**Abstract and Introduction**

A gravitational wave [1] observed at LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) [2] may provide experimental confirmation of two major results of binary mechanics (BM) [3]: (1) objects tend to move toward regions of higher vacuum energy density [4] [5] [6] and (2) light speed in vacuum decreases at reduced vacuum energy density [7] [8]. This paper outlines how the BM model of gravitational effects and the land-mark light speed discovery may fully account for the LIGO gravitational wave data.

**Table 1: LIGO Gravitational Wave Mechanism and Detection**

**LIGO Methodology Produced Results Predicted by BM**

*1. Gravity wave observation requires detection of vacuum energy density fluctuations.*In BM, energy is represented by 1-state bits in a volume. One and only one 1-state bit may reside in a spatial object called a

**bit locus**thought to be a cube of dimension d, where d is the fundamental length constant, approximately 0.6 fm. The spatial distribution of 1-state bits is the

**bit function**, an irreducible representation of the state of any physical system based on quantized space as an update of the quantum mechanical (QM) wave function. As a consequence, energy density can vary from zero to a maximum possible value where all bit loci contain 1-state bits. This absolute maximum energy density is a new result of BM.

Events related to motion of objects may create gravity waves, which would be observed as energy density fluctuations. These fluctuations may be observable with or without vacuum conditions as conventionally described, i.e., few or no atoms or ions in a volume.

In BM, gravity-like effects do not represent a primary force (in agreement with Einstein), but instead are a secondary or derivative result of the four time-development

**bit operations**[9], developed from QM infinitesimal time-evolution operators which no longer apply once space and time are quantized.

As described previously [4], a law of motion states that objects tend to move in the direction of greater energy (bit) density, all else equal.

**Fig. 1: A Law of Motion**

Assume that 1-state bits in an object have equal probability of moving in either direction along the x dimension in Fig. 1. Recall that detectable particles contain higher counts of 1-state bits in their defining spot locations ([10]; Table 3 in [3]). Therefore, 1-state bits moving to the region of higher bit density to the right in Fig. 1 have a greater chance of forming particles, compared to those moving to the lower density volume to the left.

If two objects such as the earth and moon are radiating energy (i.e., surface temperatures greater than absolute zero Kelvin), then the energy density between the two objects will be greater than in any other direction and hence, each object will tend to move toward the other, an effect known as "gravitation". In short, gravity is an instance of the law of motion described above.

How does LIGO methodology detect vacuum energy density fluctuations?

*2. Vacuum energy density fluctuations alter light speed.*The discovery that light speed in vacuum is not entirely constant, but rather decreases as vacuum energy density decreases [7] is the second component accounting for the apparent success of LIGO methodology. The two perpendicular LIGO arms allow interferometer equipment to detect differential vacuum energy density changes between the arms which can produce slight changes in light velocity, as shown in Fig. 2.

**Fig. 2: Basic LIGO Detection Method**

Legend: LIGO enhancements omitted. Modified from [2].

In summary, gravitational waves appear to consist of fluctuations in 1-state bit (energy) density causing slight light speed changes. Differences in these effects between perpendicular interferometer arms allow gravitational wave detection.

**Discussion**

*Scorecard: Binary mechanics 1; General Relativity 0.*As far as the author has determined thus far, predictions, observations and experiments have been essentially identical comparing General Relativity and the BM model of gravity up until several years ago. Previously, the successes did not distinguish between the competing models. However, recent data acts to exclude General Relativity based on several failures and uniquely support BM.

1. The milestone finding in 2011 that gravitational force is increased by object surface temperature may have been a dramatic turning point, describing surface temperature dependent lunar motion of some 10,000 km in earth-moon distance [11] [5], a huge effect that General Relativity (or Universal Gravitation) proponents have not yet explained and apparently cannot explain. This failure of General Relativity may go beyond a mere crack in its facade to attain "building demolition" proportions.

2. Then in early 2016, data analysis revealed that about one half of the variance of GRACE project gravity measurements were nothing more than ordinary ocean surface temperature [6]. The physical connection for both the lunar data cited above and the GRACE earth data is that higher surface temperature would be associated with increased radiation of energy from the surface increasing bit (energy) density in the volume around and above the higher surface temperature area.

