization is projected into physical space onto the two-dimensional structure of its two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d. Given that the motion of charges is carried out along the mobile dimension T_d, we arrive at the conclusion:

The force of magnetic interaction is directed along the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space.

In accordance with Conclusions (c20.4) and (c20.1), the charge of elementary particles is certain by the projection of the internal cycle force of the elementary localization acting along the certain dimension r_u onto the mobile dimension T_d of physical space. This projection determines the forces of electrical interaction of charges

Since the magnetic cycle represents an analogous projection of the internal cycle of the elementary localization into physical space, the force acting within it must be identical to the force of electrical interaction. Thus, the ratio of the magnitudes of magnetic and electrical forces depends on the determining conditions of the magnetic and electrical cycles.

For simplicity, let us consider the case of parallel motion of two charges. In this case, the direction of the uncertain dimension R_d, along which the magnetic force acts, coincides in the relativity of both charges.

The force of the primary cycle produces a displacement of elementary particles along the base dimension T_u by the value of the quantum of extension d_r in each quantum of state d_t.

The displacement of a moving charge with velocity v in the quantum of state d_t is equal to vd_t.

This means that the cycle force must be projected relative to the moving charge proportionally to the ratio of these displacements in the quantum of state. Taking into account the interaction of two charges moving with velocities v₁ and v₂, we can write:

f_m = f_e(v₁d_t/d_r)(v₂d_t/d_r) = f_ev₁v₂/с² (32.1), where f_m is the magnetic force acting between two charges moving in parallel.

Taking into account formula (21.12) of the electrical interaction force:

Let us use the formula (21.13) of the electrical constant we obtained:

This formula fully corresponds to the formula obtained experimentally:

In the reference frame associated with a closed loop, the motion of a charge along it is a motion in one direction along the closed mobile dimension T_d. Correspondingly, the uncertain dimension R_d is projected perpendicular to it, as shown in Fig. 32.1.

This process creates the condition of a permanent magnet, which is realized upon the approach of an analogous magnet.

In accordance with Definition (d12.1) , the condition for the inertia of the motion of elementary particles in physical space along the projection of the primary cycle is the invariance of the direction of the base dimension T_u in the relativity of each of them.

The projection of the internal cycle of an elementary localization into physical space must identically reflect this condition of inertia. Taking into account the uncertainty of the dimensions T_d and R_d of physical space onto which the internal cycle of the elementary localization is projected, the condition of inertia is expressed in the invariance of the mutual relative velocities of the motion of charges in any inertial reference frame.

Thus, the invariance of the relative velocities of the mutual motion of charges is a condition for the magnetic inertia of their motion, just as the invariance of the relative directions of the base dimension T_u with respect to elementary particles possessing a rest mass is a condition for the inertia of their motion in physical space (Conclusion (c12.3), Definition (d12.1)).

The invariance of the relative velocities of the mutual motion of charges is a condition for the magnetic inertia of their motion in physical space.

Upon the action of some force on one charge, the velocity of its motion relative to other like charges begins to change. As a result, a force arises that seeks to preserve the condition of magnetic inertia and correspondingly change the velocities of the motion of the charges.

Electromagnetic induction represents a force that seeks to preserve the state of magnetic inertia of the motion of charges when the velocity of the motion of one or more of them changes.

The action of electromagnetic induction, as a derivative of magnetic interaction, occurs along the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space.

The force of electromagnetic induction is transmitted from one charge to another along the uncertain dimension of physical space R_d, that is, perpendicular to their mutual motion along the mobile dimension T_d.

The motion of the entire material part of the Universe's localization in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System along the uncertain dimensionT_d0 of the Universe's localization isolates one of its two directions. This separating of a part of the dimension is identically projected into the elementary localization by the directed motion of its material part along its uncertain dimension r_d.

Upon the decay of a fundamental particle, this separated direction of the dimension r_d is projected by an separated direction onto the uncertain dimension R_d of physical space.

This condition determines the so-called "right-hand screw rule," or the right-hand orientation of the vector of the electromagnetic induction force.

The right-hand orientation of the electromagnetic induction vector is a consequence of the directed motion of the entire material part of the Universe's localization in the relativity of the local reference frame associated with the Solar System.

