Abstract and Introduction
Breaking news: Binary Mechanics Lab (BML) announces the first-ever derivation of the proton-electron mass ratio (Fig. 1). The derivation depended only on first principles of the comprehensive, fundamental physical theory known as binary mechanics (BM) [1] [2], without use of any mathematical constants or physical constants based on experimental measurements. A major consequence of this milestone discovery is two operational definitions of mass: 1) a fundamental, invariant value as a function of electron mass me and 2) the observed proton mass which depends on energy (1-state bit) density.
Methods and Results
First-ever proton-electron mass ratio derivation from first principles used the Binary Mechanics Lab Simulator (BMLS) Interface v1.4 (bmls.exe) setup like shown in Fig. 2 launching the BMLS v1.7 (hotspot.exe) Free download for initial bit densities such as shown in Fig. 3. A new feature in BMLS v1.7.1 is exclusion of a number of volume border spots from the position data used to calculate proton-electron mass ratio described below. This internal BMLS parameter called "skip" was 2. Note that the Bit Function Analysis program (bitfun.exe) has a similar feature allowing exclusion from analysis a number of border spots to "skip".
For each BMLS Tick, the proton-electron mass ratio (Mp/Me) was calculated (variable labels from Fig. 1):
1. Position vectors were tabulated for 1-state bits in the proton {p1, p2, p3} and electron {e1, e2, e3} bit cycle spots.
2. Position changes in each Tick (time-development cycle of the four bit operations) were the differences between the current and previous Tick positions for proton (p vector) and electron (e vector) spots.
3. Lengths of the p and e 1-state bit position change vectors were calculated for the proton (dp) and electron (de).
4. Finally, the calculated proton-electron mass ratio was
Mp/Me = Ade/dp (eq. 1)
where the constant A = 392 (7 x 7 x 2 x 4) was the product of four scaling factors based only on BM postulates:
1) 7 as the ratio of spot units in the proton versus electron bit cycles.
2) 7 as the ratio of cycle duration in the proton versus electron bit cycles.
3) 2 as the ratio of proton (6) to electron (3) most direct intercube motion, defined by motion to a destination spot cube sharing a face with the source spot cube.
4) 4 as the number of tick time units t in a BMLS Tick (T = 4t), where the fundamental time constant T is the tick t duration, during which one of four time-development bit operations is applied to the system state (the bit function).
In summary, this first-ever Mp/Me calculation (eq. 1) was based only on the postulates of BM including its time-development bit operations.
Pilot data suggested proton-electron mass ratio Mp/Me depends on bit density (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Mp/Me Wonder Construction Completed. Major implications of the present report include:
1. Confidence in the veracity of BM postulates [1] and associated physical representation of BM space [2] has been boosted considerably.
2. Results suggest with high certainty that the SUVF bit operations order is the one and only physically correct order [3] [4] [5].
3. While both proton mass mp and electron mass me have been experimentally measured values, the present results suggest two operational definitions of mass: First, the fundamental energy constant M expressed in kg units as a function of electron mass (Me in Fig. 1). Second, proton mass (Mp in Fig. 1) derived from length of motion (dp in Fig. 1) under similar force fields as the electron particles, as determined by Newton's F = ma expression.
Assuming conservation of energy, all 1-state bits in the bit function (the wave function upgrade) must have the same energy content. For example, M bit acceleration in the scalar or vector bit operations results in their conversion to the L bit type, which consequently must have the same energy content. The proton bit cycle contains seven times more bit loci than the electron bit cycle. Hence, if proton mass was determined on this basis, it could be no greater than seven times electron mass. If only one 1-state bit were in an electron spot and all 42 bit loci in a proton cycle were occupied with 1-state bits, this extreme situation would yield a ratio of only 42, which experiment emphatically rejects. So what determines observed proton mass?
The present results appear to assert that proton mass is determined by "how difficult" or "how probable" their motion is: F/a in Newton's expression. Hence, the observed electron and proton mass values appear to have different physical basis with 1) electron mass based on an invariant fundamental energy constant M expressed in kg units and 2) a "motion probability" (F/a) for proton mass which is "less fundamental" depending on energy (1-state bit) density. In this report, the acceleration a and perhaps the effective F appear to change as a function of bit density (Fig. 3) resulting in the observed amounts of position change for dp and de used to derive the proton-electron mass ratio.
