Binary Mechanics™

Physics News: Faster Than Light

2011-09-25T07:09:00.004-04:00

The physics world has been aroused from a long intellectual slumber by the report from CERN investigators that some muon neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light [1], possibly violating an essential premise of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Confirmation and hopefully replication of this result would lend support for the long-standing prediction of binary mechanics (BM) [2] that absolute maximum velocity at the single bit level is substantially greater than the observed speed of light (e.g., [3] [4] [5]). Consequences of this BM prediction might result in a number of situations in which apparent faster-than-light motion could be observable.

References
[1] Opera collaboration. "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam" Arxiv. September 2011.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" May, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Lorentz force in binary mechanics" July, 2010.
© 2011 James J Keene

Physics News: Electron Shape

2011-09-21T00:56:00.006-04:00

Physics News will be a new feature of this informal journal of binary mechanics (BM) [1] highlighting research supporting predictions of the theory. This installment considers the BM prediction that the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the electron is exactly zero. A recent report by Hudson et. al. in Nature on "Improved measurement of the shape of the electron" [2] states: "This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision." In an email exchange with one of the six co-authors of this paper, I wrote:

In binary mechanics (e.g., "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" ... [3]), which postulates an internal structure for the electron, the constituent bits (called mites) "spin" in a plane orthogonal to the spin axis, where each of three possible equally-spaced mite bit loci is equidistant from the particle's center of mass and symmetrically located around the spin axis.

sciencedaily.com reporting on your Nature letter states (AFAIK, their words, not yours): "If the electrons were not perfectly round then, like an unbalanced spinning-top, their motion would exhibit a distinctive wobble, distorting the overall shape of the molecule. The researchers saw no sign of such a wobble."

Which leads to several questions:

1. What logic leads to the conclusion of spherical shape as opposed to, say, a perfectly balanced "spinning-top", which is basically what I described above re the binary mechanical model of the electron's internal structure? Or rephrasing, is the sphere the only shape that is compatible with your results? Or more specifically, is a perfectly balanced spinning top consistent with your results (per the sciencedaily description)? If so, then I might tend to suspect that your results are indeed consistent with binary mechanics.

2. I gather that your team does not consider the electron to be a point-like (0-dimensional) object (and neither does binary mechanics). If this is true, what is the radius of the sphere (and/or if allowed, the perfect spinning top)?

The reply was:

We look for a torque d (s x E), where s is a unit vector along the electron spin, E is the electric field vector seen by the electron (proportional to the applied electric field) and d is the dipole moment. The dipole moment corresponds to a displacement of charge along the spin axis. We measure the precession angle of the spin due to this torque. This says nothing about the radius of the electron. In fact, the radius is a matter of definition - it depends what measurement you consider. A picture I like is the point electron surrounded by the fuzz ball of virtual particles, which interact with the electron and give it the structure that we observe (charge, mass, magnetic moment and electric dipole moment).

Our experiment is a way to search for interactions beyond the standard model because the particles in the standard model do not induce a significant EDM, whereas additional particle generally do. I am not sure if this orthodox view of quantum field theory has much connection with your picture. There is certainly no experimental evidence for any internal structure of the electron beyond what it gets from its coupling to the vacuum...

Discussion
1. Concerning the electron electric dipole moment, the gracious and helpful reply cited above does not exclude electron shapes other than a sphere, such as the perfect "spinning top" concept mentioned in the sciencedaily commentary and apparently consistent with the BM prediction. The published Nature paper seems to commit to the sphere shape. Hence, it might be a source of some minor embarrassment that other shapes consistent with the experimental results were not considered in the paper [2], which states [emphasis mine]:

Here we use cold polar molecules to measure the electron EDM at the highest level of precision reported so far, providing a constraint on any possible new interactions. We obtain d_e = (2.4 ± 5.7_stat ± 1.5_syst)×10^-28 e cm, where e is the charge on the electron, which sets a new upper limit of |d_e| < 10.5×10^-28 e cm with 90 per cent confidence. This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision.

although the text could have said, "the electron is spherical or a perfect spinning top shape". In other words, it appears that the data does not exclusively support a spherical electron shape, although one major .gov science site had an artist showing the electron as a red ball.

2. It is natural for investigators to present their results in the context of "the orthodox view". On the other hand, applause is due for the effort to explore "beyond the Standard Model". Indeed, research reports often contain a mix of the orthodox and a look beyond it.

3. Regarding the second question on electron diameter, the reply correctly indicates that the EDM information does not address that issue. This question was posed as a probe since much "orthodox" thinking appears to attempt to describe the electron either as a point (0-dimensional) charge or as a sphere, contradictory concepts each invoked whenever convenient, without any clear or consistent rationale. Specifically, if the electron is a sphere, does not logic dictate that there must be some "internal structure"? Or are we to suppose that the electron is the only known sphere without internal structure?

4. The electron's "coupling with the vacuum" is completely and exactly described in BM, which represents a striking contrast to the seemingly ad hoc and vague conceptualizations prevalent among many physicists.

5. In conclusion, the Hudson et. al. report may be interpreted as experimental support for the BM prediction that the electron has a zero electric dipole moment.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Hudson, J.J., D.M. Kara, I. J. Smallman, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt and E. A. Hinds "Improved measurement of the shape of the electron" Nature, 473, 493–496. DOI:10.1038/nature10104 May, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

The Law of Motion

2011-09-17T19:59:00.010-04:00

Several consequences of the postulates of binary mechanics (BM) [1] may be summarized in the basic physics law of motion, namely that objects tend to move in the direction of higher bit density. Fig. 1 illustrates this idea for one spatial dimension.

Fig. 1: The Law of Motion

This working hypothesis of the fundamental law of motion in physics is applicable for objects ranging from elementary particles to astronomical objects such as planets and entire galaxies. This note reviews some results and logic supporting this hypothesis.

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 ([2]; Table 3 in [1]). 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.

This motion process has been analyzed in detail for the electron [3], where electron motion is seen as consisting of motion of single bits from one electron bit cycle [4] to another. This inter-cycle motion can cause the 1-state count of the source cycle to drop below particle threshold [2] and that of the destination cycle to surpass particle threshold. This process may be perceived as an "electron" moving from location A to B, even though only a single 1-state bit has moved.

Inter-cycle bit motion accounts for both Newton's classical and Einstein's relativistic laws of motion. These results may be generalized as follows.

1. 1-state bits are generally confined to lepton [4] or baryon [5] bit cycles, constantly moving in the loops defined by the respective cycles. This intra-cycle motion defines the internal structure and properties of elementary particles, as opposed to particle motion per se.

2. All particle motion involves 1-state bit transitions where the bit exits a cycle and enters another cycle. According to BM bit operations [1] [6], 1-state bits exit a cycle only when coupled with another 1-state bit sequentially [7].

3. The apparent low "mass" of the electron may be due to the fact that inter-cycle motion of a single 1-state bit may be sufficient to achieve a quantized unit of motion from one electron spot to another. For proton motion, more spots, longer time intervals and a substantially greater bit motion count are no doubt required on average to achieve a quantized unit of proton motion from one spot cube to a neighboring cube. Hence, proton "mass" would be expected to be assessed to have a much greater value.

4. Recall that "mass" is merely a proportionality constant relating acceleration to force. In this context, use of mass as a fundamental quantity in present physics thinking and expressions actually hides the underlying BM mechanisms of motion.

Bit Operations
Time-development of the state of any physical system is precisely defined by four BM bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong [1]. The role of each bit operation in particle motion may be briefly summarized.

Unconditional. The unconditional bit operation is directly responsible for all inter-cycle bit motion, which corresponds to motion as conventionally understood. For example, the role of unconditional operations in nuclear explosive devices has been emphasized [8].

Strong. Along with a physical interpretation of BM space [9], the strong bit operation [10] is responsible for the existence of looping bit cycles mentioned above. Historically and up to the present, this confinement of 1-state bits in baryon bit cycles has confused investigators attempting to explain it in terms of a "nuclear" or "strong" force, leading to a dead-end street both theoretically and experimentally.

Electromagnetic. The two electromagnetic (EM) bit operations -- scalar and vector [11] [12] -- may cause mite-to-lite bit transitions within spot units, and as such, affect the phase of bits in lepton or baryon bit cycles. Hence, the EM operations do not directly cause inter-cycle bit motion. Instead, EM actions can modify the phase configuration of 1-state bits in a cycle to produce sequential 1-state bit pairs required for inter-cycle motion [7].

Gravity
Recall that gravity is not a primary force in physics [13]. Instead, gravity appears to be an instance of the basic BM law of motion rather than a separate or independent force requiring some form of "unification" with the strong and EM forces. Indeed, a recent research report strongly suggests that most of the variation both in lunar laser ranging (LLR) data and lunar perigee may be explained by a surface temperature effect producing increased bit density between earth and moon, compared to density in other directions [14].

Of possible major significance is the simple fact that surface temperature and the foregoing predictions are not explicitly considered in either the so-called "universal law of gravitation" or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, both of which attempt to quantify what motion happens with no real explanation of why or how it happens. Perhaps the reported surface temperature and resulting bit density factors are hidden in the "universal gravitational" and "cosmological" constants in these theories respectively.

Summary
BM reduces classical and relativistic notions of object motion to a single law of motion, based on a simple set of postulates [1].

The apparent success of BM as a physical theory is based in part on its ability to generate dozens of testable predictions. In addition, while classical and quantum physics generally describe an approximation of what happens in physical systems, as long as very short distances and time intervals are not involved, BM duplicates this description with greater precision as well as explaining the underlying mechanisms for the phenomena -- that is, how events happen.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" April, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[5] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Dark matter and energy" May, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Ideal gas law: limited density range" May, 2011.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" March, 2011.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" March, 2011.
[12] Keene, J. J. "Quantized electromagnetism" May, 2011.
[13] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
[14] Keene, J. J. "Gravity increased by surface temperature" August, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Gravity Increased By Surface Temperature

2011-08-07T05:58:00.018-04:00

Updated: August 9, 2011
Lunar laser ranging (LLR) data [1] grouped by days from full moon shows the moon is about 5 percent closer to earth at full moon compared to 8 days before or after full moon. Moon phase was used as proxy independent variable for lunar surface temperature. These results support the prediction by binary mechanics (BM) [2] that gravitational force increases with object surface temperature [3].

Methods and Results

Fig. 1: Lunar Distance vs Days from Full Moon

The entire LLR data set of 8093 measurements from 1987 to 2004 of the l'Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur (OCA) in France [4] was grouped by day from full moon computed with U.S. Naval Oceanography data [5] (Fig. 1, Table 1). These two data sets were synchronized by universal times. Earth-moon distance was expressed in laser round-trip time in milliseconds. This raw data and the source code for the analysis software is available from the author.

Table 1: Lunar Distance in Msec vs Day from Full Moon
Day N msec std error
0 31 2431.88 10.64
2 195 2456.04 6.67
3 936 2495.87 3.47
4 946 2501.72 3.27
5 1182 2527.47 2.73
6 1270 2529.71 2.33
7 1265 2550.60 2.21
8 884 2559.58 2.64
9 620 2553.51 3.25
10 477 2552.91 4.29
11 227 2547.95 6.80
Minimum lunar distance was observed in the 24 hour period of full moon (day 0 in Fig. 1 and Table 1) when lunar surface temperature would be expected to be greatest. As solar illumination of the lunar surface facing earth decreases, lunar distance increased up to a maximum at day 8 before or after full moon, representing about a 5 percent decrease in lunar distance at full moon, where (2559.58 - 2431.88)/2559.58 = 0.0499.

In general, a steady increase in lunar distance over days 0 to 8 was seen. This effect appears to plateau over the 7 to 11 day range.

The 11 sample means in msec were all clearly different according to the 2-sample t test of statistical significance, except differences between day pairs 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 9 and 10 and 10 and 11.

Table 2: Lunar Perigee Distance in km vs Day from Full Moon
Day N km std error
0 17 356890.71 64.66
1 31 358637.19 172.48
2 22 362307.00 205.20
3 17 365739.12 208.10
4 11 368019.36 130.40
5 7 369221.71 210.53
6 4 369613.75 176.81
7 7 369965.86 86.28
8 7 369827.14 134.47
9 8 369307.88 94.73
10 9 367995.44 131.30
11 19 365657.89 196.61
The lunar perigee distance is the shortest distance from earth in each eccentric cycle of the orbit of the moon around earth [6]. Table 2 tabulates these perigees in km by day from full moon for the same Oct, 1987 to Dec, 2004 period of the LLR data shown in Table 1. In the absence of LLR data for day 1, the 11 means in each sample for day 0 and days 2 to 11 could be compared. The product-moment correlation r between the LLR measures (Table 1) and perigee distances (Table 2) is 0.876 (N = 11), with r² = 0.768, which implies that some 76 percent of the perigee distance variation may be accounted for by day from full moon.

The calculated perigees (Table 2) were on average some 10788 km less than the distances implied by the LLR measurements, when converted to km (Table 1). Fig. 2 shows the LLR data in km as offsets from the calculated perigee mean values on a per day basis. That is, the Y-axis is the deviation of the LLR-perigee difference from the mean difference of the 11 points.

Fig. 2: LLR minus Perigee vs Days from Full Moon

From days 0 to 6 the shortest distances occurred, while longer values were seen on days 7 to 11 from full moon. Perhaps of special interest is the almost linear upward trend in offsets of LLR distance from calculated perigee from day 2 to day 11. Indeed, for these days, the product-moment correlation between day and LLR distance minus perigee is r = 0.97 (N = 10). That is, for days 2 to 11 from full moon, time from full moon accounted for 94 percent of the variance of LLR distance minus calculated perigee values.

Discussion
The present study aimed to test the hypothesis predicted by BM [3] that observed gravitational force increases with increased object surface temperature.

First, moon phase was used as an indication of the independent variable -- lunar surface temperature, with highest temperature associated with full moon. LLR data was used to operationally define the dependent variable -- earth-moon gravitational force, assumed to be inversely correlated with lunar distance (Table 1). In short, greater lunar surface temperature in the direction of earth was associated with motion reducing lunar distance.

Second, moon perigees were least distant in days closer to full moon. The orbit of the moon around earth has an approximate 5 percent eccentricity [6]. At lunar perigee, the moon is about 5 percent closer to earth, compared with lunar apogee. Further, the actual lunar distance at perigee also varies substantially. The present study may explain most (76%) of the perigee distance variation in terms of days to full moon (Table 2). That is, the presumed effect of surface temperature on apparent gravitational effects may account for most of the variability in perigee distance.

The approximate plateau from days 7 to 11 is not entirely consistent with the present hypothesis, since solar illumination of the lunar surface facing earth continues to decrease in the day 8 to 11 period, suggesting decreased lunar surface temperatures over that lunar surface area. This issue might be resolved by further analysis including the perigee cycles which may explain the present plateau in LLR data as a function of time from full moon in the period studied. Perhaps there is sufficient correlation between the perigee and new moon phases to account for the perigee effect opposing further increases in lunar distance in the reported 8 to 11 day period where lunar surface temperature is thought to continue decreasing.

On the other hand, the LLR distance means may be "corrected" by expressing them as offsets from the calculated perigee means, as shown in Fig. 2. These deviations of mean LLR from mean calculated perigees indicated greater distances over the range from day 2 to 11 as lunar suface temperature presumably decreased, supporting the hypothesis that apparent gravitational force depends on object surface temperature.

Although the results reported exhibit high levels of statistical significance, the OCA data analyzed is only a fraction of available LLR data over longer periods from other observatories.

BM is the only physical theory known to the author predicting the present results. Gravity is not a primary force in BM [7], but rather a result of four postulated bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong, which define exact time-development of BM states [8]. In this context, objects tend to move in the direction of greater 1-state bit density. Observed gravitational forces are simply a specific instance of this general principle.

With increased surface temperature, an object will tend to radiate more 1-state bits from its surface. At full moon, these emitted 1-state bits will tend to increase bit density between earth and moon, compared to other directions, causing object motion decreasing lunar distance. A similar mechanism may explain the Pioneer anomaly [9] where it may be no coincidence that the direction of anomalous motion is toward the greatest nearby source of radiated 1-state bits -- the sun.

References
[1] Bender, P. L., "The lunar laser ranging experiment, UCSD".
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" May, 2011.
[4] l'Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur (OCA). "Lunar ranging results" February, 2005.
[5] U.S. Naval Oceanography (USNO). "Phases of the moon" August, 2011.
[6] Walker, J. "Lunar perigee and apogee calculator" May, 1997.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[9] Wikipedia. "Pioneer anomaly" August, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Blackbody and Hydrogen Spectrums from Binary Mechanical Postulates?

2011-06-20T09:03:00.016-04:00

Possible blackbody and hydrogen spectrums produced by binary mechanical (BM) postulates [1] as evolved over time with simulation software [2] and a new spectrum analysis program are presented. Examples of these spectrums (e.g., Fig. 1) may have implications for (1) length conversion functions between BM and observational spaces [3] [4] (2) correct BM bit operations order for time-development of BM system states [5] and (3) calibration of temperature in degrees Kelvin in terms of average single mite bit motion due to electromagnetic (EM) forces [6] [7].

Fig. 1: Spectrum of 40x40x40 Spot Space (Ticks per bar = 13)

Fig. 1 shows a screen shot of the new spectrum utility called HotSpec. The spectrum was generated by the HotSpot 1.29 BM simulation software, using default settings, immediately pressing the "b" key on startup to enter BOX mode. HotSpec uses Hotspot output files for input and saves the resulting spectrum in an Excel-compatible text file including spectrum wavelength as expressed in HotSpot Ticks and spectrum amplitude. This HotSpec output file is saved with a similar pathname as the input file with "_spc" appended to the file name. HotSpec 1.0 is included in the HotSpot 1.29 download.

Hence, investigators can use their own spectrum analysis software using the OutBits column of the HotSpot .csv file. Or the saved HotSpec spectrum "_spc" file may be further analyzed.

The peak amplitude in the spectrum is labelled in BM ticks which is 4 x {horizontal pixel position} x {Ticks per bar} (Fig. 1). The highest amplitude peak to the right has a similar appearance to a blackbody spectrum.

Fig. 2 shows the highest frequency detail at the left in Fig. 1.

Fig. 2: Spectrum Detail of 40x40x40 Spot Space (Ticks per bar = 1)

At tick 8, 12 and 16, these higher amplitude bars in the spectrum may represent lepton emission events. The isolated single bar at 84 ticks matches the central baryon bit cycle [8] and may therefore indicate nucleon events. The smaller more diffuse peaks to the right may represent energies associated with quantum transitions in the simulated material as determined by 1-state bit patterns.

Fig. 3 shows a spectrum from a simulation of a larger space at similar bit density.

