Legend: Centers (0 - 4) of bit loci (approx. 0.6 fm cubes of quantized space) viewed from the XY plane and rotated 90 degrees, the YZ plane, showing charge densities -- positive: red (2), light red and orange (1) and negative: yellow (2), light yellow and orange (1).
Methods and Results
Fig. 1 illustrates densities of 21 mite positions by charge sign q (Table 1) similar to Fig. 2 in a previous report on the 3D internal structure of the proton based on the central baryon bit cycle [2]. Table 1 summarizes data pertaining to the research question of proton EDM value.
Legend: Tick u (unconditional bit operation) and s (strong bit operation) Spot types and names from Table 1 in [4]. q, charge sign. Exact X, Y, Z coordinates {r1, r2, r3}. Center of mass (bits), {c1, c2, c3}. q(ri - ci), intermediate EDM results for 21 positions.
The center of mass {c1, c2, c3} for the 21 mite positions was {1.714286, 1.714286, 1.714286}, a point on the solid diagonal of the spot cube [8] connecting the positron spot {0-1, 0-1, 0-1} and the electron spot {2-3, 2-3, 2-3}. Using these coordinates pegged to the centers of bit loci cubes, the center of the spot cube is {1.5, 1.5, 1.5}. Hence, the center of mass is closer to the electron spot, due to bit positions in neighboring spot cubes (X, Y, 4; X, 4, Z; 4, Y, Z) shown in Fig. 1, affecting the non-spherical proton shape.
The products of charge signs q and position vectors (ri - ci) were summed to an EDM vector of {-5.142857, -5.142857, -5.142857}, also on the same positron to electron solid diagonal of the spot cube. Thus, the EDM axis of the proton appears to be the same as that of the zero EDM electron [6] and the intrinsic electron spin [3].
The EDM vector length (8.907698) multiplied by elementary charge e and BM length d expressed in cm gives a proton EDM estimate of 8.534265E-32 ecm
8.907698 x 1.602176E-19 e x 5.979855E-14 cm = 8.534265E-32 ecm (1)
Given the extremely small uncertainty in this result, the calculated value is a huge number of standard deviations from zero confirming the hypothesis of non-zero proton EDM with almost 100% confidence.
Discussion
"Poor Side of Town" (Johnny Rivers). Dmitriev and Sen'kov have reported an upper limit for proton EDM of about 5.4E-24 ecm [9]. The present calculated result is some eight orders of magnitude smaller, or in the words of Johnny Rivers, maybe just a "little play thing", but on the right side of town regarding the observed upper limit. Although work designed to measure proton EDM at a 1.0E-29 ecm level may hit the news stands down the road, it seems the present result will survive for quite some time. Or as Johnny said, "It's hard to find nice things on the poor side of town".
The 242 possible hadron configurations [2] need to be parsed into groups representing particle categories (e.g., Table 3 in [4]). Specifically, the proton group would include all the bit functions representing proton time phases, momentum vectors, energy levels, etc. Then, the proton EDM could be recalculated with various selections of proton bit functions representing properties of theoretical or experimental interest. Work along these lines probably is necessary to calculate proton EDM estimates relevant to particular theoretical concerns or engineering tasks and to further weigh the veracity of the present proton EDM calculation.
Meanwhile, the present non-zero proton EDM result may be, as Johnny says, "the greatest thing this boy has ever found". Why? The reader can decide how bad the carnage might be in fallen physical theories including those assuming continuous space-time and those depending on T and P invariance.
"It's Gonna Take a Miracle" (Deniece Williams). According to Olive et al., "a nonzero value is forbidden by both T invariance and P invariance" [7]. In other words, if the present non-zero proton EDM report is correct, "it's gonna take a miracle" to salvage T and P invariance. Leaving P invariance as a homework assignment, let us look briefly at T invariance.
As discussed previously [10], the arrow of time is clearly unidirectional. Can anybody use the pattern of 1 and 0 bits on a computer hard drive and determine what the pattern was at one arbitrary unit of time previously? All those who can do that, now is the time to step forward.
Consider a single 1-state mite (fermion) bit anywhere in a bit function for a system state at time tick t = 0. With the four fundamental bit operations of BM [11], this bit locus could be in the 1-state due to (1) an unconditional bit motion into its spot unit or (2) a strong bit operation scattering event. Exactly how could it be known which occurred? For "reverse data processing" or motion of objects backward in time, this problem must be solved unambiguously. That was the easy case. How about a single 1-state lite (boson) bit in a bit function. At tick t = 0, this bit could be in the 1-state due to (1) unconditional bit motion, (2) a strong bit operation scattering, (3) presence of a electric potential causing mite-to-lite loci motion in the scalar bit operation or (4) a magnetic potential causing mite-to-lite motion in the vector bit operation. At this point, the analyst is on the knees praying for help, because selection among options 2 to 4 above depends on the bit configuration at t = -1, which was different than what we have now (t = 0). Now pick an arbitrary 0-state locus and repeat the above steps to accomplish reverse data processing. Where was this 0-state bit at t = -1? In short, unless some genius can solve the above problems definitively, we might safely conclude that motion of objects backward in time is mathematically impossible.
One may travel backwards in time, in effect, by reading about such work in quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics to get a feel for what physics was like in a previous century. Of course, the reader is not actually going back in time physically, as depicted in science fiction movies. It may be more like a present-day anthropologist visiting a more primitive village to observe superstitions of its people.
"Give My Love a Try" (Linda Jones). This week's BM spokesperson to the physics community is Linda Jones. How about that "eternity" part in her official statement? In the interest of fair labelling, she notes that BM is guaranteed 100% free of unhealthy singularities.
Editor's note: The reader is invited to post comments in agreement or disagreement with this or other Journal of Binary Mechanics articles at the Binary Mechanics Forum. The Journal also welcomes on-topic articles from other investigators and persons considering serving on the Journal's editorial board.
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Non-spherical proton shape" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2015.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[5] Krane, K. S., Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley, 1987.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Zero electron electric dipole moment" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
[7] Olive, K.A. et al. (Partical Data Group) Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001, 2014.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
[9] Dmitriev, V. F. and Sen'kov, R. A. "Schiff moment of the mercury nucleus and the proton dipole moment" Phys. Rev. Lett. 91:212303, 2003.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Solved physics mysteries" J. Bin. Mech. June, 2011.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" October, 2014.
© 2015 James J Keene