4. This duel definition of mass is a new result of BM. It may be obvious that this finding all but ransacks General Relativity. Already, Standard Model particle physics was almost completely razed with the BML derivation of Planck's constant [6] and the fundamental analysis of the so-called weak forces [7]. Indeed, these basic physics advances appear to make a host of endeavors in QED, QCD, gravitation, string theory, etc (you name it), all but obsolete, museum exhibits, due to their dependence on the now defunct Continuous Space-Time Theory [8]. For example, Albert Einstein is exonerated. He did his best without knowledge of space-time-energy quantization. Recall that Planck's constant is the product of energy and time, not full energy quantization per se.
5. The proton-electron mass ratio dependence on bit density suggests many speculations. For example the ascending portion of the curve in Fig. 3 may determine the bit density of labs in which mass ratio experiments have been conducted. One way to collaborate this might be calculation of temperature from the bit density.
Notice that the ascending slope may predict "gravitational force" based on bit density on, say, the moon (less nucleon mass) compared to a much larger and/or hotter planet (more nucleon mass). Considering a lower bit density in outer space, maybe engineers have overestimated the forces F needed to achieve certain levels of space craft acceleration. At the lowest bit densities (Fig. 3 left), temperature and particle motion is very low, approaching 0 Kelvin. Indeed, the mass ratio is seen to approach the constant A (eq. 1), reflecting that situation.
The plateau in Fig. 3 from about 0.28 to 0.31 bit density may suggest that substantially increased bit densities might not increase apparent mass as much as engineers might predict (say, from the ascending portion of the curve). Just guessing, but maybe astrophysics may never be the same again. The full integration of quantum and gravitational effects in binary mechanics might seem to have quite a variety of implications.
Above bit density 0.31 the mass ratio decreased, perhaps due to reduced proton mass and/or higher proton bit cycle energy states causing more motion, thereby decreasing the mass ratio (see dp and de values in *.csv files). Study of the data in the output *.csv files might clarify what is happening over the bit density range presented (Fig. 3)
6. A reasonable rationale for the constant A = 392 was presented in Methods above. However, at present, the de/dp ratio might best be viewed as perhaps the more fundamental value. That is, a somewhat different A value would shift the observed Mp/Me to a higher or lower bit density. As long as the A value keeps the calculated Mp/Me in the ascending portion of the curve in Fig. 3, the general picture and implications briefly discussed above might remain substantially similar.
7. A continuing task is polishing BMLS software. One priority is study of factors such as anomalies in border spots in the simulated volume. With more effort including more samples, larger N, etc, the proton-electron mass ratio might be determined to more significant figures than current experimental data allows (see www.nist.gov). That is, a prediction of those more exact digits might be generated, which future improvement in physical measurement might confirm or deny. A new experiment 8 in BMLS v1.8 automates adjustment of bit density to match the generated mass ratio to the experimental value.
Earthquake in physics world. Recently a figurative and literal hurricane hit the physics community with the first and only derivation of Planck's constant and electron spin from first principles [6], the postulates of binary mechanics. And Cat 5 hurricane Maria literally destroyed the BML [9]. This paper may be similar where a figurative earthquake hits the physics community. At minimum, reports of physics milestones may make this J Bin Mech the uncontested leading publication world-wide for the latest fundamental physics news. "Gee, that was fast! Whatever happened to Phys Rev?"
"Climbing High Mountains Trying to Get Home" (Back Home Choir). BML thanks hundreds of high energy and particle physicists whose amazing faith in the miracles in Continuous Space-Time Theory [8] has in effect granted BML a de facto monopoly on production of fundamental advances in physics.
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Matter creation" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2016.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Matter creation sequel" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2016.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Weak force boondoggle" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Quantization asymmetry" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2016.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Hurricane hits physics" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2018.
© 2018 James J Keene