Fig. 3: Spectrum of 56x56x56 Spot Space (Ticks per bar = 13)

Again, a blackbody-like spectrum dominates the view on the right. Compared to Fig. 1, a more detailed set of peaks appeared to the left at higher frequencies. Finally, Fig. 4 shows detail of higher frequency components in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4: Spectrum Detail of 56x56x56 Spot Space (Ticks per bar = 1)

Comparing Figs. 2 and 4, the 84 tick baryon bit cycle is visible in both. On the other hand, compared to the 40x simulation (Fig. 2), the 56x simulation produced a greater number of higher amplitude spectral peaks (Fig. 4).

Discussion
Several current issues in BM may be relevant to the spectrum examples presented.

Length Conversion Functions. The wavelengths (x-axis) in Figs. 1 to 4 are in fact BM simulator Ticks, each of which represent four tick intervals of BM time unit t. Velocity is quantized where a bit may move BM distance unit d in time t. Setting this velocity to the nominal value of one, the tick counts may be interpreted as wavelengths.

Length conversion functions may be required to map length in BM space to length in meters in observational space. A previous effort to accomplish this goal [3] [4] was found wanting, although a feasible approach to defining correct length conversion functions was presented. For example, larger samples were needed such as provided by the current spectrums.

One clue may be that the Lyman lines in the hydrogen spectrum have wavelengths (approx. 1E-7 meters) about an order of magnitude shorter than the wavelength (approx. 1E-6 meters) of blackbody radiation at about 1000 degrees Kelvin. In BM space, the finer spectral lines at the left of Fig. 3, which may represent peaks in the hydrogen spectrum, are also about one order of magnitude less than the wavelength at the peak of the apparent blackbody spectrum shown to the right. If correct BM length conversion functions were established, the spectrums obtained with BM simulation may be matched to observed spectrums with sample sizes sufficient to establish statistical significance.

This approach would involve controlled experimental simulations, varying a number of parameters one at a time, including bit density, and hence, average temperature. For example, with increased temperature, the peak of the suspected blackbody part of the spectrum would be expected to shift to higher frequencies with an amplitude increase. Indeed, compared to Fig. 1, Fig. 3 appears to show a higher temperature in the suspected blackbody portion of the spectrum, even though the bit densities were similar. From the initial random bit distributions at this density (approx. 0.25 maximum bit density) in the 40x and 56x samples, it appears that phenomena increasing a blackbody temperature component appear in the larger volume sample, for as yet unexplained reasons. In other words, rather different events may evolve from similar bit densities with different randomized initial states.

However, with increased temperature, the suspected hydrogen (or other low-Z atom) spectral components might be expected to remain unchanged in wavelength, but with increased amplitude. At bit densities below the baryon threshold [9], there should be no atomic spectral components.

In short, atomic and blackbody sections of the spectrum appear to provide somewhat independent tests of both prospective length conversion functions and the ability of BM postulates to generate important physical phenomena.

Bit Operations Order. Another issue is correct bit operations order. In particular, the order of the unconditional, EM scalar and EM vector bit operations is not yet convincingly established [5]. By similar reasoning as presented above, only one order of these three fundamental bit operations can be correct and therefore yield the best matches between spectrums generated in BM space and reported experimental values.

Temperature Calibration. By the same token, progress in solving the puzzles presented above might lead to a systematic, credible manner to calibrate mite kinetic energy tabulated in BM space with temperature in degrees Kelvin and thus specify absolute maximum temperature in familiar temperature units.

Summary. This report introduced a spectrum analysis program called HotSpec and the speculation that components of spectrums in simulated BM space (Figs. 1 to 4) may correspond to experimentally observed components of atomic spectrums and blackbody radiation. If true, BM may be the only theory to derive or obtain these spectrums based only on first postulates and principles. In contrast, present wavelength calculations are based on expressions designed to fit empirical measurements, based only in part on theory in quantum physics.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental physics constants" June, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Fine-structure constant alpha" June, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Maximum temperature below half maximum bit density" March, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Solved Physics Mysteries

2011-06-11T10:20:00.033-04:00

Updated: June 26, 2011
Binary mechanics (BM) [1] is a theory of everything based on simple postulates in which the universe is implemented with a single fundamental object called the spot unit consisting of two binary bits. Based on position parities in BM space (Table 1 in [1]), these two bits determine, among other things, electric and color charges for leptons and quarks (the mite bit) and direction of bit motion (the lite bit) according to four fundamental bit operations which define exact time-development of BM states (1-state bit distributions).

An interesting Wikipedia article titled "List of Unsolved Problems in Physics" [2] provides an opportunity to take stock of the development of the theory of BM to date. Hence, this article will follow the general outline of the Wikipedia article with several objectives -- (1) provide hopefully helpful commentary for students of BM, (2) suggest where unsolved problems may be successfully addressed by the theory of BM and its software simulation technology [3], and (3) tabulate as solved those items where BM may have already adequately addressed, in whole or part, particular unsolved problems.

Category sub-titles and indented text will be direct quotes from the Wikipedia article.

Quantum Gravity, Cosmology, and General Relativity
Vacuum Catastrophe.

Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Translating the term "quantum vacuum" into BM basics, the perfect vacuum probably consists of a 1-state bit density of as much as some ten percent of absolute maximum bit density [4]. One may assume that most of these 1-state bits are trapped in lepton [5] and baryon (proton) [6] bit cycles.

One aspect of this unsolved problem may be the reported bit density threshold for gravitation-like effects [7]. Although gravity appears to be a secondary effect of the primary BM bit operations, gravity-like attraction remains a subject for study. A relevant speculation may be that the "predicted mass of quantum vacuum" is simply less than the gravity threshold as expressed in bit density units.

Another relevant question is the meaning of mass in BM as a proportionality constant for the difficulty or likelihood of object motion [8]. As described previously [9], incoming 1-state bits (energy) to lepton or baryon bit cycles will be promptly emitted only if sequential 1-state bits are established in the absorption process. Further, emitted 1-state bits not only play a role in electromagnetic (EM) radiation transmission, but also in observed particle motion [10].

Next, consider that incoming 1-state bits are less likely to form sequential 1-state bits in a bit cycle populated with fewer 1-state bits. This leads to the perhaps counter-intuitive result that mass, as an inverse function of particle motion probability, may actually be greater if fewer 1-state bits populate a particular bit cycle.
Status: Solution feasible using BM

Quantum Gravity.

Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)? Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete?

Answers: Yes; that "quantum field theory" is called BM where space-time is discrete.
Status: Solved

Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself...?

Answer: The latter -- "discrete structure". Also, any force over a distance greater than the fundamental BM length constant d [1] [11] [12] is mediated by propagation of 1-state bits from source A to destination B. What else is there? Hence, gravitons, photons, Z and W particles, Higgs bosons and the like, all consist of 1-state bit patterns in BM space-time, where BM provides a simple irreducible representation as the playing field for particle theorists. Consider also that gravity appears to be a derivative, not primary, force [7] and thus has already lost much of its allure for theorists.
Status: Solved

Extra Dimensions.

Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? ... Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws?

Answers: No and both, where BM postulates three fundamental spatial dimensions and observed results arise from the laws of BM.
Status: Solved

Arrow of Time.

What do the phenomena that differ going forward and backwards in time tell us about the nature of time? How does time differ from space?

With BM, theorists need not reinvent the wheel regarding time and space. The 1-state bit distribution in any volume at a time tick may be likened to data, namely the system state. As in computing, mechanisms presumed to reside in the spot unit process this data in a continuously cycling program executing a specific sequence of the four fundamental bit operations, one per tick, defining time-development. Hence, a 3-dimensional BM space defines where the data resides; spot unit data processing mechanisms alter the data over time. The clock setting tick time might be assumed to reside in the spot unit. In short, the difference between space and time is akin to the difference between data and processing of data. Aside from this clear qualitative difference, the three spatial dimensions and time may each be quantified in length and time units respectively.

At present, there is no provision in BM for backward or reversed data processing by spot unit assemblies. Until there is some plausible reason to assume that such a thing might occur, purported particle motion backwards in time might be little more than science fiction, no doubt created in service of unwarranted assumptions such as continuous space-time. Particles travelling backwards in time per Feynman diagrams and similar conceptions are at present in the science fiction category.
Status: Solved

Locality.

Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? ... What does the ... absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime?

Consider that space and time are quantized which limits primary potentials and resulting forces (expressed by 1-state bit motion) to BM distance d.

To some extent, the first item above may be seen as a trick question, since quantum physics is only an approximation at the microscopic level described by BM both in locality in space and in time. For example, evolution operators assume infinitesimal increments in space and time, which simply do not exist in BM. Thus, at more microscopic levels, fantasy in the time-development operators may produce fantasy in calculated results.

This problem is compounded by assuming infinitesimal changes in position (space) and if this is not bad enough, infinitesimal increments in time. For this reason, various discrepancies between experiment and quantum mechanical (QM) theory are being reported more frequently in physics literature, as smaller length and time intervals are probed. A source of such error may be found in evolution operators which attempt to define state changes in an infinitesimal time interval mostly by summing items purported to represent potentials or forces assumed to exist at infinitesimal points in space. In short, the mathematics used explicitly asserts that the effort is only an approximation of equivalent BM results.

On the other hand, while all potentials are local in BM over its length unit d, a sort of non-locality in both space and time may be allowed microscopically. Regarding space, d is a positive, non-zero value in meters, which itself may be seen as a degree of non-locality.

Further, in a single tick t, for any lepton or quark spot, zero to three simultaneous instances of the electrostatic (scalar) force may result in mite motion in the three spot units in a spot. This may be a microscopic example of non-locality in space. Then, magnetic (vector) potentials may similarly cause mite motion in a different tick interval in a single cycle of the four BM fundamental bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong. Hence, a microscopic degree of non-locality in time may also be explicitly defined in BM.

The foregoing use of the term locality may or may not be relevant to considerations in different contexts such as quantum entanglement.

The solution is to use appropriate items in the mathematics toolbox. At present, quantum-level physics research generally assumes that events at slightly different locations and time intervals, as described by BM, occur simultaneously at the same location.

In retrospect, the key insight of James Hughes [1] was very simple, namely that the Dirac spinor matrix components actually represented events at slightly different adjacent vertexes in a cubic spatial lattice. One Hughes paper [available from the author] used two Dirac equations of opposite handedness to map spinor components, with simple matrix algebra, to eight points defining a cube.

This led the author to quantize space, throw in quantized time as well, and develop a small set of postulates for BM. As a direct consequence, six of the eight points in Hughes' original cube provided an initial basis to define quark behavior. Historically, the Dirac spinors were responsible for milestone advances in quantum physics concerning accurate predictions of electron behavior and the existence of positrons. Hence, it may be ironic that Dirac may have accomplished far more than anyone has thought, since Hughes' interpretation of the spinors, as developed in BM, implies that improved electron understanding depended all along on taking events in adjacent quark spots into account.

In contrast, assumption of continuous space-time leads to use of infinitesimal increments which in turn prevent accuracy and insight at extreme microscopic levels.

The evolution operations in BM require only a 1-bit calculator. For example, the electrostatic force is simply the product of two binary bits resulting in zero or one, equivalent to a simple AND logic. One might predict that investigators in atomic and nuclear physics will make substantial advances once appropriate mathematics is applied to theoretical problems. This prediction suggests more mathematicians should be hired in physics research projects. The first thing they will say is, "Physics uses math to express its laws so requirement number one is to use applicable math."

In brief, the time-development engine in BM simulation software [3] might well be the state-of-the-art for both quantum electrodynamic (QED) simulation and lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
Status: Solved

High Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Higgs Mechanism.

Does the Higgs particle exist? What are the implications if it does not?

Answers: Theorists might define a spatial-temporal pattern of 1-state bits that satisfies their concerns about a Higgs mechanism. If not, the good news is that there may be no implications of any consequence in BM.
Status: Solved

Hierarchy Problem.

Why is gravity such a weak force? ... the electroweak scale ... Why are these scales so different from each other?

Both gravity and the so-called weak force(s) are not fundamental in BM. Gravity-like effects result from higher bit density between attracting objects compared to other directions from their respective centers of mass (bits) [7] [13]. The weak forces are thought to result from the unconditional bit operation and therefore are not additional or new fundamental forces [1]. Generally, observed force strength is thought to be proportional to the likelihood of relevant spatial-temporal bit patterns.
Status: Solved

Proton Decay and Unification.

How do we unify the three different quantum mechanical fundamental interactions of quantum field theory? As the lightest baryon, are protons absolutely stable? If not, then what is the proton's half-life?

EM and strong forces alone made the cut in BM as true fundamental forces represented by specific bit operations. Gravity and the weak force failed to make the cut and thus far have secondary or derivative force status in BM as presented briefly above.

Regarding proton stability, BM simulation experiments show that proton life-time is infinite in an absolute vacuum [4]. If incoming 1-state bits enter one or more of the seven baryon bit cycles resulting in two sequential 1-state bits, the proton cycles so affected will emit one unit of energy (1-state bit). With enough directional incoming energy, the proton may move to a neighboring spot cube. In these situations, proton life-time remains infinite.

However, with a rather improbable configuration of incoming 1-state bits -- think "particle collider", fragmentation of the 1-state bit constituents is possible. Of course, fragments will be short-lived and most likely encounter and add 1-state bits to another spot cube, previously below proton particle threshold, resulting in another proton. In fact, speaking figuratively, if one blinks it might just appear that the proton moved from location A to location B. In summary, the extremely long proton half-life determined experimentally is an excellent indication of just how improbable proton fragmentation is. The short answer is that proton half-life depends on bit distribution in its immediate environment and therefore can vary from infinite to near zero.
Status: Solved

Generations of Matter.

Are there more than three generations of quarks and leptons? Why are there generations at all? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?

Table 3 in [1] documents both the existence and number of generations of matter according to BM, which generally agrees with the Standard Model. However, compared to the Standard Model, the crucial theoretical difference is that these results of BM were derived as direct consequences of its basic postulates or first principles.
Status: Solved

Regarding elementary particle masses, BM simulation experiments of specific particles in defined electrostatic or magnetic fields are feasible to define mass ratios as discussed previously [8].
Status: Solution feasible using BM

Fundamental Symmetries and Neutrinos.

What is the nature of the neutrinos, what are their masses, and how have they shaped the evolution of the universe? ... What are the unseen forces that were present at the dawn of the universe but disappeared from view as the universe evolved?

Neutrinos may simply be one or more 0-state bits and theorists can define any desired pattern and name it. Mathematically, the neutrino distribution is the one's bit complement (logical NOT) of the energy (1-state bit) distribution.

By definition with the EM and strong forces, 1-state bit motion to a 0-state locus is coupled with a motion in the reverse direction of a 0-state neutrino bit. In this particular situation, one might speculate that mass of 1- and 0-state bits must be the same, as motion probability equals one for each bit. However, this situation accounts for a relatively small fraction of 1-state bit motion, because the unconditional bit operation causes most of it. In this operation, all bits are shifted in lite direction, regardless of the state of destination bit loci. In other words, when considering mass as assessed in BM, average neutrino mass over multiple ticks may be much less than that of particles defined by 1-state bits.

Whatever role neutrinos have had in the evolution of the universe, BM would stipulate it is the exact one's bit complement of the role of 1-state mites and lites. Hence, if the role of either 1- or 0-state bits in universe evolution is known to some extent, then the role of the logical NOT is also known by defintion.

Concerning the movie-theme question on disappearing "unseen forces", rest assured that BM has not yet postulated any nor does the author expect that mysterious "unseen forces" will reappear above your bed as you sleep.
Status: Solved

Empirical Phenomena Lacking Clear Scientific Explanation
Baryon Asymmetry.

Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

With consistently defined particle thresholds, baryons composed of right-handed matter quarks form at markedly lower 1-state bit densities than antibaryons composed of left-handed antimatter quarks [4]. Likewise, matter electrons form at much lower bit density than antimatter positrons.

Matter particles form at substantially lower bit densities than antimatter particles near or below standard conditions of temperature and pressure as might be found in our classrooms and laboratories, according to BM simulation experiments. Moreover, matter particles substantially out-number antimatter particles over almost the entire bit density range, from near zero (dubbed absolute vacuum) to absolute maximum density.

Mechanisms for this demonstrated matter asymmetry are somewhat different for leptons and baryons. For electrons, incoming 1-state bits are trapped in a 12 tick bit cycle [5] and therefore tend to rapidly reach particle threshold of two or three mites [9]. In contrast, 1-state bits in positron spots participate in three 84 tick cycles traversing adjacent spot cubes and therefore spend less time in the positron spot itself decreasing the odds that positron mite count will reach particle threshold.

A similar situation pertains to nucleons such as the proton with its seven 84 tick bit cycles, not counting the three positron cycles. For this reason, the bit density threshold for proton formation is much greater than for electron formation. A further mechanism favoring baryon matter asymmetry is that 1-state bits spend more time in right-handed quark spots than in left-handed antimatter quark spots, within the proton's spot cube.

To summarize,

(1) Where is antimatter? Consider that 1-state bits cycle through antimatter quark and lepton (positron) spots in ordinary protons. An antiproton is therefore not much more than a less likely and shorter-lived grouping of 1-state bits in left-handed antiquark spots. Such events require only sufficient transfer of 1-state bit energy to detectors to achieve antiproton observation, according to the same mechanisms which make protons observable. Antiproton life-time depends on lack of further 1-state bit inputs into its baryon cycles which could alter this particular grouping (phase) of bits in the cycles.

In spite of severe limitations from use of inapplicable mathematics tools in quantum physics described above, brilliant minds have nonetheless produced ideas with substantial merit. For example, consider the entry or absorption of a 1-state bit into a baryon bit cycle. After a cycle time of exactly 84 ticks, it may be rather appropriate to say that this energy input to the spot cube may result in quark-antiquark pairs, since both types participate in baryon bit cycles, in which each 1-state bit occupies quark or antiquark spots at different intervals during the 84 tick baryon cycles. That is, various hadron resonance phenomena are both predicted and explained in exact detail with BM.

In general, BM explains mechanisms underlying many quantum physics ideas and observations. In some respects, 1-state bits in baryon cycles below proton particle threshold in perfect vacuum may be regarded as a "sea" of virtual (potential) quarks. A similar thought process also allows for virtual leptons. In each case, "virtual" is equivalant to states below particle threshold, where particle threshold is operationally defined as easily detectable by energy transfer to sensors.

Bit cycles populated with only one 1-state bit are not detectable since that bit remains in the cycle unavailable to transfer energy to a detector. Only sequential 1-state bits result in emission of a unit of energy, enabling possible detection of a "particle". Existing 1-state bits in a cycle may form sequential pairs when an EM force changes phase of a single bit or when incoming 1-state bits are absorbed in required spatial-temporal synchronization to 1-state bits already in the cycle [9].

