Monday, January 25, 2016

Weak Force Boondoggle

Most physicists currently list several variations of "weak forces" as primary, fundamental forces of nature. In binary mechanics (BM), time-development of any system state is exactly determined by four bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong -- based on a pair of relativistic Dirac spinor equations of opposite handedness [1]. Table 1 maps supposed primary forces in legacy physics to these underlying mechanisms of time-evolution (based on Table 4 in [1]). The traditional weak force category maps to the unconditional bit operation. However, the unconditional bit operator is based on the momentum operator in the Dirac equation and is further differentiated from the BM primary forces by their mathematical definitions (Table 2) [2]. As a result, BM proposed that particle interactions that had suggested new "weak forces" could be accounted for by the unconditional bit operation, and therefore weak interactions do not represent a primary force of nature. This paper examines some weak interactions to illustrate that their basis is the unconditional bit operation.

Table 1: Bit Operations Basis of Legacy Primary Forces


Fig. 1 shows a view of the surface of two adjacent spot cubes [3] (from Fig. 1 in [4]) for orientation in the weak interactions illustrated below. Four spots are partially visible in each spot cube (left and right): electron and three d quarks. Three of these four spots (e-L, dbR and dgR) represent matter, while drL is an anti-quark (antimatter).

Fig. 1: X1 Plane of YZ Surface of Two Adjacent Spot Cubes

Legend: Each color-coded spot is a 2x2x2 cube of bit loci. A spot cube contains 8 spots, 4 of which are partially visible in this view. Electron spots (e-L; white) and right (R) and left (L) d quark (d) spots (r, red; g, green; b, blue). Fermion mite (circles) and boson photonic and gluonic lite (arrows and stars) loci may be in the 0-state (white) or 1-state (gray). Stars are lites moving toward the viewer. Purple arrows indicate the direction of the three inter-dimensional strong bit operations within a spot, one of which is visible in each spot in this view.

As described previously [5], beta decay producing a free electron is schematically depicted in Fig. 2. The "W gauge boson" step is shown horizontally, while Feynman diagram experts might have its line with upward slope for W- and downward slope for W+. In either case, the underlying mechanisms of beta decay are clarified in the BM basis visualization.

Fig. 2: Beta Decay Producing Free Electron

Legend: Using Feynman diagram format (spatial dimension x vs time), BM basis (upper) for beta decay diagram (lower). Fermion mite (circles) loci may be in the 0-state (white) or 1-state (gray).

First, the location of the electron antineutrinos (/VeR in [5]) is in the electron spot 0-state mite loci in the spot cube that initially contained a neutron (bottom left) but then is converted to a proton (top left). For simplicity, the electron final state (top right) is depicted as an electron (e-L in [5]) in a spot cube without d quarks. In the electron bit cycle [6], 1- and 0-state bits circulate in opposite directions [2]. That is, the handedness of the 0-state mite bit must be opposite to that of the electron 1-state mite bit. Therefore, the 0-state bits that remain after its 1-state bits move to another spot cube unambiguously represent electron antineutrinos.

Second, the unconditional bit operation alone may in successive steps "shift" the 1-state electron spot bits (bottom left in BM basis) through the blue d quark to the adjacent spot cube (top right) under specific conditions (see [4]).

This motion will occur in less time (with greater velocity) if the 1-state mite bits are accelerated by EM forces [2] [7] in the scalar and vector bit operations, in either or both the electron and blue d quark spots. However, EM forces are not required. That is, these are general effects of EM forces, not specific to the present analysis of weak interactions.

Third, if two other surface views of the spot cube are included in the analysis, the intermediate spot could be a red, green or blue d quark. In all cases, matter is preserved.

Fourth, the BM basis reveals the "true identity" of the W- and W+ gauge bosons, namely they correspond to events in d quarks.

Fig. 3: Neutron-Proton Exchange Beta Decay

Legend: Using Feynman diagram format (spatial dimension x vs time), BM basis (upper) for neutron-proton exchange diagram (lower). Fermion mite (circles) loci may be in the 0-state (white) or 1-state (grey).

Fig. 3 shows that neutron-proton exchange in atomic nuclei supposedly mediated by a Z0 gauge boson exhibits similar processes and conclusions described above for beta decay releasing beta particles. In this case, the gauge boson is also shown to represent events in a d quark spot.

Discussion
Road To Nowhere. The portrayal of weak interactions as a primary weak force set has the appearance of having value, but instead qualifies as the "weak force boondoggle". BM may have now depreciated the weak force to events incident to the unconditional bit operation as a fairly well-settled issue (Table 1). A previous summary of this physics history [2] stated,
In the initial paper on BM postulates [1], several examples of weak force interactions analyzed were entirely accounted for by the unconditional bit operation. More study is required to ascertain if all weak interactions, if correctly classified as such, can be described completely by unconditional bit operations.

