As a physical theory, or more specifically a theory of everything or grand unification, BM has no known competition by the key criterion of simplicity or parsimony [2]. The universe is proposed to consist of a single fundamental object called the spot unit which consists of two binary bits -- mite and lite. The spot unit must contain mechanisms including to set its bit states to one or zero according to the fundamental bit operations of BM and to attach to other spot units to form spots (3 spot units) and spot cubes (8 spots), which in turn form a cubic spatial lattice [3].

The present glossary may begin to bridge some gaps between conventional thinking in modern physics and the essentials of BM. For references, articles in this informal journal of BM will be cited. The reader is invited to research current physics terminology in many fine books and internet sources such as Wikipedia which are readily available.

**Pauli Exclusion Principle**

At perhaps the most basic level, the Pauli exclusion principle is explained by the BM postulate that any bit locus in space may have only one of two states: one or zero. More familiar to physicists is the BM description of how elementary particles such as fermions including electrons and protons cannot occupy the same quantum mechanical (QM) state. For example, two electrons cannot occupy a single location in space at a particular time.

This principle follows from the BM assignment of one or more spots in which a particle may reside (Table 3 in [1]). For example, electrons occupy electron spots; positrons occupy positron spots. Nucleons occupy a spot cube, only one at a time. In short, BM completely explains the Pauli exclusion principle.

However, perspective changes in BM which postulates that spots which may specifically contain an electron preexist and an electron particle can exist only when a threshold number (2 or 3) of 1-state mite bits occupy one of those spots. This concept is somewhat different than the conventional idea that an electron exists and may move from one location to another. In BM, 1-state bits move, one at a time, which is grossly equivalent to an electron particle moving, at least before this process is analyzed in more detail [4].

**Fermi Repulsion**

Fermi repulsion, sometimes called exchange interaction, is a simple consequence of the postulate that one electron spot can contain only one electron and one spot cube can contain only one nucleon [1] [5].

The explanation for the rigidity of nucleons is therefore simple: each proton or neutron occupies a spot cube (with interactions with neighboring cubes) which each have a finite, definite spatial volume, which is the basis for limits to which matter -- electrons and nucleons -- can be compressed. Further, the finding that neutrons are more "rigid" than protons follows directly from the BM model, since addition of an electron to the spot cube occupied by a proton almost completely fills the cube. Thus,

**BM predicts specific limits to which electrons and neutrons can be compressed -- that is, a maximum number of particles per unit volume**. Further,

**the rigidity of electrons and neutrons per their defining spot volumes should be equal**.

The foregoing ideas illustrate a general theme that BM imposes a rather strict discipline to physics thinking. For example, quantities such as absolute maximum energy density, temperature and pressure are predicted [2]. In the good old days of continuous space and time, theorists could assume almost any values for these key variables including infinity (see Singularities). With BM, those days are gone. Assumption of continuous space-time has provided quite accurate agreement with experimental results in Newtonian, classic physics at macroscopic levels and in QM at atomic levels. However, BM is clearly needed to obtain more accurate results and increased understanding at the nuclear physics level, where it may be evident that the classic notion of continuous space-time is obsolete.

**Space-Time Curvature**

Space-time curvature, as postulated in the General Theory of Relativity by Einstein,

is not necessarily incompatible with the spatial model of BM. To the extent that General Relativity is consistent with experimental data, one might speculate that it is an equivalent, but different representation of BM space and possible states. If so, investigators should be able to represent space-time curvatures of particular physical interest as corresponding bit patterns in BM space. In other words, tensors in General Relativity field equations may be interpreted as space-time curvature or more simply, as bit patterns in BM space.

Granting that the space-time curvature interpretation is more sexy, theatrical and stimulating to the imagination, nonetheless, the bottom line appears to be that all the physical phenomena predicted by Einstein's field equations may be rather easily explained by much simpler effects in BM, which can be treated in a separate article. For example, so-called gravitational lensing most probably is a simple consequence of photon scattering (see Scattering) [1].

This subject highlights another theme in this glossary that attachment to the concept of continuous (non-quantized) space and time has caused theoretical physics to enter into what now seem to be needless complications, not to mention blatant contradictions with both fact and common sense.