(2) BM postulates including the fundamental bit operations qualitatively explain matter asymmetry in exact detail allowing quantification of particle formation in terms of 1-state bit density in a spatial volume. The next step is to further quantify these basic mechanisms to further match BM results with experimental values.
Status: Solved

Dark Matter and Dark Energy. A recent article proposed mechanisms for dark matter and energy based on principles of BM [9]. The next step would be a quantitative evaluation of the permutations of these mechanisms to determine whether expected theoretical values match estimates of dark matter and energy based on physical observations.
Status: Proposed BM mechanisms; quantitative analysis pending

Epliptic Alignment of CMB Anisotropy.

Some large features of the microwave sky, at distances of over 13 billion light years, appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the Solar System. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

Or is this anisotropy evidence supporting BM space postulates? Time will tell.

Indeed, in every case where BM explains the underlying mechanisms of well-known physical phenomena, those phenomena may be viewed as supporting evidence. For example, if Special Relativity had not been crafted by Einstein, the basic postulates of BM would require its formulation taking quantized velocity [10] into account. If confirmed, a possible special role of the fine-structure constant α [12] in conversion of length measurements between BM and observational spaces might qualify as supporting evidence as well.
Status: Possible supporting evidence for BM

Conclusion
This Part 1 of solved physics mysteries might conclude with several notes. A recent article "Physics Glossary" [13] may be helpful regarding terminology usage in BM and further elaboration of topics discussed above. "Status: Solved" above indicates substantial progress on a topic with the implication that much more work is needed. Thanks for reading and to the author of the Wikipedia article [2].

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Wikipedia. "List of unsolved problems in physics" June, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Dark matter and energy" May, 2011.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" April, 2011.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental physics constants" June, 2011.
[12] Keene, J. J. "Fine-structure constant alpha" June, 2011.
[13] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" May, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Fine-Structure Constant Alpha

2011-06-10T06:15:00.019-04:00

Length conversion functions mapping distance measurements in binary mechanics (BM) [1] to experimental length measurements [2] may contain the fine-structure constant α. If so, this constant may be more fundamental than previously thought. For example, α is a coupling constant for strength of electromagnetic (EM) effects and a key component of the Rydberg constant R_∞ crucial in explaining spectrums of EM radiation emitted from material such as hydrogen. On the other hand, if α appears in the proposed length conversion functions, then α is fundamental to all physical phenomena, not just EM effects, because experimental length measurements in study of any physical phenomenon could be mapped from corresponding lengths in BM space containing the underlying mechanisms for the studied phenomenon.

The inverse length conversion functions (eqs. 6 and 8 in [2]) were

d = a * ln(d') + b [Eq. 1]

d' = e^{(d - b)/a} [Eq. 2]

where d and d' are length in meters in BM space and experimental measurement space respectively. The numeric constants a = 0.129838012936585 and b = 7.44495436913956 in Eqs. 1 and 2 were obtained by linear regression fitting test data points for electron, nucleon and Bohr radii in each of the two spaces. The number of significant figures in constants a and b reflect values obtained from the test data set and used in calculations presented below and do not indicate degree of accuracy.

ln(4π/α) = 7.451267835 [Eq. 3]

agrees with the empirical value b within 0.0085 percent.

Substituting in Eqs. 1 and 2,

d = a * ln(d') + ln(4π/α) [Eq. 4]

d' = e^{(d - ln(4π/α))/a} [Eq. 5]

Numeric constant a in Eqs. 4 and 5 might be a new value pertaining to these length conversion functions, or simply be not understood. On the other hand,

1/ln(4π/α) = 0.134205349 [Eq. 6]

agrees with the empirical value a within 3.4 percent. The original test data may not in aggregate have been even this accurate. In an admittedly more speculative step, substituting Eq. 6 in Eqs. 4 and 5 with minor rearranging terms,

d = ln(d')/ln(4π/α) + ln(4π/α) [Eq. 7]

d' = e^{ln(4π/α)(d - ln(4π/α))} [Eq. 8]

Discussion
The length conversion functions map between quantized BM space and continuous space assumed in classical physics up to and including the Standard Model and its associated experimental length measurements. If usage of the fine-structure constant α in expressions for numeric constants a or b or both (Eqs. 1 to 8) is correct, no less than four fundamental physics constants appear to be involved in these inter-space mapping functions -- elementary charge e, Planck's constant h, light speed in vacuum c₀ and the electric constant ε₀ or permittivity of free space.

In other words, these four constants express how fundamental events in BM space result in specific experimentally measured values quantified in familiar units of mass, length, time and charge. Each of these four constants involves a length unit. Hence, it may be no surprise that these heavy-hitters among physics constants would be involved in the mapping of the length parameter between phenomenological and BM spaces.

Elementary Charge e. Classically and experimentally, elementary electric charge e is equal to the absolute value of proton charge or electron charge.

According to the CODATA method [3], elementary charge e is defined in terms of constants listed above or their equivalents, namely the fine-structure constant α, Planck's constant h, vacuum light speed c₀ and the magnetic constant µ₀. BM breaks this apparent circularity in constant definitions [4] by independently defining each α component. For example, elementary charge is nominally defined as 3 times the sign of mite bits, which is based on a value called I parity of mite position in BM space [1]. That is, in the abstract world of BM, the sign of electric charge is independently defined by mite position I parity. Hence, one might argue that elementary charge e might necessarily be required to properly project events in BM space such as length to observations in phenomenological space caused by these events.

Planck's Constant h. Defined with the mass, length and time units fundamental to constants and experimental measurements in physics, Planck's constant h is typically expressed as a quantum unit of energy such as, for example, mc², times a time unit such as seconds. The energy component of this quantum unit appears to correspond to the 1-state of mite and lite bits in BM, where each 1-state bit may be said to be one unit of energy, as reckoned in phenomenological space where experimental observations are conducted. Thus, BM provides an independent definition of a single quanta of energy.

As with elementary charge, it is reasonable to suppose that Planck's constant might be a necessary value to correctly project the abstract value of one for the energy quanta of 1-state bits in BM space into the observable world of experimental measurements.

Light Speed in Vacuum c₀. As described previously (e.g., [5]), all velocities are quantized in BM as a consequence of its quantization of both length (space) and time. Hence, for the smallest possible time interval, denoted as a single tick, the time unit t in BM, velocity v of 1-state bits can be only one or zero. If v = 1 in a single tick interval, a 1-state bit moves exactly one unit of BM length d (Eqs. 1 to 8 above). In short, BM provides an independent definition of velocity.

Given the lattice-like structure of BM space, this velocity v must necessarily be greater than so-called vacuum light speed, which is an "as the crow flies" measure expressed in large multiples of d and t, where in each tick, a 1-state bit moves at v = 1 or 0. Hence, by the same logic applied to elementary charge and Planck's constant, if light speed were not a defining part of the fine-structure constant α, it probably would be explicitly required in the length conversion functions presented above.

Electric Constant ε₀. Permittivity, known as the electric constant, used to define the fine-structure constant α, may be expressed in terms of the permeability µ₀ and light speed c₀ constants. Given that vacuum light speed is a phenomenological measurement, the permittivity ε₀ and permeability µ₀ constants required to correctly quantify experimental observations of EM interactions and radiation might also be required for length mapping between BM and observational spaces. This supposition is supported by the fact that both of these constants are independently defined as one in BM space or in other words, are not explicitly needed.

Length Conversions Functions. If one or both of the numeric constants found from a small test data set in the length conversion functions (Eqs. 1 and 2, [2]) are indeed expressible in terms of the fine-structure constant α, it is noteworthy that each α component briefly described above is independently defined with exact precision in BM space.

The prototype length conversion functions presented previously [2] and expressed in terms of the fine-structure constant α in Eqs. 4 and 5, or alternatively in Eqs. 7 and 8, in the present report, may now be used in BM space to examine EM spectrums such as the fine-structure lines of radiation from hydrogen atoms and blackbody radiation [Keene, unpublished data]. Both of these spectrums appear to be reproducible using present BM simulation software [6]. Such further studies could provide much larger, new data sets which can further polish the exact values of the a and b constants in Eqs. 1 and 2 and perhaps confirm their presently proposed relation to the fine-structure constant α.

On the other hand, using measured results for length d' such as one meter or one kilometer produce resulting lengths d in BM space that are much too small to be credible. This apparent flaw would support a much simpler linear form for the length conversion functions, such as

d = aαd' + b [Eq. 9]

d' = (d - b)/(aα) [Eq. 10]

Hence, much larger data sets such as the EM spectrums mentioned above are mandatory to extend the exercise presented previously [2] to address its possible weaknesses. Only three pairs of data points were used so that one or more errors in the test data set could easily distort an effort to model correct length conversion functions.

Further work confirming or updating the length conversion functions might place BM as perhaps the only theory of everything to obtain the numeric value of the fine-structure constant α from first postulates and principles.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental physics constants" June, 2011.
[3] CODATA. "CODATA Resources" June, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" April, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Fundamental Physics Constants

2011-06-03T03:30:00.021-04:00

Binary mechanics (BM) [1] raises challenging questions about a number of physical constants. A major question concerns the number of constants, namely that there seem to be too many apparently fundamental constants in physics, given the apparent simplicity of BM. For example, 1-state bit motion due to the four fundamental bit operations which define time-development of BM states does not explicitly require constants such as vacuum permittivity or permeability for this bit flux. Indeed, the need for such constants other than one may be viewed as an indication of the degree to which physical theories that require them are not fundamental.

This report presents functions to scale physical measurements of length to BM fundamental distance units and inversely, to project distance measurements in BM space to experimental measurements in meters. In a possible milestone for the theory of BM, these scaling and inverse projection functions may absorb no less than two fundamental physical constants.

Space-Time Calibration. The present working hypothesis is that some physical constants pertain to the scaling or calibration between space-time as reckoned in experiment and in BM. The BM length unit d and time unit for a single tick t may be expressed as functions

d = f_length(d'); t = f_time(t') [Eqs. 1]

with d and d' in meters, t and t' in seconds, where d' and t' are experimental measurements and d and t are multiples of BM length d and time t units respectively.

An example may clarify these symbols and functions.

First, a classical calculation of electron angular momentum or spin requires an estimate of electron radius in BM length units d. Consider that the geometric center of an electron spot is the point which is the shared vertex of the three spot unit mite sub-cubes of dimension d (Fig. 1 in [2]). Assume the center of each mite sub-cube may be used to estimate electron radius. Then, the estimated radius is the distance from the shared vertex at spot center to mite sub-cube center {0.5, 0.5, 0.5} in BM length units d. Hence, the distance is sqr(0.5²+0.5²+0.5²) = sqr(0.75) = 0.866d in BM length units (Table 1).

Second, choose a preferred estimate of electron radius d' based on physics theory or experiment. Apply f_length in Eqs. 1. If all is correct, the result d should be 0.866.

Space-Time Projection. Functions f_length and f_time in Eqs. 1 must perform a one-to-one mapping and hence, are invertible. Let g be the inverse functions (g = f^-1)

d' = g_length(d); t' = g_time(t) [Eqs. 2]

Eqs. 2 assert definite relations -- the g functions -- between computed BM distance and time units and physical measurements. However, these functions are obviously not simply the identity one. That is, if electron and proton radii are tabulated by consistent methods in BM space, the radii ratio is not in agreement with most estimates based on current physics theory or experiment. This apparent disparity must be be resolved by projection function g_length where the metric of BM space is projected or mapped into the space of our physical experience and experimental measurements.

Consider that the physical distance between bits in RAM memory in a computing system may have no particular relation to the spatial arrangement of pixels in an image on the system's display device. In contrast, Eqs. 1 and 2 define a definite mapping between the two spaces -- BM space-time and physical measurements of length and time.

The present task is to incorporate as many fundamental physics constants as possible into the calibration and projection functions f and g respectively.

Methods and Results
Test Data Set. Data points from physical measurements may include approximate Compton nucleon wavelength 1.32E-15 meters [3] and a purported upper limit for electron radius of about 1.0E-22 meters [4]. The Bohr radius 5.29E-11 for a ground state hydrogen atom will be used as a third point (d'_Ex in meters column in Table 1).

Table 1: Length Scaling/Projection between Experimental (d'_Ex) and BM (d_BM) Spaces
Length d_BM d'_Ex r_e units Scaled d_BM Projected d'_Ex
Electron r 0.866 1.00E-22 1.00E+00 8.68E-01 9.87E-23
Nucleon r 3.000 1.31E-15 1.31E+07 3.00E+00 1.35E-15
Bohr r 4.370 5.29E-11 5.29E+11 4.37E+00 5.18E-11
The d_BM column in Table 1 uses the electron r = 0.866 calculated above. The nucleon r was approximated by the radius of a sphere inside the cube spanned by the seven baryon bit loops described previously [5]. This cube is 3x3x3 spots. Each spot is 2d where d is the BM distance unit. Hence, the sphere diameter is 6d with radius 3d. The d_BM value for the Bohr r for the hydrogen atom is an estimate based on two facts. First, the electron spot within the proton spot cube is thought to function to form neutrons, not hydrogen atoms. Second, there is no theoretical need to waste BM space. Thus, the electron spot required to bind an electron to a proton to form ground-state hydrogen is most probably in a spot cube which is a close neighbor to the spot cube occupied by the proton. This hydrogen Bohr radius was therefore set to 4.370 to include the proton spot cube and an electron in an neighboring spot cube.

Next, in the r_e column of Table 1, the d'_Ex estimates in meters are expressed in electron radius units, where each value is the estimated radius of the object (d'_Ex) divided by the nominal electron radius used in this exercise (Eq. 3). The r_e units, Scaled d_BM and Projected d'_Ex columns of Table 1 were calculated using real10 (10-byte floating number) precision although usually four most significant digits are used in the following text.

Length Calibration Function f. Eq. 3 tries the natural logarithm ln() of the r_e ratios for a f_length calibration function.

d_BM = a * ln(r_e) + b [Eq. 3]

Fig. 1 shows a nearly linear relation between the BM length estimates d_BM and experimental results for electron, nucleon and hydrogen radius estimates d'_Ex (Table 1) as expressed in ln(r_e) (Eq. 3).

Fig. 1: ln(r_e) vs BM distance units

Using linear regression, the a and b constants in Eq. 3 may be replaced with the resulting numerical estimates in Eg. 4, which may be used to estimate length in BM space based on physical measurements in our experimental space and experience (Scaled d_BM in Table 1).

d_BM = 0.1300 * ln(r_e) + 0.8678 [Eq. 4]

r_e in Eq. 4 and Table 1 is a unitless ratio. Using the original values, Eq. 4 becomes

d_BM = 0.1300 * ln(d'_Ex/d'_r_e) + 0.8678 [Eq. 5]

Eq. 5 is an example of the f_length function, where d_BM is d and d'_Ex is d' in Eqs. 1 and d'_r_e is approximate electron radius determined experimentally, scaling or calibrating experimental measures to their equivalent values in BM space.

Inverse Length Projection Function g. The inverse function g_length in Eqs. 2 is expected to project length measurements in BM distance units to corresponding experimental length measurements. Solving for d'_Ex, the only intended variable in Eq. 5, the product operand of the natural logarithm may be expressed as the sum of ln() values:

d_BM = 0.1300 * (ln(d'_Ex) + ln(1/d'_r_e)) + 0.8678 [Eq. 6]

Substituting values in Eq. 6 with their constants and rearranging,

d_BM = 0.1300 * (ln(d'_Ex) + ln(1/d'_r_e)) + 0.8678
d_BM = 0.1300 * (ln(d'_Ex) + 50.657) + 0.8678
d_BM = 0.1300 * ln(d'_Ex) + 6.577 + 0.8678
d_BM = 0.1300 * ln(d'_Ex) + 7.445
(d_BM - 7.445)/0.1300 = ln(d'_Ex) [Eqs. 7]

Use of the exponential function completes an expression for experimental measurements predicted by length results in BM space,

d'_Ex = e^{((d_BM - 7.445)/0.1300)} [Eq. 8]

which is a prototype for g_length in Eqs. 2. The Projected d'_Ex values using Eq. 8 based on the d_BM estimates were in good agreement with the measured d'_Ex values (Table 1).

Discussion
Conversion functions between BM space and physical experiment. This report presents functions to scale physical measurements of length to BM fundamental distance units (Eq. 4) and inversely, to project distance measurements in BM space to experimental measurements in meters (Eq 8). These scaling and projection functions have both practical and theoretical significance.

First, an important trend in physics research is investigation of the very small, such as trapped single particles or atoms and the whole field of nanotechnology. If the reported conversion functions between BM space and experimental measurement are correct, investigators can now simulate phenomena in BM space to study its exact time-development and project results into familiar lengths as measured in physical experiments. In addition, experimental results can be length scaled to study their underlying mechanisms using BM simulation software [6]. In short, BM may provide a powerful new tool in physics research.

Second, concerning the theoretical significance, the proposed conversion functions may absorb at least two physics constants represented by the two numerical constants in Eqs. 4 and 8. This finding suggests that some physical constants may pertain to how the underlying mechanisms for physical phenomena as described by BM are projected into our world as science is able to measure and understand it.

This situation is as if science studied the screen image of a 3D computer game. With the fantastic mental powers of humans, no doubt a science with trust-worthy physical constants would be created based on examination of the changing screen images. And that science would be a marvelous feat, considering that the sensory systems and measurement devices of the scientists consist of the same sort of pixels as occur on the screen. The reader knows the ending of this story, namely that the mechanisms underlying the impressive screen images are to be found in the computing system that produces them.

Methodological Issues. The major point of the present article is that accurate conversion functions are feasible between BM space and space as conventionally known and measured in physics, enabling use of BM as a research tool. However, the exercise presented does have weaknesses.

For example, a reported upper limit to electron radius was used as the radius, which could introduce serious error in the calculations presented. Further, all the radii values may be considered as somewhat variable or subject to change under varying conditions, both for the BM (d_BM) and experimental/theoretical (d'_Ex) values. For the BM radii values, the number of bits in the respective bit cycles would be expected to change the effective radius of an object such as an electron or proton according to the principles of BM. This sort of variation may correspond to the perceived fuzzy nature of particle wave functions based on quantum mechanical conceptions, as measured by collider particle scattering cross sections.

Nonetheless, considering such possible error factors, the ability to calculate quite accurate estimates of experimentally determined lengths based only on BM postulates and two numeric constants which may represent selected physics constants is impressive (Projected d'_Ex in Table 1). Likewise, the inverse process produced good estimates of BM distances based only on experimental measurements and the equivalent two numeric constants which may represent the same selected physics constants (Scaled d_BM in Table 1).