These results greatly diminish the credibility of General Relativity, if not completely exclude it as a viable model of gravitational effects. No doubt General Relativity played a key role in the design of the twin GRACE satellites with the objective to map the earth's surface regarding gravitational force. Then in 2016, the GRACE data revealed that this expensive effort may have done little more than measure surface temperature. While this outcome may be embarrassing to the GRACE designers, it is a clear indication of the superiority of the BM gravity model over General Relativity.

The BM gravity model also has the advantage of a detailed description of the physical mechanism for gravity-like effects. On the other hand, Einstein's General Relativity field equations assume continuous space-time, excluding any possibility to even speculate on physical mechanisms, which would presumably be infinitely small and therefore non-existent.

*General Relativity Zone: Smoking and Thinking Prohibited.*What remains is that mass (or energy equivalent) distorts space and time and if these are distorted, there must be mass somewhere. If the key variable is energy density in a volume, asserting that this energy distorts space and hence the volume that it occupies, implies that energy can change its own density. If this is not circular thinking, it may be only magical thinking relying on miracles. And an awesome miracle at that. Somehow every bit of energy in the universe exerts control over space-time parameters at

**every point**in the universe. Imagine the motors on satellite dishes that adjust dish direction. General Relativity informs us that every point in space has infinitely small "motors" to adjust the direction of inertial motion at said point. Does this picture even qualify as science? Cooler heads know that the physical interpretation of "infinitely small" and "geometric point" is a well-settled issue, namely

**nothing**.

Fortunately, where Einstein endowed mass with miraculous abilities to curve space-time can be easily fixed. That is,

**inertial motion proceeds in the direction of greater 1-state bit density**based on relatively simple underlying physical mechanisms of motion (Fig. 1). There is no need for infinitely small inertial motion guidance devices magically controlled by distant mass/energy. Without space-time quantization, it may be impossible to physically model how gravity works.

*The LIGO Creed.*While LIGO literature appears to follow General Relativity parlance, the contrast with the BM model of gravity and its waves may not be that great. For example, when LIGO description says an interferometer arm may shorten during a "ripple in space-time", this is equivalent to a vacuum density increase if none of the energy in the now-shortened volume was lost. That is, with local conservation of energy, volume changes due to length changes are essentially energy density changes in any case. In this context, why is it necessary to even invoke space-time ripples, distortions or curvatures, when the basic physically relevant variable is energy density? Indeed, if LIGO does provide a new means to study the universe, why diminish its credibility by association with the failing theory of General Relativity?

And then there is the assumption that gravitational waves are not light waves in LIGO descriptions although they travel at the speed of light. In contrast, the energy content of any wave can only be one thing in BM -- 1-state bits. Hence, one might consider the extent to which so-called gravitational waves may be very low frequency electromagnetic radiation. On the other hand, spatial-temporal differences in 1-state bit pattern may distinguish gravitational and electromagnetic waves.

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration is to be applauded for its quite convincing observation of a gravity wave lending support for the BM model of gravity and finding of light speed dependence on vacuum energy density. This Collaboration claims to involve a "group of more than 1000 scientists worldwide" which should be sufficient to update the theoretical basis for their work, loosing the subservience to failing General Relativity.

*ACGO: Atomic Clock Gravitational-Wave Observatory.*Finally, future gravitational wave detection using atomic clocks might utilize the known fact that atomic clocks run slower at increased energy densities associated with increased gravitational field strength. That is, atomic clocks can be used to measure vacuum energy density. If slight variations in atomic clock rate could be quantified with sufficient precision, then the LIGO method of comparing gravity wave signal delay from spatially separate devices (interferometers or atomic clocks) might be possible and largely eliminate the light speed variable in the methodology.

**References**

[1] Abbott, B. P. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) "Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger" Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102, February, 2016.

[2] Caltech "LIGO laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory" April, 2016.

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

[4] Keene, J. J. "A law of motion" J. Bin. Mech. September, 2011.

[5] Keene, J. J. "Physics news: gravity game-changer" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.

[6] Keene, J. J. "GRACE: gravity surface temperature dependence" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2016.

[7] Keene, J. J. "Light speed amendment" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2015.

[8] Keene, J. J. "Light speed at zero Kelvin" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.

[9] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.

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

[11] Keene, J. J. "Gravity increased by lunar surface temperature differential" J. Bin. Mech. August, 2011.

© 2016 James J Keene