**Singularities**

In brief, singularities, where physical quantities may be evaluated as infinity, do not exist in physics.

Some QM solutions result in such infinities. Instead of rethinking assumptions, such as continuous space-time, researchers have rather employed another math operation called renormalization purportedly to fix the problem.

Gravitational singularities have been defined as space-time points where matter may have an infinite density and zero volume due to gravitational forces. According to BM, this is science fiction. First, BM postulates an absolute maximum energy density. Second,

**BM predicts an absolute minimum volume**, namely a bit locus cube of dimension 1

*d*where

*d*is the BM fundamental length constant.

In sum, these BM postulates suggest a potentially useful heuristic rule. If a physics theory contains singularities, it is probably wrong.

**Gravity**

Present BM thinking is that gravity is not a fundamental or primary force at all, but rather a consequence of the four fundamental bit operations which exactly define time development of BM states [6].

Very preliminary BM results which may pertain to gravitation showed that (1) objects moved in the direction of higher bit density near their surface with a definite minimum density required and (2) repulsive forces opposed further motion of objects toward each other when the inter-object space attained a definite higher bit density.

Regarding the first finding above, all else equal, bit density between two objects will obviously be greater than in any other direction and hence, each object will tend to move toward the other. Further, these results suggest the BM prediction that

**gravity-like effects depend on object surface temperature which must be greater than absolute zero**to supply the radiated energy (bits) required to establish a greater bit density between two objects compared to any other direction from the center of mass (or bits) of each object.

To the extent that Casimir attraction may be a mini-model of a gravity-like effect, Obrecht et al. have provided support for this BM prediction by observation of increased Casimir effect attraction with increased temperature [10].

In summary, BM suggests that gravity joins the weak force as non-primary derivative forces such as friction, mechanical stress and the like. Would Einstein have postulated space-time curvature if it had been clear that gravity is not a primary force? After all, analysts of secondary forces such as mechanical stress and surface tension may use tensor expressions to quantify experimental results without any space-time curvature interpretation.

**Perfect Vacuum**

A perfect vacuum is conventionally defined as a volume free of atoms or ions. In BM, the bit (energy) density of a volume may vary from zero to maximum saturation which is six 1-state bits per spot (two 1-state bits per spot unit). It appears that most of our science is based on experience with a rather small portion of the total possible range of energy density. Consider that a logical consequence of BM postulates is an absolute maximum energy (bit) density, which appears to be a new concept in physics. At least, the author has not seen the idea even broached, much less part of the stock lexicon of modern physics. If there be any doubt on this point, consider further that absolute maximum temperature [7] at an energy density far below maximum density is also absent in modern treatments of thermodynamics.

Use of the term "perfect vacuum" suggests a paucity of current understanding. If the proton formation threshold is at about 0.11 of absolute maximum density [8] [9], the so-called perfect vacuum may be seen as a very busy energy range. For example, the electron and positron thresholds appear to be in the perfect vacuum range.

BM clarifies the composition of perfect vacuum -- namely, a number of mite and lite bits, mostly cycling in electron and baryon bit cycles. Whatever fields that theorists posit must therefore be patterns of bit distribution and the degree of synchronization of cycling bits. The good news is that

**BM provides the simplest irreducible representation of physical phenomena**as the playing field for theorists -- the 2-bit spot unit as the single fundamental building block of physical reality.

Since the so-called perfect vacuum is amply populated with 1-state bits, the zero density state has been denoted by the separate term -- absolute vacuum. This BM fact may be used to define dark matter and energy in the only way possible -- as distributions of mite and lite bits in BM space.

**Speed of Light in Vacuum**

In a BM absolute vacuum, EM radiation (light) is entirely absorbed by the vacuum to fill a sufficient number of electron and baryon bit cycles mostly below respective particle thresholds. In short, absolute vacuum is opaque, and probably exists to a very limited extent in nature. To wit, we do see stars.

Hence, the important constant denoted by "speed of light in vacuum" actually refers to radiation conducted through a volume abundantly filled with 1-state bits, even if below the baryon (proton) particle threshold, expressed in units of maximum bit density.

An obvious consequence of BM is the rapidly decreasing probability that light (photons) transmits in a straight line over distance due to scattering which can occur at almost any bit density range. In other words, the constant c, the speed of light in vacuum, must be well below maximum bit velocity [2].