The accuracy and physical interpretation of the numeric constants in the space mapping Eqs. 4 and 8 may be examined from every angle as investigators explore alternative, but mathematically equivalent, forms for the expressions and apply the conversion functions to different or more accurate data sets.

The BM length constant d. The present preliminary data suggest a value for d, using r_e values where d_BM = approx. 0.866 and d'_Ex = approx. 1.00E-22. Hence,

d = 1.00E-22/0.866 = approx. 1.15E-22 m [Eq. 9]

One implication is that the mechanisms producing physical phenomena as described by BM appear to occupy less physical space than might be presently thought based on experimental length measurements. This is like saying the computing mechanisms producing screen images can be much smaller than their screen displays, a fact which can be easily determined by anybody who has taken apart a flat screen display device or DVD player and found the entire circuit board area to be a small fraction of screen area.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[3] NIST. "Fundamental physics constants -- complete list" 2010.
[4] Demhelt, Hans. "A single atomic particle forever floating at rest in free space: new value for electron radius" January, 1988.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Quantized Electromagnetism

2011-05-27T09:15:00.014-04:00

The quantization of space and time in binary mechanics (BM) [1] may explain mechanisms underlying laws of electromagnetism (EM) [2] and raise new issues. A key criterion for a physics theory explaining phenomena at a more microscopic level such as BM, is that its laws converge on well-established physics laws at more macroscopic levels. For example, quantum electrodynamics reduce to Maxwell's equations at more macroscopic levels; Special Relativity (SR) reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low observer frame velocities compared to the speed of light in vacuum. To what extent is this true for the postulates and laws of BM? Does BM raise new issues or imply predictions of new EM phenomena?

Fig. 1: Surface View of Two Adjacent Spot Cubes

Legend: Each color-coded spot is a 2x2x2 cube of bits. 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). Mites (circles) and lites (arrows and stars). 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.
The EM Plane Wave
Fig. 1 shows a schematic view of the surface of two adjacent spot cubes (left and right). Rows 2 and 3 of the schematic show right and left countercurrent spot unit channels respectively [1].

Consider 1-state bit motion due to the unconditional bit operation in these channels. For example, in row 2 of Fig. 1, imagine a 1-state bit at the leftmost mite with positive sign at X1, Y0, Z0. With each unconditional bit operation, this 1-state bit may move to the right one BM distance unit d. After four movements to the right, the 1-state bit arrives at another mite locus of positive sign. Thus, the wavelength of our EM plane wave is 4d, where d is the BM quantized length unit.

The macroscopic plane wave nature of EM radiation is thought to consist of orthogonal electrostatic and magnetic fields defining a plane which is perpendicular (orthogonal) to the direction of EM wave propagation. On the microscopic level of BM, there is an exact analogy to macroscopically observed EM plane waves.

In the example above, consider a 1-state bit at the Z0 coordinate and a plane perpendicular to its motion to the right.

Fig. 2: Binary EM Plane Wave

Legend: Perpendicular electrostatic (grey) and magnetic (blue) potentials form pulse-like square waves, out of phase, each with 50% duty cycles.
Starting with the mite, its 1-state is postulated to be an electrostatic potential (Table 2 in [1], grey line in Fig. 2), with effect over distance d in a direction perpendicular to the page of Fig. 1. That is, at X2 (not shown), above the surface of the page, is another set of spot unit channels, which are concurrent to those shown in Fig. 1. These concurrent spot units point in the same direction as rows 2 and 3 of Fig. 1, and hence, would look much the same. In short, an electrostatic (scalar) potential accelerates a like-signed mite in a concurrent spot unit. This is the electrostatic component of the plane wave.

When the Z0 1-state mite moves to the Z0 lite locus, this 1-state lite defines a magnetic (vector) potential (blue line in Fig. 2) which acts on a 1-state mite in the adjacent countercurrent spot unit in the X1, Y1, Z0 spot (Fig. 1). Hence, by definition, the magnetic potential is orthogonal to the electrostatic potential and to the direction of wave propagation.

As the 1-state bit moves to the next spot unit in this example at X1, Y0, Z1, both the electrostatic and magnetic components of the EM plane wave change sign, in exact agreement with conceptions of EM radiation at the macroscopic level. First, mite sign is now negative reversing the sign of the electrostatic potential. Second, since mite sign is negative at Z1, sign of the magnetic field also reverses.

The wavelength of this microscopic plane wave is completed at X1, Y0, Z2, where mite sign again reverses the sign of the EM components of the plane wave back to their values at X1, Y0, Z0. Textbook illustrations of the propagation of this plane wave typically show smooth sine waves at a 90 degree angle changing sign as the wave moves along each half wavelength of its propagation direction. At the most microscopic level possible in BM described above, these two smooth sine waves are seen to be more like square waves forming a sequence of EM potential pulses, but otherwise similar to the macroscopic EM plane wave concept.

This analysis in one dimension may be generalized. Each spot unit in any dimension X, Y or Z, may create scalar or vector potentials or both depending on the state of its mite and lite bits, which are postulated to be equivalent to electrostatic and magnetic potentials respectively (Table 2 in [1]). Further, each spot unit can affect only two adjacent spot units over BM distance d by accelerating their 1-state mite bits. If a spot unit has a 1-state mite (electrostatic potential), acceleration of a 1-state mite in its concurrent spot unit may occur. If a spot unit has a 1-state lite (magnetic potential), acceleration of a 1-state mite in its countercurrent spot unit may occur. In both cases, these accelerations are only possible if the affected spot unit has a 0-state lite locus, as required by the postulate that any bit locus may contain only one 1-state bit.

In summary, the macroscopic EM plane wave concept closely fits analysis at the BM microscopic level. BM started with a set of postulates including the EM bit operations which define time-development of BM states. A second step was to try a particular physical interpretation of BM space [3]. Combining these two information sets resulted in the rather clear mechanism underlying EM plane waves presented above. Macroscopic observations of the plane wave nature of EM radiation arise from numbers of 1-state bits propagated through BM space, summing or interfering to produce observed physical effects.

Similar analysis applies to right-to-left motion of a 1-state bit (row 3 of Fig. 1). Considering radiation in both directions in each of three spatial dimensions, a number of interactions may occur due to EM forces as defined in BM. Since electrostatic and magnetic potentials can result in changing the phase of single bits comprising the radiation, they can work to increase or decrease coherence.

Interference would be the most likely result given a degree of randomness (incoherence) in the radiation field (bit distribution). At reduced temperature, there is decreased bit motion due to EM forces by definition and hence, decreased likelihood of decreasing coherence (i.e., increased coherence), which may be one mechanism contributing to superconductivity [4].

Ampere's Law
Ampere's Law states that the magnetic field created by electric current is proportional to that current. 1-state mite motion per unit area per tick may define current, where a tick is the BM fundamental time unit t. Just as d³, where d is the BM fundamental length unit, is the absolute minimum volume of a single bit locus, d² is the absolute minimum possible area. Hence, BM predicts that calculations assuming smaller volumes or areas -- typical in calculus used with assumed continuous space-time, are likely to produce distorted results. This error factor is compounded with assumption of point-like (0-dimensional) particles, which violates the BM principle of absolute minimum volume.

Considering mite motion in the unconditional bit operation tick, each 1-state mite moves to the lite locus in a spot unit. The resulting 1-state lite is equivalent to a vector potential component of the magnetic field. If the mite is 0-state, so will be the resulting lite bit.

In short, the proportionality is perfect, in accordance with Ampere's law. Further, as understood by the author, Ampere was correct to posit that motion of the mite bit was a cause of a magnetic (vector) potential.

However, with quantized space-time in BM, the geometry is somewhat different than might be assumed under the regimen of continuous space-time. Hence, an appropriate homework assignment may be to show that this single-bit analysis provides equivalent results when averaged over a large number of spot units in a larger volume. In this context, it may be relevant that the resulting vector potential above, may accelerate a mite in the countercurrent spot unit in exactly the opposite direction. In this acceleration, the countercurrent mite motion is said to be induced by the magnetic (vector) force.

Coulomb's Law
The electrostatic (so-called scalar) potential is the presence of a mite with a like-signed charge in an adjacent concurrent spot unit (e.g., X2, Y0, Z0 not shown in Fig. 1). The BM scalar force is the product of the two concurrent mite states. If both are 1-state mites, the force evaluates to one. At this single-bit level of analysis, the distance r in Coulomb's law is always one BM distance unit d. Hence, Coulomb's law that the force F is proportional to kq₁q₂/r², where q₁ and q₂ are signed charge values, k is Coulomb's constant and r² is one, is exactly the same as the scalar force at the single mite bit level, where k is also one. Namely, in both Coulomb's law and its BM equivalent, if the scalar potential (q₁ or q₂) is zero, the force is zero.

Since adjacent concurrent mite bits are always like-signed, the effect of the scalar bit operation is to move like-signed mites away from each other. Note that mite bit motion due to the scalar bit operation is exactly in the direction of an opposite signed mite bit locus (Fig. 1). These two effects appear to correspond respectively to the rules that like-signed charges repel each other and opposite-signed charges attract each other.

However, again, the geometry is different with quantized space-time. Since the electrostatic (scalar) bit operation has an effect over only one BM distance unit -- that is, it is as local as it can be in BM space, the r² term in Coulomb's law must represent the average propagation of EM radiation resulting from these bit operations over greater distances, which provides another problem to solve as a homework assignment.

For this problem, consider that each spot unit may contain 1-state bits which are by definition scalar or vector potentials that can influence bit motion in exactly two other spot units -- the concurrent one for the scalar potential and the countercurrent one for the vector potential. That is, the bit states in the three spot units in a spot influence the behavior of bits in six adjacent spot units and so forth. The r² proportionality factor in Coulomb's law has provided an excellect approximation of the extent to which these effects propagate and average over large numbers of spots.

Further Issues
1. The electrostatic (scalar) and magnetic (vector) forces are simply summed in the Lorentz Force law. In contrast, the BM intra-dimensional bit operations -- unconditional, scalar and vector, do not commute and are thought to occur in a sequence of one tick each [5]. Hence, if the application of these bit operations is in fact sequential, then only one sequence can be correct. Further, when averaged on a macroscopic scale, the correct microscopic sequence of these time-development operations would be expected to converge on the Lorentz Force law which states that the EM forces occur simultaneously.

On the other hand, the correct sequence of the intra-dimensional bit opertions might reveal some new physics as experimentalists explore phenomena at increasingly microscopic levels where effects of the hypothesized sequential application of the forces may be observed. In addition, new phenomena may be observed due to the sequential pulsed nature of the single-bit binary plane wave as it propagates (Fig. 2).

2. Whether applied simultaneously or sequentially, the EM bit operations do not sum exactly at higher energies (bit densities). Consider a 1-state mite bit subject to both a scalar and vector potential. It can only be accelerated once to the lite locus in its spot unit in a BM bit operations cycle of 4 ticks -- the unconditional, scalar, vector and strong operators. Hence, the possible forces of the two potentials can result in only one mite motion, as evaluated by the resulting kinetic energy. In such a situation, the forces do not sum, an effect which might well be observable experimentally if sufficiently high energy densities can be achieved. In other words, experimental confirmations of SR may be viewed as supporting BM postulates at the microscopic, single bit level.

3. From SR by Einstein, the observed amplitudes of the electrostatic and magnetic components of the EM four-potential may vary as a function of a moving reference frame of the observer. BM was originally based on the relativistic quantum mechanical Dirac equation and as such has no specific quarrel with the dependence of measured values on the observer's reference frame.

While different observers may assess different amplitudes of the EM potentials as distributed between scalar (electrostatic) and vector (magnetic) components, it is not plausible to suppose that the postulated spot unit mechanisms underlying physical phenomena behave differently merely because of the presence of one or multiple observers, regardless of their reference frame. In this context SR may have more relevance to experimental methodology than to the physical mechanisms of the phenomena observed.

Consistent with SR, BM may explain, at least in part, why observed velocities may not exceed the speed of light in vacuum [6]. First, as described in item #2 above, at higher bit densities, BM predicts that the electrostatic and magnetic components may sum to a force less than predicted by the Lorentz Force law. Second, even if a scalar and vector force on a 1-state mite both evaluate to one, the mite cannot move to its spot unit lite locus if that locus is already in the 1-state, per the postulate that any bit locus can contain only one 1-state bit. This force-motion dissociation between an EM force and whether a 1-state mite moves as a result, is more likely at higher energies (bit densities) and velocities, acting to limit maximum observed velocity. In short, BM may provide systematic descriptions of mechanisms underlying SR, starting with the simple postulate that each instance of absolute minimum volume may have only one of two states - 0 or 1.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Superconductivity in binary mechanics" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" April, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Dark Matter and Energy

2011-05-21T13:59:00.009-04:00

Binary mechanics (BM) [1] provides a rather simple explanation of dark matter and energy. Let us focus on two components of the definition of dark matter in astrophysics, namely matter which (1) has gravitational effects and (2) does not emit electromagnetic (EM) radiation, which suggests the "dark" descriptor for this matter.

The electron spot may serve to present the underlying mechanisms of dark matter.

Fig. 1: Electron Spot XYZ Parity = 111

Fig. 1 from [2] shows a possible physical arrangement of the three spot units in an electron spot. Each spot unit is thought to have a 1dx1dx2d size, where d is the fundamental BM length unit for quantized space. One mite (black circles) and one lite (black arrows) bit locus occupy a 1x1x1 sub-cube of the spot unit. The tick is the BM quantized unit of time. In the unconditional bit operation tick, 1-state mite bits move (shift) to 1-state lite bits within each spatial dimension x, y and z. In the subsequent inter-dimensional, strong bit operation tick [3], these 1-state lite bits may move (scatter) to mite loci (white arrows).

Dark matter is a consequence of how electron spots are populated with 1-state bits.

Fig. 2: Some Electron Spot States

Fig. 2 is a schematic diagram to show several such states, with 0-state (blue) and 1-state (black) bits. Fig. 2A is absolute vacuum -- all 0-state bits. Fig. 2B-2D show stable states with one to three mite bits respectively.

A mite locus may acquire the 1-state by only two mechanisms (purple arrows in Fig. 2). First is an inter-dimensional transition from a 1-state lite bit due to the strong force (white arrows in Fig. 1). Second, incoming bits from right-handed quark spots in the spot cube may shift into mite loci in the unconditional bit motion operation. This second mechanism is equivalent to saying that a 1-state bit has exited a baryon bit cycle [4] and entered an electron bit cycle [2].

By either mechanism, a single bit in an electron spot (Fig. 2B) is thought to be below the electron particle threshold [5] and hence, this state of the electron spot (Fig. 2B) is in the perfect vacuum range. This bit will cycle in the electron bit cycle every twelve ticks and unless disturbed, will not exit the cycle to adjacent right-handed quark spots.

In short, dark matter is born if we assume this single 1-state bit participates in gravitational effects, but no EM radiation is emitted. This assumption is strongly supported by the BM fact that there is nothing else possible except mite and lite bits in a spatial volume. Further support for this sort of mechanism for dark matter may be found in a recent report [6] suggesting that a minimum bit density is required for gravity-like effects to occur.

With two or three mites (Figs. 2C-2D) in an electron spot, two possible particle thresholds for an electron are attained. The threshold of two means two (Fig. 2C) or three (Fig. 2D) mites; the threshold of three means three mites. The physical meaning of particle thresholds is defined as the number of mites required for the particle to be directly detected by sensor devices. Which threshold is the physically correct number is as yet not firmly decided.

In any case, if undisturbed, the range of one to three mites in electron spots all qualify as stable states and as dark matter, since no EM radiation would be emitted (from the electron bit cycle).

Consider the situation where a bit enters an electron spot such that two sequential bits in its cycle are in the 1-state. According to the strong bit operation, two mechanisms could result in emission of one unit of energy (one bit) from the electron spot. First, if the two sequential 1-state bits occupy a single spot unit in the spot, then inertia evaluates to one which disables the strong force resulting in a bit leaving the electron spot in the next unconditional bit operation tick. Second, if one of the sequential bits is a source bit for the strong operation and the other is a destination bit, the strong potential evaluates to zero and the source bit cannot scatter within the electron spot, but instead exits the spot in the next unconditional bit motion operation.

In sum, whether below (Fig. 2B) or above (Fig. 2C or Fig. 2D) electron particle threshold, the exact situations in which matter is dark (not emitting radiation) can be enumerated. A quantitative approach appears to be feasible, either theoretically by tabulating the probabilities for all the permutations of the mechanisms described above, or empirically via use of the BM simulator program.

These mechanisms, with the potential to fully account for the presence of dark matter, would apply to positron and quark spots as well. Notice that a stable or ground state bit pattern in these bit cycles is equivalent to dark matter as conventionally defined, namely no radiation is emitted. This assertion is further equivalent to requiring normal matter to be always luminous, which, of course, it cannot be if energy (radiation) has not been previously absorbed as described above.

This terminology may be sort of messy, since by definition, ground state matter does not emit radiation. So which is it -- dark matter or ordinary matter? Given the kind of precision that BM requires, such terminological issues in physics literature can only cause confusion.

Concerning dark energy, Fig. 2E shows the electron spot state after the unconditional bit motion tick is applied to the state in Fig. 2D. Can we consider the 1-state lite bits as radiated energy within an electron -- energy which has not yet exited an electron spot? If so, are these related to the concept of dark energy?

Both configurations shown in Fig. 2D and 2E are stable states and one might allow that different electron spots may be in either state at a particular time (tick). That is, many electron spots may be out of phase with others. With the electron bit cycle, these two configurations are examples of the complete set where stable electron spots alternate between all-mite and all-lite states. This consideration may invoke the image that an electron alternates between all-matter and all-radiation states, but this description may be more poetry than physics.

At this point, an abundance of caution may be advisable. For example, the idea of dark energy appears to be closely related to a constant in General Relativity where Einstein thought it necessary to jump through a maze of mathematical hoops, including so-called space-time curvature [7], to explain gravity. In BM, it turns out that gravity is probably not even a fundamental or primary force [6], but rather a secondary effect, such as friction, surface tension and the like, of the four fundamental bit operations. Thus, it may be premature to attempt a detailed quantitative approach since some of the assumptions on which dark energy is based may be subject to significant revision.

Estimates of dark matter (and energy) will no doubt not be easy to calculate, given the dependence of the mechanisms described herein on overall bit (energy) density in the volume of interest and the objects it contains. If that volume is the universe, cosmologists might want to attempt to determine the appropriate average values of the probabilities for the dark matter mechanisms described above.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" May, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Baryogenesis

2011-05-20T18:46:00.010-04:00

Baryogenesis is explained in exact detail by binary mechanics (BM) [1] which shows that the half-life of undisturbed (ground state) electrons and protons is infinite in agreement with reported experimental results. The present data presents the creation of protons at energy densities above their particle threshold and their stability as temperature drops to absolute zero Kelvin.

