"...You can keep your Higgs boson." Fig. 1 shows force incidence as a function of bit density in a simulated 64x64x64 spot volume.
Legend: Counts for scalar (blue), vector (purple) and strong (yellow) bit operations from absolute vacuum (0 bit density)  to maximum bit density (1) for six permutations of bit operations order.
The data were generated with the Binary Mechanics Lab simulator v1.36.6  with dimension = 64, initial bit density = 0.001, BOX mode ON (1), with selected bit operations order and with other parameters set to default (press enter), similar to methods used previously . Then, as the first display (Tick T = 0) is generated, press "2" to activate "Experiment 2". In this experiment, with each Tick T, 1-state bits are randomly added to the simulated volume equivalent to the initial bit density (0.001) until the experiment automatically stops at near 100% maximum bit density.
For each time T bit operations cycle, all 1-state bits move exactly one unit of BM fundamental distance d  in the tick t in which the unconditional bit operation is implemented. Thus, its 1-state bit motion count may be calculated from simulated volume size (64x64x64 spots with 6 bits each) and bit density (Fig. 1).
Some events associated with the bit density range from 0 to 1 have been described previously  . A present focus is the rapid rise in strong force counts starting at near zero bit density (yellow, Fig. 1). This is your Higgs mass mechanism as described in detail previously .
When electromagnetic (EM) forces -- the scalar and vector bit operations -- are absent or near nil at low bit densities, the unconditional and strong bit operations are most dominant causing bits to cycle in 12t electron  and 84t central baryon  bit cycles. The central baryon bit cycle is the physical basis for the proton and the mechanism of quark (color) confinement. The question of mass arises with consideration of the probability that particles (one or more 1-state bits) move from one cycle location to another. 1-state bits may exit a cycle only when the strong force does not evaluate to one , which becomes more likely as bit density rises, so that 1-state bits may be emitted from one cycle and be absorbed by, or "move to", another cycle location. In short, strong force action is the Higgs mass mechanism, since "mass" is inversely proportional to likelihood of 1-state bit motion among bit cycle locations. In simple terms, proton mass is much greater than electron mass because 1-state bits are much less likely to "escape" from the 84t proton bit cycle than the 12t electron cycle, to then be absorbed by another cycle location.
"If you want to keep your perfect vacuum..." The limited ability for motion of 1-state bits (quantized energy) at low bit densities also pertains to the recent report that light speed c in fact decreases as bit density decreases from "perfect vacuum" levels to absolute vacuum (0 density) . The mechanism for this effect was that energy motion (of 1-state bits) requires a minimum "threshold" bit density in the transmission medium, else the vacuum is opaque. Hence, light speed appeared to be slowed in the experiments because incoming 1-state bits from the signal source were "filling" the vacuum sufficiently to allow the transmission medium to be relatively transparent to EM radiation. These findings elucidated the physics underlying the Einstein postulate of light speed invariance in "vacuum", which now may be regarded as based on known demonstrable mechanisms, highlighting the high scientific merit of Einstein's postulate beyond its support by light speed measurements alone.
"If you want to keep your gravitational force..." Notice there is no gravitational force in Fig. 1. As reported , gravity-like effects appear to be the result of the four BM fundamental bit operations alone. Hence, a gravity bit operation is apparently not needed to account for gravitational phenomena. The SM treats gravity as an unexplained phenomenon. Thus, strictly speaking, at least some mathematical models in the SM would be excluded on this basis alone.
"If you want to keep your weak force..." In addition, there is as yet no known physical phenomenon that requires postulation of a weak force. Indeed, in a recent evaluation of known fundamental forces in physics , it appears that so-called weak force interactions can be accounted for by the unconditional bit operation which is not thought to be a fundamental force, being rather a representation of the QM momentum operator.
In retrospect, it may now be clear that the confusion regarding a supposed weak force arose perhaps entirely from lack of a rigorous definition of a fundamental force in physics. Namely, to postulate a new fundamental force, a new row must be added to Table 2 in . This precise mathematical criterion replaces the present sort of chaos that whenever some purported particle interaction is observed, the physics community may rush to postulate a new fundamental force, without any specific discipline on the required criteria for a fundamental force.
"If you want to keep your coupling constants..." In the three force-related bit operations -- scalar, vector and strong, if a force evaluates to one (true), a 1-state bit will move distance d from one bit locus to another. This acceleration of a 1-state bit with force presence in a time tick t has no explicit coupling constant, since the coupling is always one if a force is one. Thus, the effective strength of a force in a spatial volume may be quantified by its incidence counts (Fig. 1). By this definition, Fig. 1 shows that force strength varies with bit density. That is, aside from the mathematical definition of BM forces where the coupling constant is always exactly one, there is no such thing as an unchanging coupling constant, as some fixed measure of force strength as herein defined. Where studies on the value of the fine-structure constant find the same value, one might assume that the information was obtained at similar bit densities, whereas different values no doubt reflect different bit densities.
These sorts of considerations may suggest that gauge theories attempting to unify various force strengths are probably not worthy of serious consideration, at least to the extent that fixed coupling constants and continuous space-time are assumed.
"If you want to keep your infinities..." Proponents of the SM claim its mathematical foundations are self-consistent. Yet the models begin with defining physical objects (e.g., field encoders, operator mechanisms, etc) at all points. Since any volume contains an infinite number of points, SM math posits an infinite number of apparently infinitely small physical objects in any volume. If that is logical consistency, then Mickey Mouse is the Pope. "You can keep your infinities" as long as the obvious physical inconsistencies in SM mathematics can be tolerated . Naturally, when a coherent, comprehensive, fundamental physical theory like BM accounts for the Higgs mass mechanism in greater and more specific detail than the research groups at facilities like CERN have done, the effective life-time of such cognitive dissonance might be rather short.
"Show and Tell" (Al Wilson). As Al Wilson has described, physics is all about "show and tell" as an endeavor which is literally loved by researchers as seekers of knowledge. Much of the success of BM may be attributed to dropping the obsolete and unwarranted assumption of continuous space-time in which all points are modeled. This archaic assumption instantly leads to infinities, not to mention the absurdity of positing infinite numbers of infinitely small physical mechanisms. One might say, "Good luck on that", but the physics community has not had much luck lately where, it seems, there is no "show and tell". It appears that the "tell" is the math modeling and nobody even attempts any "show" -- how the fields and processes are realized physically. But how could they? Everybody knows that an infinite number of things cannot be put in a box of arbitrary size. And if a thing is infinitely small, is it really a thing? According to Al Wilson, both show and tell are required for a physical theory to be acceptable in science.
Given how much investigators love their research projects per Al Wilson's thesis, researchers might elect to spend ample time with their significant others in addition to those late nights in the lab.
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.
 Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
 Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
 Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
 Keene, J. J. "Higgs boson buries standard model?" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2015.
 Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
 Keene, J. J. "Light speed amendment" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2015.
 Keene, J. J. "Physics news: gravity game-changer" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
© 2015 James J Keene