In short, the phrase "speed of light in vacuum" may be rather misleading, since any light that arrives at destination B from source A can arrive in only one way, by bit motion through lepton and quark spots. That is, these spots "absorb" and "emit" energy in this conduction process from A to B, regardless of whether overall bit density exceeds particular particle thresholds. It might be evident that this conduction process itself has a density threshold where the vacuum becomes relatively transparent to light. In fact, at the lower densities of partial vacuum in outer space, light scattering may occur more frequently than at much higher densities.

**Strong Nuclear Force**

The strong force, also known as the strong interaction, nuclear force or color force, corresponds to the strong bit operation in BM. With the BM description of the internal structure of leptons, including the lowest mass electron and positron, inter-dimensional bit motion due to the strong force is seen to occur in both leptons and baryons such as protons and neutrons. Hence, the relevance of the strong force is clearly not limited to atomic nuclei [5]. Indeed, at bit densities below electron and/or proton particle thresholds, bit cycling in the perfect vacuum depends on the strong and unconditional bit operations which among other things, enable light transmission at its bit density threshold, else space would be completely opaque (no romantic twinkling stars and moon light).

In the Standard Model with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the strong force addresses apparent quark attraction mediated by gluons, a phenomenon called color confinement. While the BM basis for baryons does document bit cycles in which quark mite and gluon lite bits generally alternate over time (successive quantized ticks) [5], it is perhaps fair to say that the QCD treatment of the subject is vague and crude compared to the exact time-development detail provided by BM.

In addition, while quarks may appear to attract each other, quarks correspond to spots in spot cubes populated by a sufficient number of binary bits to reach particle threshold [2] [8]. What does happen is that 1-state bits (energy) can be captured in baryon bit cycles, which is the underlying mechanism producing the appearance that these cycling bits attract each other forming particles such as protons and neutrons.

Mechanisms underlying the spatial extent of the strong force, as described by the Yukawa potential, were presented in the original 1994 paper on BM [1]. The binding of nucleons in atomic nuclei and ions, called the residual nuclear force, may correspond to the portions of the spot unit path of the central baryon bit cycle that venture into neighboring spot cubes.

**Scattering**

The strong force is the only time-development bit operation that changes the direction of 1-state bit motion in BM. Such interdimensional bit motion results in a nominally 90 degree change in direction. This scattering effect at the microscopic single bit level should not be confused with the more macroscopic particle interactions causing particle scattering over a range of angles, which is thought to represent the aggregate result of a large number of elementary BM scattering events along with actions of the electrostatic (scalar), magnetic (vector) and unconditional bit operations over multiple tick intervals.

In electron spots, scattering due to the strong force are lite-to-mite transitions. In positron spots, scattering transitions are all mite-to-lite. In the six quark spots, mite-to-mite and lite-to-lite transitions occur. Hence, the speculation that a phenomenon such as gravitational lensing might be more simply explained by simple bit operations which result in photon scattering, may refer as much to this single bit level scattering as to photon interaction with formed particles.

Particles such as the electron and proton can exist in an absolute vacuum without any EM forces (scalar and vector bit operations) since their constitutent bits are trapped in bit cycles resulting entirely from the unconditional and strong bit operations [5]. This single bit scattering causes bit loops with infinite life-times if not disturbed by incoming 1-state bits.

**Big Bang Theory**

The body of work in the Big Bang sector of astrophysics may require some basic rewriting in light of BM fundamentals. For example, in a very early time period, some models assume infinite energy densities and temperatures, although there is not universal agreement on this point. In any case, according to BM, neither energy density nor temperature can surpass their absolute maximum values, much less be infinite. In short, beware of proposed values for energy density, temperature and pressure at the earliest phases of the Big Bang; odds are that they are complete science fiction.