When the region of a proton's presence is combined in physical space with the region of a neutron's presence, the additional conditions of the internal space of the neutron, as a projection of the potential part of the elementary localization, are superimposed on the physical body of the proton.

In accordance with Conclusion (c19.2) , the directions of the projection of the certain dimension r_u of the internal cycle of the elementary localization in the relativity of the proton and neutron are opposite. Correspondingly, inside the region of the neutron's presence, a force equal to the force of electrical attraction begins to act between the physical bodies of the proton and neutron, rushing them towards each other.

When a proton enters the region of a neutron's presence, a force equal to the force of electrical interaction arises between them.

This force of interaction between two opposite physical bodies attracts them to each other, as a result of which they localize relative to each other in the region of the neutron's uncertainty.

In the course of mutual localization and superimposition of physical bodies, the size of the presence region of one physical body relative to the other is reduced along the mobile dimension T_d from the size r_t to the size of the physical body r_p, Fig. 34.1.

Correspondingly, the mutual definiteness of the physical bodies of the neutron and proton along the mobile dimension T_d increases by the ratio of the presence size r_t to the size of the physical body r_p. In accordance with formula (10.3) and the found value of k_t (26.4):

This increase in mutual definiteness leads to a proportional increase in the force of their attraction.

The interaction force of a proton and a neutron in a deuterium nucleus is n/n_t = 275,1 times greater than the electrical interaction force of two unit charges at an analogous distance.

The conditions of physical space do not impose any limitations on the approach of the physical bodies of the proton and neutron. Correspondingly, as they approach, they begin to overlap each other. This means that each of the two physical bodies enters the conditions of the internal space of the second body.

The physical bodies of the proton and neutron represent the projection of the material part of the elementary localization. The only condition determining the material part of the elementary localization is the condition of identity with the potential part, which is certain by the certain r_u and uncertain r_d dimensions.

When projected into physical space, the material part of the elementary localization must similarly be certain by certain and uncertain dimensions. Correspondingly, the maximum size of the certain dimension of the material part determines the size of the physical body. But this is the only determining condition. The positions of the projections of both dimensions of the material part of the elementary localization in the relativity of the physical bodies of the neutron and proton are completely uncertain. Correspondingly, the positions of the projections of the refraction points of the two-dimensional structure of the material part, and the projections of the direction of its dimensions, are uncertain.

Taking into account these conditions of their internal space, the physical bodies of the proton and neutron overlap each other simultaneously on both sides of their two-dimensional structure (Fig. 34.2)..

At the same time, the total overlap size along the certain dimension of the internal space of the physical body cannot exceed the condition of its maximum size r_p. The further process of approach requires the transition of one of the physical bodies through the refraction point of the internal space of the second, which must be accompanied by the inversion of its two dimensions and their secondary parts. But under the conditions of physical space, the physical bodies of the proton and neutron, as parts of the material part of the primary localization, cannot invert through the refraction point.

Thus, the maximum size r_p of the overlap of physical bodies on both sides of the certain dimension of their internal space is projected into physical space by the size r_p/2.

The overlap of the physical bodies of a neutron and a proton in physical space cannot occur more than until the mutual attainment of half the size of each of them.

This process of overlapping the physical bodies of the neutron and proton does not affect the process of the physical body of the neutron moving along the projection of the internal uncertain dimension r_d of its localization, which is caused by the motion of the local reference frame associated with the Earth.

The physical body of the neutron, just as in the decay of a free neutron, is uniformly accelerated along the uncertain dimension r_d of its internal space. Together with it, the physical body of the proton locked to it also moves.

As a result, after traversing a distance equal to the size πd_r of the uncertain dimension r_d of the elementary localization, the physical body of the neutron passes the refraction point, and the direction of the projection of the certain dimension r_u with respect to it changes to the opposite. Simultaneously, the physical body of the proton locked to it also passes through the refraction point. Correspondingly, the projection of the certain dimension r_u with respect to it changes to the opposite.

Thus, the physical body of the neutron turns into the physical body of a proton, and the physical body of the proton turns into the physical body of a neutron, and they change places in the projection of the next half-cycle of the elementary localization.