While weak force interactions appear to map one-to-one to the unconditional bit operation, an issue remains. Technically, the unconditional bit operator corresponds to the momentum operator in the relativistic Dirac equation. However, it is not clear at present if the defining components of a "force" in BM occur in the unconditional bit operation. Hence, weak force interactions may not be evidence of a new, unique force as mathematically defined in Table 2. Note that without the discipline required by BM postulates, investigators observing "weak force" interactions would have not known this, nor would grand unification analysts have attempted to unify the "weak not-force" with electromagnetism into an imagined "electroweak" fundamental force.


Table 2: BM Components of Fundamental Forces

A force (1 or 0) equals AND function (or product) of source, potential and destination values (each with 1 or 0 allowed states). From Table 2 in [2].

This "weak force snafu", if you will, illustrates the utility of the formal definition of a fundamental force in physics. Without it, almost any observations of apparently new phenomena that do not readily fit into current theories may result in proclaimed discovery of a "new force" and "Oh, now we need to name a new boson to mediate these interactions" and on and on into seemingly endless confusion. Applying the scientific discipline attribute of BM, theorists can determine if they have "the goods" to declare discovery of a new force by filling in a new row of Table 2 with their specific new force-defining components.
Another recent article may further clarify this developing story [8],
"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 [2], 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 quantum mechanics 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 [2]. 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.
Standard Model: the Requiem Edition. As described previously [9], the Standard Model (SM) may be reviewed in terms of its two main pillars: its "elementary particles" and its mathematical models. Both of these SM pillars were seriously flawed and out-of-date during their several decades of effort to become a credible and viable physical theory. But, as we pay our last respects, alas, it was not meant to be.

1. The SM elementary particle list reflects (a) very clever efforts by many physicists to summarize and condense an enormous amount of experimental data and (b) the methods used to collect the data, namely particle collisions at ever-increasing energies [10].

2. SM mathematical models are proclaimed as "self-consistent", while clearly exhibiting fatal physical, logical and mathematical incoherence due to their now discredited assumption of continuous space-time, rendering page after page of visually impressive equations simply inapplicable at the quantized, more microscopic BM level of fineness (e.g., [11] [12]). As a consolation, much of this math will continue to produce useful approximations at the atomic level, as Newtonian and Maxwellian math is still used beneficially at even more macroscopic levels.

Physics theory productivity may be conceived as ability to generate hypotheses, observations and experiments advancing physics knowledge. Perhaps a look at the present balance sheet is appropriate: expenses vs income.

Physics Theory Productivity: Expenses. Fig. 4 indicates some useful items may be salvaged from SM particles.

Fig. 4: Standard Model Particle Lay-offs

Legend: Fully functional universe with only electron (e) and the down quark (d) color variations and their antiparticles and neutrinos. Modified from [13].

1. BM derived the entire list from three binary digits (or an integer with zero to seven range; Fig. 4 left) [5], revealing that most SM quarks and leptons are compositions, not "elementary". This desirable jump in parsimony goes a long way in cleaning up the expense side of the ledger.

2. The scalar Higgs field doublet appears to be a vague reference to perpendicular spot unit pairs that implement the strong force bit operation and thereby determine mass of fermion particles in proton and electron bit cycles [6]. In any case, the Higgs field and associated boson (Fig. 4 right) no longer have heuristic value to guide future research, being based on obsolete math assuming continuous space-time [9].

3. With the BM time-development bit operations, the gauge bosons are simply not needed (Fig. 4 middle). As might now be evident, using observed particle interactions to define primary forces has exhibited limited success and scientific merit. This may be no surprise since observational methods are only a first step in the toolbox of research methods. The story has been that each new variety of interaction must be mediated by "exchange bosons", which are no longer needed because the universe hums along as always, thank you, without them. Thus, four more expensive particles can be moth-balled, perhaps sent to a physics museum, further reducing overhead. However, photonic and gluonic lite bits are "keepers" as one of two bit types in spot units, but not as gauge bosons per se.

In sum, as illustrated in Fig. 4, physicists may substantially cut "expenses" without loosing any "product quality" -- universe functionality.

Physics Theory Productivity: Income. BM may be the currently leading fundamental physical theory according to the "what have you done for me lately" criterion [12]. That is, more advances equal increased "income" (e.g., first-ever calculation of Planck's constant h from a comprehensive, fundamental physical theory [14]).

In sum, decreased expenses and increased income may produce a double-barreled net increase in fundamental physics theory productivity.

"Love, The Time is Now" (Bobby Womack). The author does not know of any physicists who are fully content with the SM. Nearly all want to modify it, extend it or go beyond it. According to Bobby Womack, "the time is now".

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
[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. "Standard model particle composition" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Proton and electron bit cycles" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2015.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "If you want to keep your Higgs boson..." J. Bin. Mech. March, 2015.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Higgs boson buries standard model?" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2015.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Elementary particle energies" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2015.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Physics standard model forensics" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2015.
[12] Keene, J. J. "Spot the physics theory" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.
[13] Wikipedia. "Standard Model (mathematical formulation)" 2015.
[14] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
© 2016 James J Keene