How is binary mechanics different from quantum mechanics (QM)?
Legacy QM and General Relativity (GR) utilize continuous space-time theory, while binary mechanics (BM) [1] quantizes both space and time leading to definition of fundamental length L and time T constants. Recall that Planck's constant is an energy-time product (Jsec), not energy quantization per se. BM quantized energy as a 1-state bit (energy quanta) in a size L bit locus cube, expressed as M in kg. In short, BM quantizes the three units of measurement (Fig. 1 from [2]) and defines the system state bit function as a spatial pattern of 1- and 0-state bits [3].
Further, with space-time-energy quantization, infinitesimal time-evolution operators in legacy QM -- e.g., Standard Model (SM) math -- are not applicable since only integer increments are allowed. Hence, four bit operations [4] were based on a pair of relativistic Dirac spinor equations of opposite handedness including electromagnetic field components (Fig. 3 from [5]). In sum, both system state and time-development in BM is full QM, while SM math is partial QM. BM is complete QM, while SM math is incomplete QM.
Could the success of BM be due to nothing more than mathematical tricks?
If it is "tricks", blame whoever made the universe. And what wonderful tricks they would be. Binary Mechanics Lab (BML) alone has been able to derive about a half dozen key physical constants on a "first-ever" basis. Nobody else has the theory and its mathematical treatment to do that, else they would have done so years ago.
All we hear is, "we don't know why ____ has the value it has", where "____" is electron mass, vacuum light speed, Planck's constant, intrinsic electron spin, intrinsic proton spin, elementary charge and electron magnetic moment (Fig. 1) [2] [6] [7] [8] [9]. And add the proton-electron mass ratio analysis [10] and predicted zero electron electric dipole moment [11] and non-spherical proton shape [12].
Physics literature presents equations in which a measured physical constant is expressed as one or more other measured physical constants. These expressions (1) show dependencies among so-called "fundamental" constants which are in fact unexplained observations and (2) are not derivations from first principles. That is, a true derivation from first principles cannot use any unexplained data as one or more "input" parameters.
The first-ever derivations of previously unexplained constants required full quantization of energy, space and time, namely the units of measurement in physics (Fig. 1). A primary constant value for each unit of measurement could be assigned that was consistent with the full set of derivations -- mass M as energy expressed in kg, length L in meters and time T in seconds.
What are the odds that the same primary constants work to derive such a diversity of physical constants by "accident" or random chance? Each derivation reinforces the credibility of the primary constants, each of the other derivations and the overall framework of BM postulates. It might be difficult to ignore this contrast: 1) BM is the only theory and BML the only lab to achieve these milestones, while 2) all other theories and all other investigators have failed. It's called "the winning horse" phenomenon. And to date, nobody has identified any calculation error in the foregoing fundamental advances.
The century-long physics grand championship race to derive physical constants from first principles now has a clear winner: BML. The math and numbers cannot be denied. Recognition of BML as the "winning horse" in the century-old greatest race in physics is inevitable. It is already "baked in the cake". This contest is over, finished, done, documented; the math is easy and unassailable. There is no redo, no "run-off race"; the result is final, is history.
While the word "trick" is not necessarily an unfriendly term (accidents in calculation can occur), other meanings are "hoax", "fraud", etc. If there is any place those more aggressive terms are appropriate, it is in legacy QM where attempts to model every point in the context of continuous space-time results in infinities and absurdities requiring faith in miracles, as described in detail previously [13].
While the author has an interest in BM work, perhaps it is still possible to step back and evaluate how many game-changing milestones have come out of BML compared to almost complete silence from other labs. The debunking of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the pillars of out-dated partial QM, is just one example (Fig. 2 from [14]).