The physical bodies of the neutron and proton are in a constant closed motion along the projection of the uncertain dimension r_d of the elementary localization in the region of uncertainty represented by the neutron in physical space, and after each pass of the distance πd_r, they replace each other with an inversion of the direction of the projection of the certain dimension r_u of the potential part of the elementary localization relative to each of them to the opposite.

Thus, a stable, non-decaying state of presence of the proton and neutron arises.

At the same time, it is important to note that in this process of transitioning through the refraction point of the projection of the potential part of the elementary localization of both physical bodies, no emission of neutrinos and antineutrinos occurs.

Neutrinos and antineutrinos are emitted during the inversion of the projection of the potential part of the elementary localization into physical space. In this process, no such inversion occurs. The projection of the potential part of the elementary localization remains unchanged. The physical bodies of the proton and neutron, as projections of the material part of the elementary localization, also remain unchanged. They simply change places in two opposite projections of the internal cycle of the elementary localization.

The presence size r_td of the deuterium nucleus, as a coupling of the physical bodies of a neutron and a proton, increases relative to the presence size r_t of the neutron due to the exit beyond its limits of the attached physical body of the proton by half its size r_p, Fig. 34.3.

r_td = r_t + r_p/2 (34.2), where r_td is the presence size of the coupling of the physical bodies of the proton and neutron.

By the condition of symmetry and uncertainty of the coupling of both physical bodies, this presence size will be identically projected relative to each of them.

In accordance with this change in the presence size, the definiteness of each of them along the mobile dimension T_d and, accordingly, their mass will change proportionally.

Let us find the mass of the deuterium nucleus as the sum of two baryons, the mass of each of which is certain by the presence size r_td of the coupling of their physical bodies, using formula (15.2):

m_d = 2d_mvr_t/r_td = 2d_mvr_t/(r_t + r_p/2) = 2d_mv/(1 + n_t/2n) (34.3) , where m_d is the mass of the deuterium nucleus.

The experimentally known mass of the deuterium nucleus is 3,343 583 20(17)•10^-27 kg.

The discrepancy is only 0,005%.

The high accuracy of the agreement between the calculated and experimental masses of the deuterium nucleus leaves no doubt as to the correctness of the theory.

Let us find the value of the interaction force of a proton and a neutron in a deuterium nucleus at a distance of r_p, using the already found formula (21.11) of the electrical interaction of two charges:

f_np= (n/n_t)f_e0 = (n/n_t)d_mvc²n_t³d_r/πn³r_p² = d_mvc²n_t²d_r/πn²r_p² (34.5), where f_np is the nuclear interaction force in the deuterium nucleus.

Let us apply formula (10.4):

Let us calculate the exact value of this force using the tabular and found values (c24.1),(26.3),(27.1):

Modern physics views baryons (protons and neutrons) as consisting of three subatomic particles — quarks. In experiments, quarks manifest themselves exclusively in a very small region and a very short time interval, and it is impossible to isolate them into an independent existence.

Unlike the classical view of physics on spatial dimensions exclusively as structural characteristics available for measurement, this theory views spatial dimensions as parts of the Universe's localization, identical to any other of its parts representing separated material objects. This means that within certain frameworks of an experiment, it is possible to fix the projection of an elementary particle onto any of the dimensions of physical space as an independent physical object.

Within the limits of the quantum of state of a process, there exists a possibility of dividing the process of measuring an elementary particle into three separate stages along each of the dimensions of physical space, perceived as independent material particles.

A similar process occurs during the experimental detection of three quarks making up a baryon.

The uncertain and certain properties of dimensions define two types of quarks.

The neutron, as an identical part of the material part of the primary localization, is certain in physical space by its three dimensions (Conclusion (c9.10)): one certain dimension R_u and two uncertain dimensions T_d and R_d (udd).

In the relativity of the proton, the mobile dimension T_d, due to the projection onto it of the certain dimension r_u of the potential part of the elementary localization (Conclusion (c20.1)), acquires the properties of a certain dimension. Correspondingly, the proton is certain in physical space by two certain and one uncertain dimensions (uud).

Quarks represent the projection of baryon properties onto certain and uncertain dimensions.

The quark (d) reflects the properties of an uncertain dimension of localization.