Methods and Results
BM simulation software [2] -- HotSpot 1.28 -- was run in default mode. Fig. 1 plots EdR in the output .csv file, an index highly correlated with proton count, over 300 simulator Ticks.

Fig. 1: Proton Counts vs Simulator Ticks

With the default parameters, bit operations are applied in the USVF order [3] and BOX mode is off allowing escape of bits from the simulated space. At Tick 0, bit density was 0.258, expressed as proportion absolute maximum bit (energy) density, below the antiproton threshold [3] [4]. As bits exited the simulated volume, bit density decreased to 0.213 at Tick 290 where absolute zero temperature occurred -- ((S+V)/Mites)^2 in .csv output file [5].

By about Tick 80, temperature fell by 1000x and yet baryogenesis had not yet completed (reached maximum EdR counts). By Tick 150, temperature decreased by another 30x factor and a relatively stable level of EdR counts was seen.

The major wavelength of the highest amplitude oscillation of EdR counts during Ticks 150 to 300 was exactly 7 simulator Ticks (28 BM ticks).

Fig. 2: Positron Counts vs Simulator Ticks

During the entire period shown in Fig. 1, bit density is about 3 times greater than the positron particle threshold [3] [4]. Nonetheless, positron counts (e+R in output .csv file) decreased (Fig. 2) as protons were formed in the first 150 Ticks (Fig. 1).

Fig. 3: Proton Counts with BOX mode ON for Ticks 1 - 150

With BOX mode ON, bits exiting the simulated volume are reinjected to simulate a perfectly reflective wall and hence, bit density remains fairly constant. With BOX mode OFF, bit density is falling (Fig. 1). Fig. 3 shows that the higher average bit density with BOX mode ON caused (1) the rate of baryogensis to increase and (2) higher peak EdR (proton) counts, as might be expected from previous results [4].

With BOX mode turned OFF at Tick 150, the proton counts dropped as temperature decreased during Ticks 151 - 300 (Fig. 2), but remained at a higher level than seen with BOX mode OFF in the entire period (Fig. 1).

Discussion
Whether bit density and temperature is held fairly constant (BOX mode ON, Fig. 3) or allowed to decrease (BOX mode OFF, Fig. 1), proton counts attained a constant average level, consistent with experimental findings of extremely long, if not infinite, proton half-life.

The time (Tick count) in which bits reorganize themselves due to the fundamental bit operations of BM from the semi-random initial state in the present data, is probably not of general significance. For one thing, it is not certain what physical situation is represented by the initial random bit pattern. Perhaps it is similar to the debris of a violent explosion. In any case, the ability of BM bit operations to rather quickly organize the bits into a stable set of elementary particles which are maintained as temperature drops to absolute zero is impressive.

The oscillations seen in proton counts were exactly 28 ticks where temperature, and hence, disturbing influences of electromagnetic (EM) forces (heat), were allowed to decrease toward absolute zero Kelvin (Fig. 1). 28 ticks is exactly 1/3 of the central baryon bit cycle during which bits exit from, and then return to, the proton's spot cube 3 times [6]. The present operational definition of a proton was the EdR count, based on the criterion of at least two 1-state mite bits per each of three right-handed, matter quark spots in a spot cube. Hence, these counts would be expected to decrease as bits exited a spot cube 3 times per the central baryon bit cycle and increase again as they reentered the particular spot cube. In sum, the count oscillations do not necessarily represent destruction and recreation of protons per se, but rather a need to upgrade the proton count procedure in the simulation software.

The role of the positron in baryogenesis is further clarified by the present results. In BM, the positron is thought to be an essential ingredient in protons (Table 3 in [1]).

Two other facts may further emphasize the positron role in protons and nuclear physics. First, the three bit cycles which originate from positron spots connect a single positron in a spot cube with all six of the neighboring spot cubes [7]. Second, three of the seven proton bit loops cycle through the positron spot in the proton's spot cube [7].

In short, an integral role for the so-called antimatter positron in ordinary matter protons seems well established. A new result in the present report, comparing Figs. 1 and 2, is that positrons may be absorbed into protons, as positron counts decreased while proton counts increased.

The mechanism for this positron-proton effect involves particular synchronization of bit cycling which may be considered as most stable. In view of the facts cited above, positron counts may decrease when the bit cycling does not favor meeting the count criterion of two 1-state mites in a spot cube's positron spot. Hence, bits may still travel through positron spots, but below their particle threshold. Apparently, this effect favors a more stable pattern of bits in the seven proton bit cycles, one of which is the central baryon cycle, shared by all six quark spots in a spot cube.

Stability (or ground state energy level) may be defined in several ways. Probably the most important is lack of inertia [8]. For bit counts to reach the proton criterion, the strong force must not be disabled else bits will leave their present bit cycle. Hence, the presence of inertia is one factor with can cause bits to exit a cycle. An important destination of these exiting bits is neighboring spot cubes which leads to a systematic and easily detailed process where an exited nucleon emits energy (bits) which favor forming neighboring nucleons for higher Z atoms or ions.

Another factor is number of bits in the cycles. As one example, the central baryon bit cycle is 84 ticks and thus, may contain up to 84 1-state bits. However, in just one bit operations cycle (4 ticks), this highly excited and unstable state would emit 42 units of energy (bits) since the strong force would evaluate to zero in all cases. This is equivalent to saying that scattering required for bit cycling is disabled.

A third factor is the spacing among 1-state bits in a bit cycle (baryon or lepton). Two sequential bits results in a tick where inertia will be one and hence, the strong force disabled and a bit of energy will be emitted from the bit cycle.

Applying the foregoing considerations to the electron bit cycle -- a simpler case involving only one spot [9], one can deduce that a maximum of three non-sequential 1-state bits are a stable ground state. Non-sequential means that all three are mites or as the unconditional and strong bit operations alternate, all three are lites. If this condition is met, the electron will never have two sequential 1-state bits, and hence, inertia will always evaluate to zero, and the strong force is always one in alternate operator applications.

Thus, for the electron, it follows that any 1-state bit absorbed by (entering) such a three-bit stable electron spot, will cause immediately (in the next operator cycle) a 1-state bit to be emitted (exit the electron cycle). Similar considerations, with a more complex set of possible permutations, apply to the baryon bit cycles.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" March, 2011.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Physics Glossary

2011-05-14T04:49:00.027-04:00

The theory of binary mechanics (BM) [1] quantizes space and time. As a result, many familiar physics principles and phenomena are explained at a new level of detail and redefined to some extent. Hence, a physics glossary may be a useful guide.

As a physical theory, or more specifically a theory of everything or grand unification, BM has no known competition by the key criterion of simplicity or parsimony [2]. The universe is proposed to consist of a single fundamental object called the spot unit which consists of two binary bits -- mite and lite. The spot unit must contain mechanisms including to set its bit states to one or zero according to the fundamental bit operations of BM and to attach to other spot units to form spots (3 spot units) and spot cubes (8 spots), which in turn form a cubic spatial lattice [3].

The present glossary may begin to bridge some gaps between conventional thinking in modern physics and the essentials of BM. For references, articles in this informal journal of BM will be cited. The reader is invited to research current physics terminology in many fine books and internet sources such as Wikipedia which are readily available.

Pauli Exclusion Principle
At perhaps the most basic level, the Pauli exclusion principle is explained by the BM postulate that any bit locus in space may have only one of two states: one or zero. More familiar to physicists is the BM description of how elementary particles such as fermions including electrons and protons cannot occupy the same quantum mechanical (QM) state. For example, two electrons cannot occupy a single location in space at a particular time.

This principle follows from the BM assignment of one or more spots in which a particle may reside (Table 3 in [1]). For example, electrons occupy electron spots; positrons occupy positron spots. Nucleons occupy a spot cube, only one at a time. In short, BM completely explains the Pauli exclusion principle.

However, perspective changes in BM which postulates that spots which may specifically contain an electron preexist and an electron particle can exist only when a threshold number (2 or 3) of 1-state mite bits occupy one of those spots. This concept is somewhat different than the conventional idea that an electron exists and may move from one location to another. In BM, 1-state bits move, one at a time, which is grossly equivalent to an electron particle moving, at least before this process is analyzed in more detail [4].

Fermi Repulsion
Fermi repulsion, sometimes called exchange interaction, is a simple consequence of the postulate that one electron spot can contain only one electron and one spot cube can contain only one nucleon [1] [5].

The explanation for the rigidity of nucleons is therefore simple: each proton or neutron occupies a spot cube (with interactions with neighboring cubes) which each have a finite, definite spatial volume, which is the basis for limits to which matter -- electrons and nucleons -- can be compressed. Further, the finding that neutrons are more "rigid" than protons follows directly from the BM model, since addition of an electron to the spot cube occupied by a proton almost completely fills the cube. Thus, BM predicts specific limits to which electrons and neutrons can be compressed -- that is, a maximum number of particles per unit volume. Further, the rigidity of electrons and neutrons per their defining spot volumes should be equal.

The foregoing ideas illustrate a general theme that BM imposes a rather strict discipline to physics thinking. For example, quantities such as absolute maximum energy density, temperature and pressure are predicted [2]. In the good old days of continuous space and time, theorists could assume almost any values for these key variables including infinity (see Singularities). With BM, those days are gone. Assumption of continuous space-time has provided quite accurate agreement with experimental results in Newtonian, classic physics at macroscopic levels and in QM at atomic levels. However, BM is clearly needed to obtain more accurate results and increased understanding at the nuclear physics level, where it may be evident that the classic notion of continuous space-time is obsolete.

Space-Time Curvature
Space-time curvature, as postulated in the General Theory of Relativity by Einstein,
is not necessarily incompatible with the spatial model of BM. To the extent that General Relativity is consistent with experimental data, one might speculate that it is an equivalent, but different representation of BM space and possible states. If so, investigators should be able to represent space-time curvatures of particular physical interest as corresponding bit patterns in BM space. In other words, tensors in General Relativity field equations may be interpreted as space-time curvature or more simply, as bit patterns in BM space.

Granting that the space-time curvature interpretation is more sexy, theatrical and stimulating to the imagination, nonetheless, the bottom line appears to be that all the physical phenomena predicted by Einstein's field equations may be rather easily explained by much simpler effects in BM, which can be treated in a separate article. For example, so-called gravitational lensing most probably is a simple consequence of photon scattering (see Scattering) [1].

This subject highlights another theme in this glossary that attachment to the concept of continuous (non-quantized) space and time has caused theoretical physics to enter into what now seem to be needless complications, not to mention blatant contradictions with both fact and common sense.

Singularities
In brief, singularities, where physical quantities may be evaluated as infinity, do not exist in physics.

Some QM solutions result in such infinities. Instead of rethinking assumptions, such as continuous space-time, researchers have rather employed another math operation called renormalization purportedly to fix the problem.

Gravitational singularities have been defined as space-time points where matter may have an infinite density and zero volume due to gravitational forces. According to BM, this is science fiction. First, BM postulates an absolute maximum energy density. Second, BM predicts an absolute minimum volume, namely a bit locus cube of dimension 1d where d is the BM fundamental length constant.

In sum, these BM postulates suggest a potentially useful heuristic rule. If a physics theory contains singularities, it is probably wrong.

Gravity
Present BM thinking is that gravity is not a fundamental or primary force at all, but rather a consequence of the four fundamental bit operations which exactly define time development of BM states [6].

Very preliminary BM results which may pertain to gravitation showed that (1) objects moved in the direction of higher bit density near their surface with a definite minimum density required and (2) repulsive forces opposed further motion of objects toward each other when the inter-object space attained a definite higher bit density.

Regarding the first finding above, all else equal, bit density between two objects will obviously be greater than in any other direction and hence, each object will tend to move toward the other. Further, these results suggest the BM prediction that gravity-like effects depend on object surface temperature which must be greater than absolute zero to supply the radiated energy (bits) required to establish a greater bit density between two objects compared to any other direction from the center of mass (or bits) of each object.

To the extent that Casimir attraction may be a mini-model of a gravity-like effect, Obrecht et al. have provided support for this BM prediction by observation of increased Casimir effect attraction with increased temperature [10].

In summary, BM suggests that gravity joins the weak force as non-primary derivative forces such as friction, mechanical stress and the like. Would Einstein have postulated space-time curvature if it had been clear that gravity is not a primary force? After all, analysts of secondary forces such as mechanical stress and surface tension may use tensor expressions to quantify experimental results without any space-time curvature interpretation.

Perfect Vacuum
A perfect vacuum is conventionally defined as a volume free of atoms or ions. In BM, the bit (energy) density of a volume may vary from zero to maximum saturation which is six 1-state bits per spot (two 1-state bits per spot unit). It appears that most of our science is based on experience with a rather small portion of the total possible range of energy density. Consider that a logical consequence of BM postulates is an absolute maximum energy (bit) density, which appears to be a new concept in physics. At least, the author has not seen the idea even broached, much less part of the stock lexicon of modern physics. If there be any doubt on this point, consider further that absolute maximum temperature [7] at an energy density far below maximum density is also absent in modern treatments of thermodynamics.

Use of the term "perfect vacuum" suggests a paucity of current understanding. If the proton formation threshold is at about 0.11 of absolute maximum density [8] [9], the so-called perfect vacuum may be seen as a very busy energy range. For example, the electron and positron thresholds appear to be in the perfect vacuum range.

BM clarifies the composition of perfect vacuum -- namely, a number of mite and lite bits, mostly cycling in electron and baryon bit cycles. Whatever fields that theorists posit must therefore be patterns of bit distribution and the degree of synchronization of cycling bits. The good news is that BM provides the simplest irreducible representation of physical phenomena as the playing field for theorists -- the 2-bit spot unit as the single fundamental building block of physical reality.

Since the so-called perfect vacuum is amply populated with 1-state bits, the zero density state has been denoted by the separate term -- absolute vacuum. This BM fact may be used to define dark matter and energy in the only way possible -- as distributions of mite and lite bits in BM space.

Speed of Light in Vacuum
In a BM absolute vacuum, EM radiation (light) is entirely absorbed by the vacuum to fill a sufficient number of electron and baryon bit cycles mostly below respective particle thresholds. In short, absolute vacuum is opaque, and probably exists to a very limited extent in nature. To wit, we do see stars.

Hence, the important constant denoted by "speed of light in vacuum" actually refers to radiation conducted through a volume abundantly filled with 1-state bits, even if below the baryon (proton) particle threshold, expressed in units of maximum bit density.

An obvious consequence of BM is the rapidly decreasing probability that light (photons) transmits in a straight line over distance due to scattering which can occur at almost any bit density range. In other words, the constant c, the speed of light in vacuum, must be well below maximum bit velocity [2].

In short, the phrase "speed of light in vacuum" may be rather misleading, since any light that arrives at destination B from source A can arrive in only one way, by bit motion through lepton and quark spots. That is, these spots "absorb" and "emit" energy in this conduction process from A to B, regardless of whether overall bit density exceeds particular particle thresholds. It might be evident that this conduction process itself has a density threshold where the vacuum becomes relatively transparent to light. In fact, at the lower densities of partial vacuum in outer space, light scattering may occur more frequently than at much higher densities.

Strong Nuclear Force
The strong force, also known as the strong interaction, nuclear force or color force, corresponds to the strong bit operation in BM. With the BM description of the internal structure of leptons, including the lowest mass electron and positron, inter-dimensional bit motion due to the strong force is seen to occur in both leptons and baryons such as protons and neutrons. Hence, the relevance of the strong force is clearly not limited to atomic nuclei [5]. Indeed, at bit densities below electron and/or proton particle thresholds, bit cycling in the perfect vacuum depends on the strong and unconditional bit operations which among other things, enable light transmission at its bit density threshold, else space would be completely opaque (no romantic twinkling stars and moon light).

In the Standard Model with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the strong force addresses apparent quark attraction mediated by gluons, a phenomenon called color confinement. While the BM basis for baryons does document bit cycles in which quark mite and gluon lite bits generally alternate over time (successive quantized ticks) [5], it is perhaps fair to say that the QCD treatment of the subject is vague and crude compared to the exact time-development detail provided by BM.

In addition, while quarks may appear to attract each other, quarks correspond to spots in spot cubes populated by a sufficient number of binary bits to reach particle threshold [2] [8]. What does happen is that 1-state bits (energy) can be captured in baryon bit cycles, which is the underlying mechanism producing the appearance that these cycling bits attract each other forming particles such as protons and neutrons.

Mechanisms underlying the spatial extent of the strong force, as described by the Yukawa potential, were presented in the original 1994 paper on BM [1]. The binding of nucleons in atomic nuclei and ions, called the residual nuclear force, may correspond to the portions of the spot unit path of the central baryon bit cycle that venture into neighboring spot cubes.

Scattering
The strong force is the only time-development bit operation that changes the direction of 1-state bit motion in BM. Such interdimensional bit motion results in a nominally 90 degree change in direction. This scattering effect at the microscopic single bit level should not be confused with the more macroscopic particle interactions causing particle scattering over a range of angles, which is thought to represent the aggregate result of a large number of elementary BM scattering events along with actions of the electrostatic (scalar), magnetic (vector) and unconditional bit operations over multiple tick intervals.

In electron spots, scattering due to the strong force are lite-to-mite transitions. In positron spots, scattering transitions are all mite-to-lite. In the six quark spots, mite-to-mite and lite-to-lite transitions occur. Hence, the speculation that a phenomenon such as gravitational lensing might be more simply explained by simple bit operations which result in photon scattering, may refer as much to this single bit level scattering as to photon interaction with formed particles.

Particles such as the electron and proton can exist in an absolute vacuum without any EM forces (scalar and vector bit operations) since their constitutent bits are trapped in bit cycles resulting entirely from the unconditional and strong bit operations [5]. This single bit scattering causes bit loops with infinite life-times if not disturbed by incoming 1-state bits.

Big Bang Theory
The body of work in the Big Bang sector of astrophysics may require some basic rewriting in light of BM fundamentals. For example, in a very early time period, some models assume infinite energy densities and temperatures, although there is not universal agreement on this point. In any case, according to BM, neither energy density nor temperature can surpass their absolute maximum values, much less be infinite. In short, beware of proposed values for energy density, temperature and pressure at the earliest phases of the Big Bang; odds are that they are complete science fiction.

Another spurious notion is the creation and destruction of particle–antiparticle pairs in collisions. Aside from Big Bang theory, it is evident in BM that such pairs are neither necessarily created or destroyed together, much less collide. For example, electrons reside in electron spots and positrons in positron spots and they therefore do not collide as might be commonly understood. On the other hand, bits emitted from electron or positron spots might interact per BM bit operations. In any case, contrary to Big Bang notions, ordinary matter particles such as electrons and protons form at relatively low energy densities as described above. Same for antimatter particles, which appear at different, not the same, somewhat higher energy densities. In brief, the notion of simultaneous particle-antiparticle creation would appear to have limited applicability, if any at all.