Have physicists who routinely upgrade/update their personal computer software/hardware neglected the partial-to-full QM upgrade available since 2010? How many physicists have sent congratulation messages to BML (good sportsmanship)? How many have studied how BML won and why all possible competition lost (worthy competitor)? How many are in denial (poor sportsmanship)? How many are unaware (poor scholarship)? How many have financial hurtles (Upton Sinclair rule: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.")?
How could such simple math account for all physical phenomena?
Question: how simple is it? Example: force presence (true/false) is the logical AND function (or product) of three 1-bit binary quantities: 1) source energy quanta (1-state bit), 2) potential and 3) 0-state destination locus (Fig. 3 bottom). Answer: the math is very simple.
As a comprehensive, complete physical theory, BM must account for all physical phenomena, including all quantum and gravitational effects, else something is wrong -- maybe the whole idea of full quantization, some detail of some BM postulate, some missing factor not yet defined, etc.
A complete, comprehensive physical theory is akin to a plan to build a universe. One might argue, as the author has, that such a plan must be simple, else it is not practical and plausible (who could build it?). The physics community has generally been going in the opposite direction. Compare SM math from 10-15 years ago with what one sees today -- getting more and more complex, more pages of endless equations. Look at string theory -- who could build these complex things in the real world? Would infinitely small supercomputers be required at an infinite number of points? The real unsolved physics mystery is how any mentally-intact adult would even consider this line of thinking. With the constant derivations above, this is another reason why BML presently has no competition. Parsimony and Occam's razor are essentially dead in current theoretical physics. Not to mention that proposed concepts are orders of magnitude more non-productive and "crazy" than energy-space-time quantization in BM.
Example: For decades, symmetry was promoted as the key. That failing, it was symmetry breaking. Later, maybe it was symmetries in how the previous failed symmetries are broken. What does "going around in circles" look like? All along, if symmetry was so important in physics, why did quantization of almost everything except space, time and energy -- a huge asymmetry -- receive so little attention?
At every step in formulating BM postulates from the Dirac equations, when two options seemed reasonable, the simplest one was always chosen. Many decades of particle and nuclear physics work document exactly the opposite mindset, namely when a model is incomplete or inaccurate with respect to observation, make the model more complex -- add terms to the equations, add new hypothetical factors that "cancel" discrepancies with data, etc. This "going around in circles" behavior might be understood in the context that the investigators were plagued by incomplete, partial QM theory, mistaken QM theory (e.g., Heisenberg ignorance principle), faith in the miracles implied by classical continuous space-time math (an infinite number of things can each be infinitely small in any arbitrary volume) [13],... to list a few items.
This FAQ is perhaps the most important, most high priority question one could ask. Many approaches are possible:
1. Formulate a hypothesis from BM postulates and show the data rejects it. The author has tried this approach repeatedly, but without success; that is, every hypothesis was confirmed, not rejected. Perhaps the most intentionally outlandish, outrageous case was the 2011 study on the effect of lunar surface temperature on earth-moon gravitation [15]. The results of this study using lunar laser ranging (LLR) showed dramatic effects which could not be explained in any manner whatsoever by GR. Hence, the study included BM and excluded GR. The scientific merit of this study was very high because other predictions of BM and GR regarding gravitational effects were thought to be identical, not allowing a clear distinction between the two theories. Indeed, the debunking of GR may have been so clear that PhysRevD and a leading astrophysics journal refused to formally review the paper. Thus, this JBinMech. became the leading journal for reports of fundamental physics advances, sort of by default.
2. Document a phenomena which BM cannot explain or account for. The reader might readily recognize that this approach is less conclusive. However, if some physical constant cannot be derived from BM postulates or some phenomenon cannot be clearly predicted or duplicated in simulations [16], the question of "why?" is on the table. If the exact reason for the failure to confirm BM postulates can be identified, it might pinpoint some fault that needs correction or some additional postulate needed to complete the theory.
In summary, BML welcomes all efforts to exclude, debunk, disprove, falsify BM postulates. Nobody wants to waste time on a defective theory. Further questions to include in this FAQ are most welcome (email address in [1]).