Another spurious notion is the creation and destruction of particle–antiparticle pairs in collisions. Aside from Big Bang theory, it is evident in BM that such pairs are neither necessarily created or destroyed together, much less collide. For example, electrons reside in electron spots and positrons in positron spots and they therefore do not collide as might be commonly understood. On the other hand, bits emitted from electron or positron spots might interact per BM bit operations. In any case, contrary to Big Bang notions, ordinary matter particles such as electrons and protons form at relatively low energy densities as described above. Same for antimatter particles, which appear at

**, somewhat higher energy densities. In brief, the notion of simultaneous particle-antiparticle creation would appear to have limited applicability, if any at all.**

*different, not the same*Further science fiction in Big Bang thinking involves assertion that the purportedly

unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons -— of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe [11].In BM, baryogenesis is not an "unknown reaction", but a process which may be described in complete and exact detail. Furthermore, baryogenesis does not require any extreme conditions as might be proposed for early phases of a Big Bang. Instead, baryogenesis is a routine process seen at partial vacuum energy density levels.

If anything, extreme high energy densities result in breakdown of formed matter into quark-lepton plasmas in BM, exactly the opposite of certain Big Bang thinking.

Further, according to BM, matter asymmetry, where matter exceeds antimatter, is explained by the elementary concepts of BM and simulation experiments show that matter significantly out-numbers antimatter over almost the entire energy density range from zero to absolute maximum. Hence, "a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons" billions of years ago in the early universe is essentially pure nonsense having nothing whatever to do with present matter asymmetry.

Here is an appropriate homework assignment for students of physics. And once a student, always a student; so PhD physicists working in astrophysics may be included. The assignment: document the absurdity of many other statements in Big Bang thinking as revealed by BM fundamentals.

**String Theory**

If the reader thinks that building an entire universe based on a single fundamental object called the spot unit in BM is difficult, think again. The various string theories are the poster-child for the glossary theme mentioned above -- needless complexity.

At first glance, string theories may appear to be going backwards where electrons and quarks are considered to be 1-dimensional objects, whereas in BM, these particles are treated as 3-dimensional objects. This apparent going backwards may invoke the image of 21st century scientists saying that the earth is flat after all, and not round.

Anyway, a 1-dimensional particle may be considered by some to be a step forward from the concept of 0-dimensional particles, namely the fantastic idea that particles are actually points. In this context, string theories have only two more spatial dimensions to go to join the rest of us in a 3D world.

But wait. A summary of superstring theories, known as M theory, postulates that the 1-dimensional strings are actually parts of a 2-dimensional surface which can oscillate in -- are you ready? -- a some ten or more dimensional space-time.

The author is not aware of any attempt to evaluate the plausibility of building a universe with these things. Would a tiny floating point calculator or supercomputer be required at each point in spacetime? It almost goes without saying that building a universe with nothing but BM spot units might be a piece of cake compared to the mind-boggling complexity of such string theory efforts. A theory of everything, as a sort of plan to build a universe, might address key questions: "Is this feasible?" "Is this plausible?"

One might add that the assumption of continuous space-time would make such a project -- building a universe -- even more difficult using such strings, compared to the BM spot unit with its finite volume in quantized space of 1dx1dx2d where d is the BM length unit.

One might be able to begin to comprehend how many spot units would be needed for a universe as known in astrophysics. One might begin to comprehend what sort of pullies, sensors, ratchets, gears, springs, fasteners and whatnot might be needed, figuratively speaking, to construct a working spot unit, all packed into its finite, small volume. On the other hand, what is the size of these string things and what internal mechanics must they have? And then, the figurative question, "Is there any contractor who can build them?" If not, no universe.

String theories may turn out to be one of the strongest factors favoring the acceptance of quantized space and time as postulated in BM, according to the "when all else fails..." rule.

**Quantization Asymmetry**

String theories may well be excellent examples of a behavioral phenomenon which can be dubbed

**quantization asymmetry**, defined as physical theories at the atomic and nuclear levels that quantize almost everything

**space and time. The author cannot recall seeing any justification for this assumed asymmetry in QM and QCD. In summary, BM may be seen as an instance of quantization asymmetry breaking, so to speak, since it implements quantization symmetry.**

*except***References**

[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.

[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.

[4] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2011.

[5] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[6] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2011.

[7] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[8] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[9] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2011.

[10] Obrecht, J. M., R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and E. A. Cornell "Measurement of the temperature dependence of the Casimir-Polder force" Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063201 February, 2007.

[11] Wikipedia. "Big bang" May, 2011.

© 2011 James J Keene