Further science fiction in Big Bang thinking involves assertion that the purportedly

unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons -— of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe [11].

In BM, baryogenesis is not an "unknown reaction", but a process which may be described in complete and exact detail. Furthermore, baryogenesis does not require any extreme conditions as might be proposed for early phases of a Big Bang. Instead, baryogenesis is a routine process seen at partial vacuum energy density levels.

If anything, extreme high energy densities result in breakdown of formed matter into quark-lepton plasmas in BM, exactly the opposite of certain Big Bang thinking.

Further, according to BM, matter asymmetry, where matter exceeds antimatter, is explained by the elementary concepts of BM and simulation experiments show that matter significantly out-numbers antimatter over almost the entire energy density range from zero to absolute maximum. Hence, "a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons" billions of years ago in the early universe is essentially pure nonsense having nothing whatever to do with present matter asymmetry.

Here is an appropriate homework assignment for students of physics. And once a student, always a student; so PhD physicists working in astrophysics may be included. The assignment: document the absurdity of many other statements in Big Bang thinking as revealed by BM fundamentals.

String Theory
If the reader thinks that building an entire universe based on a single fundamental object called the spot unit in BM is difficult, think again. The various string theories are the poster-child for the glossary theme mentioned above -- needless complexity.

At first glance, string theories may appear to be going backwards where electrons and quarks are considered to be 1-dimensional objects, whereas in BM, these particles are treated as 3-dimensional objects. This apparent going backwards may invoke the image of 21st century scientists saying that the earth is flat after all, and not round.

Anyway, a 1-dimensional particle may be considered by some to be a step forward from the concept of 0-dimensional particles, namely the fantastic idea that particles are actually points. In this context, string theories have only two more spatial dimensions to go to join the rest of us in a 3D world.

But wait. A summary of superstring theories, known as M theory, postulates that the 1-dimensional strings are actually parts of a 2-dimensional surface which can oscillate in -- are you ready? -- a some ten or more dimensional space-time.

The author is not aware of any attempt to evaluate the plausibility of building a universe with these things. Would a tiny floating point calculator or supercomputer be required at each point in spacetime? It almost goes without saying that building a universe with nothing but BM spot units might be a piece of cake compared to the mind-boggling complexity of such string theory efforts. A theory of everything, as a sort of plan to build a universe, might address key questions: "Is this feasible?" "Is this plausible?"

One might add that the assumption of continuous space-time would make such a project -- building a universe -- even more difficult using such strings, compared to the BM spot unit with its finite volume in quantized space of 1dx1dx2d where d is the BM length unit.

One might be able to begin to comprehend how many spot units would be needed for a universe as known in astrophysics. One might begin to comprehend what sort of pullies, sensors, ratchets, gears, springs, fasteners and whatnot might be needed, figuratively speaking, to construct a working spot unit, all packed into its finite, small volume. On the other hand, what is the size of these string things and what internal mechanics must they have? And then, the figurative question, "Is there any contractor who can build them?" If not, no universe.

String theories may turn out to be one of the strongest factors favoring the acceptance of quantized space and time as postulated in BM, according to the "when all else fails..." rule.

Quantization Asymmetry
String theories may well be excellent examples of a behavioral phenomenon which can be dubbed quantization asymmetry, defined as physical theories at the atomic and nuclear levels that quantize almost everything except space and time. The author cannot recall seeing any justification for this assumed asymmetry in QM and QCD. In summary, BM may be seen as an instance of quantization asymmetry breaking, so to speak, since it implements quantization symmetry.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Electron acceleration and quantized velocity" April, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Bit operations order" May, 2011.
[10] Obrecht, J. M., R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and E. A. Cornell "Measurement of the temperature dependence of the Casimir-Polder force" Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063201 February, 2007.
[11] Wikipedia. "Big bang" May, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Bit Operations Order

2011-05-11T08:01:00.009-04:00

Bit operations in binary mechanics (BM) [1] determine the time-development of BM states. The four operations -- unconditional (U), scalar (S, electrostatic), vector (V, magnetic) [2] and strong (F) [3], are thought to occur in separate time intervals (BM ticks) and therefore are applied sequentially. The bit operations do not commute, since the results of any operation can affect results of the others. Hence, only one bit operations order can be a correct representation of all physical phenomena. This report examines some key results as a function of permutations of bit operation order and inertia in the strong force.

Table 1: Effects of Bit Operation Order and Inertia

Legend: Electrons (e-L), positrons (e+R), protons (EdR) and antiprotons (EdL). For mean and std. error, n = 12 (yellow and blue) and n=6 (green)
Methods
A perturbation method with a 48x48x48 spot cube was used to measure events starting from low bit density (0.009) increasing density by a similar amount with each BM simulator Tick, as described in more detail in reports on absolute maximum temperature [4] and vacuum thresholds [5].The BM simulator -- HotSpot 1.28 was used, in Expt. 2 mode, with options to select USVF or VUSF bit operations order (G key) and to toggle inertia effects in the strong force (I key) OFF or ON. The other bit operations orders shown in Table 1 were obtained with temporary program modifications. The four bit operations are thought to cycle over time and the present data set has the inter-dimensional strong force F applied last, since the starting point for each operations cycle is arbitrary, with present knowledge. Hence, the permutations of interest were the three intra-dimensional bit operations U, S and V. For each of the six permutations of their order, data was collected with inertia ON or OFF (Table 1).

Particle thresholds (e-L, e+R, EdR and EdL in Table 1) were set to the simulator default of two mites as described previously [5] and expressed as proportion maximum bit density (e.g., d(e-L) for electrons). Each particle threshold was defined as five successive non-zero simulator Ticks with the proportion maximum bit density for the middle Tick in the set recorded as the threshold density (Table 1).

Temperature was computed as kinetic energy due to electromagnetic (EM) forces (S and V bit operations), as described previously [4].

Results
Matter Particles. Neither bit operation order or inertia ON or OFF substantially affected bit density threshold for matter particles. (1) The lowest thresholds -- mean = 0.0056 for d(e-L) -- were for electrons (yellow in Table 1). (2) A similar result, at a higher mean threshold of 0.1111, was found for matter baryons EdR thought to be mostly protons (blue in Table 1). In sum, the particle thresholds for the common matter particles of electrons and protons were not clearly affected by bit operation order or usage of inertia to condition the strong force.

AntiMatter Particles. With inertia ON, the density thresholds for positrons d(e+R) and antiprotons d(EdL) were higher than their respective matter particles (green in Table 1). (1) The positron threshold mean = 0.0716 was an order of magnitude greater than the electron threshold. The antiproton thresholds mean = 0.2756 were some 2 to 3 times greater than the proton thresholds. With inertia OFF, the antimatter thresholds were substantially greater for every operation permutation for both positrons and antiprotons (p <= 0.016, binomial distribution).

Temperature. The proportion maximum density for absolute maximum temperature d(Max T) did not show notable differences considering bit operations order (green in Table 1). However, with inertia OFF, maximum temperature was found at a significantly higher bit density in every case (p <= 0.016, binomial distribution).

Temperature, expressed as a proportion of absolute maximum temperature, at which proton formation occurred T@d(EdR) was always greater (green) with inertia ON, compared to the inertia OFF condition.

Force Strength. Fig. 1 shows bit motion counts due to scalar (S), vector (V) and strong (F) forces as a function of proportion maximum bit (energy) density, with the VUSF operator order and inertia ON (row 5, Table 1).

Fig. 1: Force Bit Motion Counts vs Proportion Maximum Density

At densities below about 0.3 of maximum, the strong force and unconditional bit motion (not shown) dominate bit motion counts. Around bit density 0.2, bit motion due to scalar and vector forces, namely kinetic energy related to temperature, increase dramatically, with scalar force motion counts far exceeding vector force counts.

At about 0.43 energy density, electrostatic (S) force strength began to exceed the strong force strength, as quantified by bit motion counts. At about absolute maximum temperature [4] at 0.62 of maximum bit density, magnetic (V) forces begin to exceed the strong force. Table 1 sums the S and V bit motion counts, for the total EM effect, and reports that EM force strength became greater than the strong force (F) at 0.40 of maximum energy density.

For all six permutations of bit operations order, the bit density at which EM force strength exceeded strong force strength, as measured with bit motion counts, was lower with inertia ON, compared to the inertia OFF condition (Table 1).

Discussion
Strong Force Conditioned by Inertia. Inertia has been defined in BM as the product of the mite and lite states in a spot unit [1] [3]. Inertia equal to 1 in the spot unit containing the source bit for the strong potential was proposed to disable the strong force and thereby prevent scattering. This factor would facilitate bit motion out of electron [6] and proton [7] bit cycles.

In the present study, regardless of bit operation order, the inertia ON condition produced lower antimatter particle thresholds expressed in proportion maximum energy density. With inertia ON, the positron threshold was lower than the proton threshold, which may be significant since proton formation requires positrons (Table 3 in [1]). While this argument may not be enough to be fully convincing, it does favor use of inertia ON in the strong bit operation as more likely to produce correct physical results.

For all permutations of bit operations order, inertia ON was also found to (1) lower the energy density at which absolute maximum temperature occurred, (2) increase the temperature at which baryons such as protons are formed, and (3) reduce the energy (bit) density at which bit motion due to EM forces exceeds motion due to the strong force.

Matter Asymmetry. The BM basis for the asymmetry between matter and antimatter may be further clarified by the present results. Matter creation for electrons and protons occurred at substantially lower energy densities than those required for antimatter positrons and antiprotons (Table 1). Variation of the order of the unconditional, scalar and vector bit operations did not produce the marked effects seen with variation of inertia ON and OFF. This suggests that the BM explanation for matter asymmetry lies in the the more fundamental postulates defining spot units, eight spot types, and their physical arrangement in BM space.

On the other hand, the permutations of bit operation order focused on what might be correct physics for the EM forces while the dependent variables in the present study pertain mostly to particle creation. In other words, different experiments or analyses may be needed to distinguish which order is correct. Preliminary results suggest that the gravity effect [8] occurs most clearly with the USVF rather than the VUSF order. One might speculate that a bit operator order which does not produce a gravity effect must be excluded.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Gravity looses primary force status" April, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Ideal Gas Law: Limited Density Range

2011-05-05T02:12:00.015-04:00

A major result of binary mechanics (BM) [1] is the limited energy density range over which some basic thermodynamic laws apply. This report examines this result presenting BM simulator data pertaining to the BM prediction of absolute maximum pressure [2]. Previous reports found absolute maximum temperature at energy densities far below their absolute maximum [3] [4]. It follows that the energy density range over which the ideal gas law is applicable is limited. Specifically, the ideal gas constant R is far from constant over the full energy density range from zero to maximum. Over a significant portion of this range, work in nuclear physics has quantified this variation in the gas constant with different GAMMA values.

Methods and Results
Fig. 1 plots pressure as a function of energy (bit) density where 0 and 1 represent zero pressure and energy density and one represents maximum possible values.

Fig. 1: Pressure (y-axis) vs Energy Density (x-axis)

The data set defining vacuum thresholds was used in this report [5]. This data was generated with application of bit operations in the VUSF order: vector, unconditional, scalar and strong respectively.

Pressure was operationally defined as number of bits exiting the simulated spatial volume per simulator Tick (OutBits column in the .csv output file) scaled by its absolute maximum value. Since a cubic volume was simulated where the surfaces were orthogonal to spot unit alignment, each bit exiting the volume may be seen as one unit of force applied to the surface, in agreement with the conventional definition of pressure.

As further confirmation of this operational definition of pressure, a subsequent report on blackbody radiation in preparation will show that BM produces a linear relation between pressure and the product of temperature and energy density using the ideal gas law in one of its possible applicable density ranges, where previously defined operational definitions of temperature and energy density were used.

Fig. 1 shows that pressure and energy density each have absolute maximum values and that the relation between pressure and energy density over the entire range from zero to maximum is proportional, but not linear. Instead, visual inspection reveals at least six different slopes. This finding is an early warning, so to speak, that all is not well in traditional thermodynamics in terms of its applicable energy density range or that BM may be fundamentally flawed.

At energy densities below about 0.1, in the perfect vacuum range but above the electron threshold [5], the pressure-energy slope may represent an electron gas. This slope is approximately the same in the 0.1 to 0.2 partial vacuum range where protons and perhaps hydrogen and other low-Z ions and atoms begin to form [5]. In this density range, the results probably represent mostly a hydrogen gas.

Above the Thermal II threshold at about 0.2 bit density [5], at least two different pressure-energy slopes were found, up to about 0.55 density. In the final approach to absolute maximum temperature (approx. 0.55 to 0.6 density), pressure rise per density increment drops to a lower level (slope).

Above absolute maximum temperature at about 0.62 energy density [4], pressure again increased at a faster rate per density increment, which corresponds to the range where both matter and anti-matter baryon counts increase dramatically as available bit loci are filled with 1-state mite and lite bits [5].

Fig. 2: Pressure (y-axis) vs Temperature (x-axis)

Fig. 2 plots pressure as a function of temperature, as defined previously as average kinetic energy due to bit motion caused by electromagnetic (EM) forces (heat) -- the ((S+V)/Mites)^2 column in the simulator output file.

Below the approximate baryon threshold at about 0.1 density, in the electron gas range, a complex, non-linear pressure-temperature relation was observed. Then, over a rather wide range, a much more linear pressure-temperature slope occurred, starting at the baryon threshold up to about 0.55 density close to absolute maximum temperature at 0.6 density.

With the ideal gas law, pressure P is purported to be a function of density (Fig. 1) and temperature (Fig. 2):

P = R(n/V)T

where R is the ideal gas constant, n/V is density and T is temperature.

Fig. 3: Pressure (y-axis) vs Energy Density x Temperature(x-axis)

The slope of the curve shown in Fig. 3 is the ideal gas constant R which obviously is not constant. For example, above 0.9 pressure, R was found to be negative. On the other hand, in the approximate 0.3 to 0.65 pressure range, the slope and hence, the ideal gas constant R, were nearly constant.

In this pressure range, the two independent variables -- energy density and temperature -- are highly redundant. Namely, their product moment correlation is 0.994. That is, either so-called independent variable accounts for some 0.987 (0.994 squared) of the variance of the other.

Discussion
The present results suggest that the ideal gas law was most applicable over a somewhat limited pressure range of about 0.30 to 0.65 where the ideal gas constant R was fairly constant. This range is above the Thermal II threshold [5] where our lives and laboratories most likely are located and well below absolute maximum temperature. In other words, it may be no surprise that thermodynamic laws and concepts were developed based on experience in this pressure range.

This historical development of the work of many great experimentalists has had many consequences. For example, in conventional modern physics, there seems to be essentially no appreciation of any upper limits to key variables such as energy density, temperature and pressure, which, of course, can lead to misleading estimates based on the faulty assumption that the ideal gas constant is in fact constant over any pressure, energy or temperature range. As a result, purely fictional values for one or more of these variables above their absolute maximums may be plugged into equations yielding entirely fictional results.

Indeed, according to BM, a more complete and accurate account of physical events requires better understanding of the range of possible phenomena in the context of absolute maximum energy density, temperature and pressure.

The product-moment correlation between pressure and energy density (Fig. 1) was 0.984 which means that some 96.8 percent of pressure variance (100 x 0.984^2) is accounted for by energy density alone over the entire range of possible densities. Indeed, high energy and nuclear physicists have appreciated this rule of thumb writing equations of state (EOS) such as

P = GAMMA * n/V

where P is pressure, GAMMA is a constant and n/V is total energy density in the ideal gas law [6]. GAMMA represents (1 - gamma) where gamma varies in empirical measurements depending on factors such as the composition of n/V -- the material in a particular volume.

In the present notation, 1-state bit count n in the EOS above is usually written as the total energy U. In short, for decades, nuclear physics has implicitly recognized (1) the BM definition of energy content in a volume, namely the proportion of maximum bit (energy) density [2], without explicit awareness that a maximum value exists and (2) GAMMA, namely dP/dU (using U for energy E) over a more extended energy density range within its zero to maximum limits, varies as a function of both energy density, as reported above in Fig. 1, and the materials used.

In sum, gamma (1 - GAMMA in the EOS) is a composite variable, but might more specifically represent an attribute of a particular atomic element (e.g., uranium) if pressure or energy density is held constant (or factored out).

With the advent of BM, the stage is now set to further elucidate the exact mechanisms which may explain specific gamma values for specific materials, which previously have been based more on empirical measurements than theoretical understanding [6].

Of course, this sort of approximate EOS does not explicitly recognize either (1) substantial variation of the non-constant GAMMA over the entire density range or (2) upper limits to possible density or pressure (Fig. 1). However, the expression does assert that if one variable has an upper limit (absolute maximum) -- pressure or density, the other variable also has an upper limit.

If attention is focused on the limited pressure range described above in which the ideal gas constant R is fairly constant (0.30 - 0.65), the high correlation (0.994) of the two independent variables -- energy density and temperature, implies two pressure estimates using the ideal gas constant R:

P = R(n/V)² or P = RT²

That is, in this pressure range, from a practical or engineering point of view, pressure might be estimated using the ideal gas constant R with either energy density or temperature, whichever item might be more accurate or available.

Table 1 summarizes and interprets some results in this pilot thermodynamics study by enumerating some pressure ranges defined by clearly different pressure increment per energy density increment (dP/dE).

Table 1: Pressure Ranges by dP/dE
Pressure Comment
0.00-0.11 Electron gas
0.11-0.21 Baryogenesis; proton and hydrogen gas
0.21-0.47 Hydrogen and low-Z atomic and ionic particles
0.47-0.74 Higher-Z atoms; increased dP/dT (Fig. 2)
0.74-0.78 Decreased dP/dE at absolute maximum temperature range
0.78-0.90 Temperature decreasing while density and pressure increase
0.90-1.00 Ideal gas constant turns negative at 0.9 pressure
How could pressure increase above the 0.78 level even though temperature is decreasing? This apparently paradoxical result arises from the changing incidence of bit motion counts due to the four BM bit operations defining time development of the state of a system.

First, as density increases, fewer 0-state bit loci are available to receive 1-state bits from motion due to electromagnetic potentials. Thus, the resulting kinetic energy from bit motion decreases at higher pressure and energy density levels, and therefore, by definition, temperature decreases. This effect reflects the disassociation of electromagnetic potentials from bit motion at these high density levels, a BM result based on the postulate that a bit locus can contain only one 1-state bit at a time.

Second, at high bit (energy) density and pressures, unconditional bit motion is unaffected and accounts for the final pressure increases toward its absolute maximum.