What is a 1-state bit?
A 1-state bit defines presence of an energy quanta in a bit locus.
Let's miniaturize ourselves and go inside a 0.67 fm bit locus cube of space in the 1-state. We might find a huge spherical thing occupying most of the volume. Or we might find a very small dot in the center or somewhere inside, and take a selfie photo of ourselves in front captioned, "We found an energy quanta." After all, credible reports suggest electron size is orders of magnitude less than the BM 0.67 fm length constant.In brief, 0- and 1-state bits, neutrino bits and energy quanta respectively, are mathematical abstractions postulated by BM. The 1-state bit defines an essential tool for quantitative analysis of energy. Additional information requires study of the time-development bit operations, rigorous thought and experimentation including simulations.
Expand your thinking. Or we might find...gulp...an empty room. Clearly in shock, somebody announces, "Contrary to everything we've been led to believe, there's nothing in here". Visibly sweating, one of the explorers whines, "We're in some real pretty shit now, man!" [Aliens, 1986]. A cooler head opines, "Maybe the radius of the energy quanta that makes our detectors click is...um...zero", an opinion perhaps consistent with the notion that a primary energy quanta constant M, expressed in kg, might have to be independent of the other primary constants, namely length L in this case, almost by definition, else they might not qualify as primary, invariant constants.
Fig. 4: One Day Exploring Inside a Bit Locus Cube After some consternation and confusion, as we search the empty volume, one of us might shout out, "I found it! The arrow in a tiny indicator on this wall has two positions: 0 and 1. It's pointing now to the 1 position." Somebody else barks into their communication device, "Get us out of here. No telling what might happen if this locus goes to the (neutrino) 0-state."
One energy quanta in a single bit locus suggests a maximum energy density based on presumed invariant mass M and length L constants (Fig. 1). Smaller energy estimates or measurements are possible for events in multiple bit loci with lower density. An example might be a neutrino if defined as a combination of 0- and 1-state bits. Greater maximum energy density estimates may be based on larger nucleon mass [10].
Fortunately, unlike legacy QM, at least according to trends in recent decades mentioned above, BM requires scientific discipline as a consequence of energy-space-time quantization. Example: there are no "fudge factors" like "quantum uncertainty" and the like (Fig. 2). Example: vacuum is precisely defined, not some vague "sea" that can produce or swallow things at our every whim. These examples show what happens when inapplicable math (partial QM) and weird ad-hoc formulations are employed to fix discrepancies between predicted and observed data, perhaps fooling ourselves into thinking for a few more years, "We're on the right track", when in reality it is a road to nowhere in terms of hard-core, gloves-off science, where faith in miracles is not required.
At this point, almost everything needs to be double checked and cross-referenced. Example: if A is true, logic may suggest that B must also be true. If B is found to be true, then we increase our "A is true" credibility score one notch, etc. This logical process is illustrated in Fig. 1, namely the same three (or 4?) primary constants lead to simple, straight-forward derivation of some half dozen secondary physical constants, which had previously been viewed as "fundamental".
[To be continued]
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Elementary charge derivation" J. Bin. Mech. June, 2018.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Particle states evolution" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2018.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron magnetic moment derivation" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2015.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Light speed derivation" JBinMech February, 2020.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic proton spin derivation" JBinMech December, 2018.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Proton-electron mass ratio derivation" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2018.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Zero electron electric dipole moment" JBinMech January, 2015.
[12] Keene, J. J. "Non-spherical proton shape" JBinMech February, 2015.
[13] Keene, J. J. "Quantization asymmetry" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2016.
[14] Keene, J. J. "Zero Kelvin particle states" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2018.
[15] Keene, J. J. "Gravity increased by lunar surface temperature differential" J. Bin. Mech. August, 2011.
[16] Keene, J. J. "BML simulator interface" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2016.
© 2018 James J Keene