If higher densities and pressures are not contained, a high energy and extremely unstable, explosive state occurs where unconditional bit motion rapidly disperses energy in all directions. For nuclear physicists working on explosive devices, it may be ironic that the strong (nuclear) force is not responsible for the tremendous energy release upon detonation. Instead, it is the garden-variety unconditional bit operation which causes and initially dominates the event.

Fortunately, BM enables relatively simple calculation to assess the role of each BM bit operation as a function of density. Another article would be appropriate to document the specifics. However, at the higher range of bit densities, the unconditional bit operation dominates with bit motion counts exactly equal to the number of 1-state bits in the volume of interest. Meanwhile, the strong operator approaches a null inter-dimensional bit motion count because destination bits are already occupied. Further, to the extent that empty (0-state) bit loci occur, the strong bit operation would not be considered as explosive since it actually keeps 1-state bits from dispersing by confining them to lepton [7] or baryon [8] bit cycles.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Maximum temperature below half maximum bit density" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[6] Nuclear Weapon Archive. "Section 3: Matter, energy, and radiation hydrodynamics" December, 1997.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Electron Acceleration and Quantized Velocity

2011-04-15T07:14:00.018-04:00

This paper analyzes and discusses electron motion between electron spots in adjacent spot cubes based on a physical interpretation of binary mechanical (BM) space [1] [2]. Quantization of electron velocity is predicted. Fig. 1 shows the X1 level of the YZ surface of two adjacent spot cubes (left and right) as might be seen from above the YZ plane of the page.

Fig. 1: X1 Plane of YZ Surface of Two Adjacent Spot Cubes
Legend: Each color-coded spot is a 2x2x2 cube of bits. A spot cube contains 8 spots, 4 of which are partially visible in this view. Electron spots (e-L; yellow) and right (R) and left (L) d quark (d) spots (r, red; w, white; b, blue). Mites (circles) and lites (arrows and stars) may be in the 0-state (white) or 1-state (black). 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.

One electron spot bit in the 1-state (black circle in Fig. 1) in the Z dimension will be examined as an example of similar events in the X and Y dimensions. Events affecting motion of this mite bit along the Z dimension to the next electron spot in the left spot cube shown over 4 BM distance units d will be described.

Let the 1-state mite in the Z3 electron spot be the tick 0 initial state. In tick 1, the strong bit operation has no effect since the mite is in a destination locus, causing the strong potential to be zero [3].

The electromagnetic (EM) scalar and vector bit operations [4] and the unconditional bit operation [1] are pending. Different results are obtained depending on the order of the EM and unconditional operations. If the vector bit operation is applied before unconditional bit motion, fast motion of the electron mite may occur.

Fast Electron Motion
In tick 2, the vector bit operation can move the mite bit to the lite locus in the electron Z3 spot unit. If the adjacent countercurrent lite in the dwR quark spot shown above the electron mite is in the 1-state, a vector force moves the mite to lite in the electron Z3 spot unit (Fig. 2). [Note: The dwR quark was renamed to the dgR quark, replacing the white (w) color charge designation with green (g). The physics remains the same, but physics 101 textbooks are now more colorful.]

Fig. 2: EM Vector Potential Accelerates Z3 Electron Mite

Let us assume this vector force and result occurs.

Then, in tick 3, application of the unconditional bit operation moves the lite out of the electron spot and into the mite locus in the adjacent dbR quark spot.This electron to Right quark transition may be said to conserve "matter", as opposed to a "matter" to "antimatter" transition.In tick 4, if a scalar potential does not exist, this mite remains unaffected, which shall be designated as sequence 1. On the other hand, if the scalar potential equals one in tick 4, the mite is accelerated again to the Z2 lite locus, denoted as sequence 2.

Fast Sequence 1: In tick 5, the next operator cycle begins with the strong bit operation. However, the 1-state bit, now a mite in the Z2 spot unit, is a destination bit for the strong potential, as shown by the direction of the purple arrow in Fig. 1. Therefore, nothing happens in this tick.

In tick 6, the vector potential, if present, may produce the same effect of mite-to-lite motion as described in tick 2. If so, in tick 7, the unconditional bit operation moves the Z2 spot unit lite to the mite position in the Z1 electron spot unit. In summary, a 4d bit motion is completed with average velocity v = 4/7, meaning the 1-state mite bit moved 4 distance units in 7 ticks, where each movement was at velocity v = 1.

Fast Sequence 2: As described above, with a scalar potential in tick 4, the Z2 spot unit mite moves to the Z2 lite locus. Hence, it must not be scattered in tick 5 when the strong bit operation is applied again, else it will not arrive at the Z1 mite position. If this Z2 lite survives as described in more detail below, then in tick 6, the vector force has no effect on lite bits. Finally, in tick 7, unconditional bit motion causes the Z2 lite to arrive at the Z1 electron mite position.

In summary, for both fast sequence 1 and 2, the four electron-to-electron distance units may be completed in 7 ticks. While the average velocity is the same in the two sequences, their probabilities of completion may be different. Both sequences depend on a vector potential at tick 2. However, sequence 1 depends on the absence of a scalar potential at tick 4. With the presence of a tick 4 scalar potential, sequence 2 requires the absence of a strong force at tick 5.

Slow Bit Motion
What if there were no magnetic forces in this thought experiment? In tick 2, without a vector potential, the mite shown in Fig. 1 would remain exactly where it was and then move to the lite locus in the Z3 spot unit via unconditional motion in tick 3. In tick 4, the scalar bit operation would have no effect, since it accelerates mites, not lites.

The tick 5 strong bit operation may scatter this lite bit in the electron spot. Specifically, the 1-state lite bit in an electron Z dimension spot unit could scatter to the X dimension per the strong bit operation (purple arrow in Fig. 1). Indeed, if the time development is not modified by the presence of other bits, this bit will cycle in the electron spot and return to the same lite position after 12 ticks. Although this internal bit cycle proceeds within the electron spot, the electron as a particle is said to be at rest.

However, such scattering is disabled by two mechanisms causing motion to exit the electron spot as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Strong Bit Operation Disabled by Two Mechanisms

First, a 1-state mite in the destination locus in the X dimension causes the strong potential to evaluate to zero. Second, even in the absence of this X 1-state mite, if the Z spot unit has inertia -- both mite and lite in 1-state, the strong bit operation is also thought to be disabled. In short, if either or both of these additional bits are in the 1-state, the 1-state lite bit is unaffected.The first mechanism depends on the postulated definition of the strong potential. The second inertia mechanism is thought to act independently of the strong potential. The BM simulator -- HotSpot 1.26 -- allows the user to turn each mechanism Off (default is On) to explore their roles in physical phenomena. In tick 6, no bit motion occurs since the vector bit operation accelerates mites only, not lites.

Finally, in tick 7, the electron spot emits one unit of energy. That is, by unconditional bit motion, the lite moves to the mite position in the Z2 quark dbR spot. The tick 8 scalar operation may accelerate the Z2 mite to the lite locus in the spot unit, if a scalar potential is present. Hence, two slow sequences may be considered.

Slow Sequence 1: Without a tick 8 scalar potential, the Z2 mite remains and the tick 9 strong operation has no effect since this mite is a destination bit as shown in Figs. 1 to 3 (purple arrows). If there is also no vector force in tick 10 (as seen in tick 2) in this slow electron bit motion scenario, again the unconditional bit operation is needed for the mite-to-lite motion in the Z2 spot unit in tick 11. This lite is motionless in tick 12, unaffected by the scalar bit operation.

In tick 13, the strong operation again needs to be aborted as in tick 5, else the electron-to-electron bit motion is aborted by scattering in a baryon bit cycle. If the Z2 quark spot lite survives tick 13 (strong force = 0), it also remains unaffected by the vector bit operation in tick 14. Finally, the tick 15 unconditional bit operation moves it to the destination Z1 electron spot, with average velocity v = 4/15.

Slow Sequence 2: With a scalar potential in tick 8, the Z2 mite moves to the lite position where in tick 9, it remains motionless if the strong force is zero. The tick 10 vector operation is null since it acts on mites, not lites. Finally, in tick 11, unconditional bit motion completes the journey to the Z1 electron spot mite locus, with an average velocity v = 4/11.

Quantized Velocity
In summary, fast motion is more rapid than either slow motion sequence. Even so, this maximum electron velocity is only 4/7 of maximum BM bit velocity. To the extent that experimentalists succeed in accelerating electrons to near the speed of light, such efforts may be viewed as calibrating maximum bit velocity as approximately 1.75x (7/4) the speed of light, consistent with previous BM predictions [5].

BM predicts that only three electron mite velocities are possible 4/7, 4/11 and 4/15 over a 4d distance between electron spots.

In short, on any distance scale, electron mite velocity is quantized. That is, electron mite velocity cannot assume any arbitrary value as might be wrongly assumed by models using the obsolete concept of continuous space-time, such as in the EM Lorentz force, Maxwell's equations or the Special Theory of Relativity by Einstein.

However, the finding of velocity quantization, obvious at very short distances, does not negate the basic empirical results at larger distances based on the work of Lorentz, Maxwell, Einstein and many others. In fact, EM potentials were seen above to cause increased bit velocity.

While the present results may modify some Special Relativity effects at short distances or small time intervals, basic empirical results such as time dilation, length contraction, etc, remain intact at larger scales. Associated invariant quantities are apparently preserved at these larger space-time scales by using the speed of light as a maximum velocity in Lorentz transformations. Since "light velocity in a vacuum" is thought to be much less than BM maximum velocity, partly supported by the present results, relativistic effects pertaining to measurements at larger space-time differences may be seen as consistent with BM. Also, recall that BM was originally derived from the relativistic quantum mechanical Dirac equation [1].

Electron Particle Motion
How do electron particles move? Rephrasing, how is the present one-bit motion analysis and its results relevant to motion of electrons as particles? The following picture is emerging.

As absolute vacuum [6] is filled with bits, one may assume that most, if not all, electron spots contain at least one bit, given their strong tendency to capture and hold bits in their 12 tick bit cycles. A particle threshold, then, might require two or more bits in an electron spot [5].

If one of these bits moves to another electron spot as described above, the source electron spot (Z3 in Fig. 1) may cease to be an electron, depending on its initial energy level in terms of its bit count up to the maximum of 6 bits -- 3 mites and 3 lites. Upon arrival at the destination electron spot (Z1 in Fig. 1), the additional arriving bit might well boost its energy above the particle threshold, which may be 2 or 3 bits for a one spot particle such as the electron. In short, for a particle to move, all of its bits need not move from location A to location B. Rather, motion of perhaps only one bit might suffice to accomplish an apparent particle motion.

This reckoning of the underlying mechanisms of electron motion may have significant implications. For example, in classical physics, mass and acceleration (force) is thought to involve the motion of a whole object, whereas the above treatment opens the door to an entirely different approach, namely that part of a particle may move causing the particle to cease to exist (drop below particle threshold) at the source location A (electron spot X1, Y1, Z3 in Fig. 1) while another particle may commence to exist at the destination location B (electron spot X1, Y1, Z1 in Fig. 1).

What does particle existence mean? Concretely, one might suppose a particle object exists if it is directly detectable by our senses or instruments. This sort of operational definition of a particle as opposed to a single BM bit is consistent with the supposed mechanisms of particle event detectors, namely that a particle is inferred based on energy transfer from its motion to the detector device. And, of course, the ability of investigators to imagine particles that cannot be so directly observed is also worthy of mention, which makes the whole game of science very interesting.

Homework Assignment
The VUSF bit operations order was used in this article. Work out the maximum quantized velocities if the USVF bit operations order is used.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" March, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Gravity Looses Primary Force Status

2011-04-10T09:32:00.009-04:00

Binary mechanics (BM) [1] depreciates gravity from a primary force with the working hypothesis that observed gravity effects are the result of the four fundamental bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong. This article presents observations supporting this hypothesis.

It was found that acceleration of two bodies toward each other depended on a higher bit density between the two bodies than in other directions around the bodies. Further, attraction of two bodies conventionally described as gravity required a minimum bit density in the space between the bodies.

Discussion of these results suggests that space-time curvature, such as postulated in the General Theory of Relativity by Einstein is not required to explain gravity or other related observations, and indeed, probably does not even exist in the absence of data requiring it.

Perhaps to appreciate the BM basis for gravity, vacuum definitions might be reviewed. A perfect vacuum is conventionally defined as a volume without any particles such as ions or atoms, while a partial vacuum is a very low pressure volume with most particles removed.

In BM, the conventional perfect vacuum is in fact filled with a substantial number of binary units called bits of two types: mites and lites [1], perhaps at a level of some ten percent of maximum bit density. Indeed, this agrees with a number of theorists who have postulated that the perfect vacuum contains something -- virtual particles, dark matter or energy, electromagnetic (EM) fields, etc. Thus, it is necessary to describe the vacuum in further detail in order to fully explain physical phenomena [2].

In BM, an absolute vacuum is defined as zero bit density in a spatial volume. Given the strong tendency of the vacuum to absorb incoming energy, one might suspect that an absolute vacuum does not exist, even in deep outer space, which is usually characterized as a partial or near perfect vacuum in conventional terminology.

The present pilot experiment measures the distance between the center of bits of two bodies in an absolute vacuum, where the center of bits is analogical to the center of mass. As bit energy emerges from the two objects, the bit density between them would naturally be greater than in any other direction. The research question, then, is do the two objects move and if so, in what direction?

Methods
The BM simulator (Hotspot 1.23) was used to create two objects separated by 6 spots (12d in BM distance units) with a bit density per volume of 0.5 or 0.4 in an otherwise absolute vacuum. The spot loci and bit type masks were both set to 255 (all). The simulated space cubes were 40x40x40 or 48x48x48 spots. In all cases, the bodies were separated by 6 spots of absolute vacuum in the initial states.

In the 40 spot dimension spaces, the bodies were set in ranges for [X (-14,13), Y (-14,-4) and Z (-14, 13)] for one and [X (-14,13), Y (3,13) and Z (-14, 13)] for the other. For the 48 spot dimension data, the ranges for each of the two objects were [X (-18,17), Y (-18,-4) and Z (-18, 17)] and [X (-18,17), Y (3,17) and Z (-18, 17)]. Thus, the two objects were identical except for their position on the Y-axis.

The distance of the centers of bits of the bodies was tabulated as the average position of all bits at or above the zero center of the space (Y = 0) minus the average for bits below the center of the simulated volume on the Y-axis (R2Bot-R2Top column in the simulator .csv output file). Also, the standard deviations in each of the X, Y and Z dimensions for the entire volume were computed (sd1, sd2 and sd3 columns in the .csv output file).

Results
Fig. 1 shows the inter-body distance in units of BM distance d over time (simulator Ticks) for a 40x40x40 spot volume with an initial bit density of 0.5 for each body.

Fig. 1: Inter-Body Distance vs Simulator Ticks in 40x Cube
After an 11 Tick delay, the distance between the two bodies decreases rapidly to a minimum at Tick 43, representing a motion from about 16.98 to 15.22 or about 1.76 distance units. In the next 23 Ticks, the inter-body distance increases moderately. In several oscillations, the inter-body distance stabilizes after about 300 Ticks.

Fig. 2: Inter-Body Distance vs Simulator Ticks Detail
The first 48 ticks are detailed in Fig. 2. Inter-body distance is relatively constant in the first 12 Ticks and starts dropping at Tick 12.

The rate of change in inter-body distance appears to have several discernible phases. First, motion rate from Tick 11 (the peak) to Tick 15 is less than the rate between Tick 15 and Tick 22. That is, the hypothesized acceleration due to "gravity" increases over Ticks 11 to 22. From Tick 22 to Tick 43 (the lowest distance), the rate of motion decreases, as if a repulsive force between the objects opposes the apparent attractive force between the bodies.

Fig. 3: Bit Distribution X, Y and Z Standard Deviations vs Ticks
Fig. 3 plots the standard deviations of the entire bit distribution in this data set in the X (yellow), Y (purple) and Z (dark blue) dimensions. The Y data may be viewed as the experimental dimension and the X and Z values as control variation.

After a short delay of 4 (X and Z) and 5 (Y) Ticks, all three measures of dispersion decrease rapidly, to low points at 22 Ticks (X and Z) and at 23 Ticks (Y). Next, up to about Tick 60, the two control deviations indicated rapid bit dispersion after which the deviations slowly decline toward an eventual stable level beyond Tick 200 (not shown; see Fig. 1).

Meanwhile, the experimental Y deviations displayed a more complex pattern of time development. There was dispersion (increase in the Y standard deviation) up to Tick 39, after which it appeared to be opposed by the overall decrease in inter-body distance (Figs. 1 and 2). Similar to the inter-body distance measure (Fig. 1), the Y deviation oscillated as a more stable inter-body distance was attained in later Ticks.

Comparing the initial and final states, the control dimensions (X and Z) started with about the same standard deviations and ended with increased deviations, indicating significant bit dispersion. In contrast, the experimental Y values started with a greater standard deviation due to the initial state specified. However, compared to the X and Z controls, the Y deviation measure moved in the opposite direction, namely, Y dispersion decreased over time, in apparent agreement with the inter-body distance results (Fig. 1).

Several variations in the experimental protocol may help clarify the foregoing results.

1. Change in Body Mass. In a 48x48x48 spot dimension space, the size (total number of bits) of each object was increased using [X (-18,17), Y (-18,-4) and Z (-18, 17)] and [X (-18,17), Y (3,17) and Z (-18, 17)] (Methods), but with the same randomized bit density of 0.5 in each body, and the same inter-body distance of 6 absolute vacuum spots.

Fig. 4: Inter-Body Distance vs Simulator Ticks in 48x Cube
Nonetheless, the initial delay was exactly 11 Ticks and the minimum inter-body distance was achieved at exactly Tick 43 (Fig. 4), as seen in the 40 spot dimension simulation above (Fig. 1). However, the total distance moved was 1.92 (20.96 - 19.04), greater than seen in the 40 spot data. Further, the "bounce" from this initial overshoot (with reference to the final states) was greater and peaked later, comparing the 48x and 40x data.

2. Initial Object Bit Density. Reducing the initial bit density of the two bodies from 0.5 to 0.4 in a 40x spot dimension simulation resulted in an exactly 11 Tick delay before reduced inter-body distance began. However, with this reduced initial energy (temperature) of the objects, the first low point in inter-body distance occurred a bit later (Tick 51 versus Tick 43) and there was very little overshoot and "bounce back" with respect to the final steady state.

Discussion
This pilot study used initial states of two bodies with high energy density (0.4 or 0.5 per spatial volume) in an absolute vacuum. Much of the energy in these objects was expected to disperse rapidly into the vacuum. In this process, the bit density in the surrounding vacuum would increase and increase even more in the vacuum space between the two bodies. Would this difference result in repulsion, attraction or no effect between the two objects? A major result is the reported decrease in inter-body distance of the respective center of bits along the Y-axis perpendicular to the thin 6 spot wide space between the two objects.

Several high-lights in the data may relate to gravitational effects.

1. Objects with different mass (number of bits) achieve maximum inter-body distance decrease in the same time, as seen comparing the Tick 11 to Tick 43 intervals for the 40x and 48x simulations. This result suggests a similarity to gravity as commonly understood, namely that objects of different mass are accelerated at the same rate.

2. Object temperature may affect gravitational effects as seen in the minor differences comparing the cooler, less dense 0.4 initial bit density with the hotter, more dense 0.5 bit density. Whether this is a new BM result remains to be seen, pending more detailed experiments. The author is not aware of any systematic work where surface temperature of a object has been considered as a factor in gravitational force. But work by Hawking and others regarding black hole surface temperature [3] may be relevant even if space-time curvature theoretical underpinnings may require a rather complete rewrite.

3. The time development of the X, Y and Z standard deviation components, each based on all bits in the simulated volume (Fig. 3), may help explain the observed inter-body distance decrease in the Y dimension. The initial rapid deviation decline was probably due to loss of bits from the periphery of the simulated volume. The subsequent increase in the standard deviations, most pronounced in the control X and Z directions, likely tracked the continued dispersion into surrounding space of the high energy (bit density) from the initial state within the two bodies. The final slower decline in the deviations toward a more stable level some hundreds of ticks later was associated with the later phases of the cooling of the two bodies, concluded by bit patterns within the objects displaying zero bit motion due to inertia (I column in ouput file) or heat content (S and V columns tabulating bit motion due to scalar and vector forces).

In sum, the initial and final values of the deviations may be the most relevant, where the control values (X and Z) increased and the experimental dimension (Y) decreased, indeed, falling into the range of the control values.

4. Do gravity-like effects occur within bodies? The lepton and baryon bit cycles [4] [5] tend to capture and hold bits, a phenomenon which might be expected to concentrate bits in spatial volumes. In turn, this mechanism may be responsible for apparent attraction of material within bodies which could be attributed to a supposed gravity force. Indeed, these considerations initially suggested to the author that gravity was merely a by-product of the BM laws already postulated.

5. Absolute vacuum disabled putative gravitational attraction. If not a mere artifact in this pilot study, this may be a new BM prediction. The first 11 Ticks of the simulations, where no significant change in inter-body distance was observed, were occupied with filling the vacuum around and between the two objects. Note that in conventional terminology, this filling of the absolute vacuum with bits emerging from the two bodies may be classified as a perfect vacuum insofar as it continued to contain no "particles". But in the present experiments, it is clear that gravitational effects (or at least the attraction measured) did not commence with an absolute vacuum between the objects. Instead, the vacuum must be filled to a definite extent, at which time an apparent "force" attracting the objects to each other may be observed.

Perhaps needless to say, the apparent anti-gravity effect of a thin layer of absolute or near absolute vacuum is a possibly significant result which obviously suggests flight based in whole or part on a conceptually rather simple anti-gravity technology.

6. Another consideration supporting a gravitational interpretation of the reported reduction in inter-body distance is the relatively weak strength of the implied force, compared with the electromagnetic and strong bit operations. Consider the following approximation.

In the 40x spot cube with each object initialized at 0.5 density per volume unit (Fig. 1), the total number of bits in the simulation (Total column in .csv output file) started at about 69,000 dropping to about 59,000 after 200 Ticks, as bits exited the simulated space. The mid-point at 64,000 bits will suffice for a rough calculation.

In 33 simulator Ticks (11 to 43) or 132 BM ticks (33 x 4 sub-ticks, one for each bit operation), net bit motion reduced inter-body distance by 1.76 BM distance units. Hence, an estimate of the apparent strength of this effect, in units of motion of one bit over one BM distance unit per BM time unit (tick), is 1.76/(64000 x 132) or about 2 x 10^-7. Compared to the scalar, vector and strong bit operations, where one bit moves one unit of distance in one tick, the suspected gravitational effect reported above might be some 10 million times weaker, as a rough approximation. At least, this comparison agrees with the widely accepted notion that gravitational effects are substantially weaker than electromagnetic or strong forces.

The present data should be regarded as very preliminary, but may point in the right direction on the subject of gravity. In agreement with BM, Einstein reportedly rejected gravity as a fundamental force. However, he favored curvature of space-time, which probably is not necessary to explain any of the phenomena that it is purported to predict. Each of these items requires specific study. By jettisoning curved space-time, its associated problematic singularities are also discarded. At present, BM does not discard the notion that its fundamental constants for distance d and time t might vary. On the other hand, there is no evidence that they do vary.

In spite of the decidedly unusual initial states used (high bit density surrounded by absolute vacuum), it is plausible that the purported gravity effects reported in this study in a very small spatial volume may occur at much larger distance scales as seen in objects falling to earth and of course among astronomical objects. Regardless of the scale, the principle mechanism would appear to remain the same, namely that the vacuum between any pair of objects is more dense than in any other direction from each object.

The present results may pertain to the Casimir effect [6], since the initial states used were similar to two plates very close to each other.

Finally, if gravity is not a fundamental force, then the laws of BM may be in place as a valid grand unification in theoretical physics.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum thresholds" March, 2011.
[3] Wikipedia. "Black hole" April, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[6] Wikipedia. "Casimir effect" April, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Vacuum Thresholds

2011-03-30T22:59:00.027-04:00

Updated: April 22, 2011
An absolute vacuum in binary mechanics (BM) [1] is a volume with all bits in the zero state, whereas the conventionally defined perfect vacuum only requires the absence of particles such as ions or atoms. A recent report simulated the 84 tick central baryon bit cycle by introducing a single bit in the one state in an absolute vacuum [2]. Thus, the existence of elementary particles thought to consist of two or more bits in each of one or more spots [3] (e.g., the one-spot electron [4]) in an otherwise near absolute vacuum is consistent with the basic laws of BM.

The present study added bits to the vacuum in perturbation steps. Results suggest key thresholds for physical processes, such as absorption, emission, lepton formation and baryon formation. A step toward calibration of BM absolute maximum temperature in degrees Kelvin is discussed.

Methods
BM stimulation software (HotSpot 1.26) was used to randomly seed the initial state of a 48x48x48 spot space at an approximately 0.001 bit density, as described previously [5].

Per its kinetic energy basis, temperature was operationally defined as the square of average mite bit velocity due to electromagnetic (EM) potentials: ((S + V)/Mites)², where S and V (columns in simulator output .csv file) were motion due to scalar (S) and vector (V) potentials and Mites was the current mite count in the simulated space.

The particle threshold in the BM simulator was at least two mites per spot. Thus, the one-spot electron and positron required two or three mites to reach threshold. The R (matter) and L (antimatter) baryons were defined for the present study in a perhaps over-simplified manner with the particle threshold requiring at least two mites in each of three corresponding (R or L) quark spots.

Dependent variables were scaled to zero to one ranges, where one represents a maximum value. For temperature, this maximum was the peak kinetic energy observed. For mites and lites, the scale factor was the maximum of the 24 of each that can occur in one spot cube (8 spots x 3 mites or lites each). For the leptons and baryons, each spot cube can contain one each for matter and antimatter particles.

Results and Discussion

Fig. 1: Temperature, Lites, Mites and Particles vs Bit Density
Fig. 1 shows dependent variables plotted over the range from absolute vacuum to maximum bit density, zero to one respectively.

Absorption, Lite and Mite Thresholds
Absolute vacuum is completely opaque, absorbing incoming energy which enter electron and baryon bit cycles until bit density rises to a point where additional energy entering the volume can conduct further.

Lites and mites injected into the near absolute vacuum are absorbed and their incidence increases approximately linearly up to about 0.125 maximum density, which may coincidentally be a simple fraction, namely 1/8 of the maximum. At this approximate threshold, lites start to outnumber mites up to a peak lite/mite ratio of 1.7 at 0.71 density (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Lite/Mite Ratio vs Bit Density
Gross inspection of Fig 2 reveals six or more density ranges with different the lite/mite ratio slopes (change in ratio per change in density) up the the peak at 1.7.

Electron Threshold
The first particles created as the absolute vacuum is "filled" are electrons. Fig. 1 shows that electron counts (e-L) increase exponentially up to about 0.15 maximum density, after which at least four different slopes of electron creation occur up to absolute maximum temperature (0.6 maximum density) extending to absolute maximum bit (energy) density (1.0). Fig. 3 shows electron count detail at the lowest density range, suggesting an electron threshold of about 0.004 maximum density.

Fig. 3: Electrons vs Bit Density

Positron Threshold
As detailed in Fig. 4, the positron (e+R in Fig. 1) threshold was at about 0.035 maximum density, an order of magnitude greater than the electron threshold.

Fig. 4: Positrons vs Bit Density
As with the electron counts as a function of bit density, positron counts increased at several different rates per bit density increment up to maximum bit density. However, electron counts always greatly outnumbered positron counts, which is consistent with, and partially explains, the well-known matter versus antimatter asymmetry.

Baryon Thresholds
Above maximum temperature at 0.6 bit density, baryon counts rise rapidly to their maximum (EdR and EdL in Fig. 1). During this rapid increase in baryon counts, matter (EdR) substantially exceeds antimatter (EdL) particles.

Since these particles comprise much of the mass in the universe, could objects like neutron stars or black holes occupy this density range where, according to this BM simulation, temperature is less than its absolute maximum?

Fig. 5: R and L Baryons vs Bit Density
Fig. 5 details R and L baryon thresholds, plotting baryon counts up to absolute maximum temperature at 0.6 maximum bit density. The matter (R) baryons began to emerge at about 0.110 maximum bit density, with their counts peaking in the 0.34 to 0.40 density range. Meanwhile, antimatter (L) baryons began to appear at about 0.26 density, peaking just below the absolute-maximum-temperature density, where the R baryons also showed a secondary peak. Again, these results are consistent with and further explain the BM basis for the matter versus antimatter asymmetry.

Temperature Thresholds
Two thermal thresholds may be specified. A thermal I threshold is near zero bit density where even very low mite and/or lite bit counts may result in bits in adjacent parallel spot units and thereby create EM forces accelerating mites. This acceleration is the basis for the kinetic energy concept of heat and related temperature measurements. The 0.21 to 0.25 bit density range marks a thermal II threshold where the rate of temperature increase per density increment dramatically increased (Fig 1).

An emission threshold might be expected to correspond to initial departure from absolute zero temperature as bit density rises (Thermal I threshold, Table 1 below). Below the emission threshold, one might say that all input energy (bits) is absorbed by the vacuum to reside in electron or baryon bit cycles before further incoming radiation can further penetrate the volume. That is, the stars would not be visible in the night sky if outer space was an opaque absolute vacuum. This sort of consideration may emphasize the need to better understand vacuum thresholds.

Table 1 summarizes some vacuum thresholds which may have physical significance.

Table 1: Vacuum Thresholds vs Proportion Maximum Density
THRESHOLD P(max density)
Absorption 0.000 (absolute vacuum)
Lite, Mite 0.000+ (+ denotes "near zero")
Thermal I 0.000+
Electron 0.004
Positron 0.035 (perfect vacuum contains foregoing)
R Baryon 0.110 (partial vacuum starts here)
Lites > Mites 0.125 (lite counts exceed mite counts)
Thermal II 0.210-0.25 (approx.)
L Baryon 0.26
The R Baryon matter threshold would include ions (e.g., protons) and atoms, defining a partial vacuum. However, some authors may deem that the electron threshold is where a perfect vacuum becomes a partial vacuum.

General Discussion
1. This study used an arbitrary particle threshold [3] operationally defined as two or more mite bits per each spot required by the respective particle. For electron and positron, a minimum of one spot is required (Table 3 in [1]; [4]). As rationale, less than a two-mite criterion (zero or only one mite) is thought to represent a perfect vacuum status. If the criterion were increased, say, to three mites, then the particle thresholds for leptons (Figs. 3 and 4) and baryons (Fig. 5) would be expected to increase.

2. The present simple simulation experiment identified a number of vacuum thresholds of probable physical significance.

The BM perfect vacuum, below the partial vacuum level, contains only mites (lepton and quark) and lites (photonic and gluonic). This BM fact implies that all other theories of vacuum constituents, such as various fields (EM or other), dark matter and energy, etc, may be represented as BM bit (mite and lite) distributions. If proponents of such theories regarding vacuum content cannot represent their specifics as BM bit distributions, either the respective theories or BM might be assumed to be in error.

The particle threshold [3] of only two mites per required spot used in the present simulation was liberal, only one increment above one mite per spot, which is thought to be below the particle threshold and clearly in the perfect vacuum range. One might say that determination of the correct particle threshold is a sort of holy grail in this work. That threshold delimits what is matter or antimatter versus what remains in a perfect vacuum or partial vacuum when most matter particles are removed naturally or by lab equipment.

Determination of correct particle thresholds with reasonable confidence is required to study in complete detail the BM requirements for motion of particular particles, from which observed rest mass ratios can be obtained, as described previously [3].

3. Further study may help calibrate the temperature scale (e.g., Fig. 1) including the approximate bit density of our daily, "room temperature" world. This bit density must be above the electron and R baryon thresholds since our world is made largely of electrons and nucleons, and presumably above the emission threshold since absorption-emission phenomena have been extensively observed and analyzed by humans. On the other hand, our daily world on the surface of planet Earth probably consists of bit densities below the thermal II threshold, else humans might be vaporized and there would be no science at all.

In short, room temperature in the range of some 270-290 degrees Kelvin probably corresponds to the 0.125 bit density range, where lites start to clearly outnumber mites (Fig. 2). The corresponding temperature was about four orders of magnitude below absolute maximum temperature in this pilot study.

On the other hand, CERN's proton vs nucleus collisions temperature estimate [8] is reportedly about 10¹⁰ or 10 trillion degrees Kelvin. But an order of magnitude estimate (280 x 10⁴) for absolute maximum temperature from the figures above is approximately 10⁶ or 1 million degrees Kelvin, four orders of magnitude below the CERN estimate. Somebody may be assuming something where it may not be warranted in these calculations.

4. The variation in slope at which temperature increases as a function of proportion maximum bit density up to absolute maximum temperature (Fig. 1) raises the question of which slope corresponds to the range in which the ideal gas law is valid. This sort of consideration suggests an interesting time ahead where investigators may re-evaluate assumptions in view of BM results such as the present report.

5. The matter versus antimatter asymmetry may also be relevant in the present context. Perhaps most noteworthy is the reported predominance of matter in this study consistent with, and explaining, the asymmetry.

In particular, antimatter positrons and L quarks and their baryons had essentially zero incidence as particles in our room temperature laboratories (Fig. 1), but bits in their spots are far from missing in action. Indeed, positron bits and L quarks bits, as opposed to the corresponding particles as such, are integral parts of protons (Table 3 in [1], [2] [7]).

6. The present study should be repeated using a three-mite particle threshold and other variations, such as increased density resolution (smaller density increments per Tick). The method used could distort the thresholds since randomly added bits may be unphysical to some extent, or at least cause events to occur suggesting a threshold, which otherwise would not have occurred if, say, bits were added at the periphery as in incoming radiation. In short, increased density resolution and increased sample sizes are needed. For example, the former might allow projection of the electron counts to the x-axis density to specify the electron threshold in Fig. 3. Alternatively, larger samples would enable use of simple statistics to establish standard errors at specific densities to define thresholds based on statistical significance.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Maximum temperature below half maximum bit density" March, 2011.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[8] Wikipedia. "Temperature" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Emission Power and Wavelength vs Temperature

2011-03-26T18:25:00.010-04:00

Temperature-dependence of power and wavelength of bit emission from a simulated cube of binary mechanical (BM) [1] space is presented in this exploratory, pilot study. Results suggest (1) at least five bit density ranges from zero to maximum bit density showing markedly different slopes of emission power versus temperature and (2) at least four different bit density ranges defined by wavelength at which peak power is observed. These striking quantitative differences among bit density ranges may correspond to qualitatively distinct states such as solid, liquid, gas, plasma and perhaps more.

Methods
Raw data was obtained from the BM simulator (HotSpot 1.21) output .csv file as described previously for a 48x48x48 spot space [2]. Temperature was bit motions due to electromagnetic (EM) potentials -- the sum of the scalar (S) and vector (V) columns which appears in the KE column of the output file. Emission power was operationally defined as the count of bits exiting the simulated space (OutBits column), which is directly proportional to radiation amplitude per unit area per unit time (simulator Tick). Wavelength (1/Freq column) is operationally defined as the Tick count in the simulator spectrum histogram with the greatest amplitude.

Results
Fig. 1: Emission Power (OutBits) vs Temperature
Recalling that temperature varies as an inverted U-shaped curve over bit density, from zero to maximum possible (Fig. 1 in [2]), Fig. 1 shows at least five distinct bit density regions expressed as the corresponding temperature ranges, plotted against emission power (OutBits). The five white lines were manually added to approximate the power per temperature slopes which define the respective bit density ranges.

1. Starting from absolute zero temperature and relatively low bit density (lower-left in Fig. 1), as temperature increases, emission power rapidly rises. Indeed, range 1 has the greatest power per temperature slope (dP/dT). Range 1 may be much more complicated, as inspection of the data points might suggest three dP/dT sub-ranges.

2. As temperature rises further, a second bit density range appears to be defined by a clearly lower dP/dT rate.

3. This theme continues in bit density range 3 with a further drop in the ratio (slope) of emission power increment per temperature increment. Range 3 appears to be a non-linear, but directly proportional function or might be found to be composed of a number of linear dP/dT sub-ranges.

4. Absolute maximum temperature divides range 3 from range 4, where the power per temperature slope reverses. That is, at bit densities above maximum temperature, temperature drops as reported previously [2]. Nonetheless, temperature remains high in the absolute zero to maximum range, where further increments in emission power occur.

5. At maximum emission power per the initial state at simulator Tick 0 in this data set, further decreases in temperature toward absolute zero have no effect on emission power which remains maximum (dP/dT = zero).

These five bit density ranges were described above in reverse order, since the experiment began with an initial state of maximum bit density (upper-left in Fig. 1). With this initial state, unconditional bit motion predominates resulting in dramatic bit dispersion and in turn, emission power (OutBits). Thus, in bit density range 5, emission power remains at maximum values for a number of simulator Ticks, during which temperature is rising.

Fig. 2: Wavelength (1/Frequency) vs Temperature
In Fig. 2, the shortest wavelengths represent higher energy radiation exiting the simulated cube. The resolution in this measurement is low, because the simulator spectrum histogram bars represent power emission over an 8 simulator Tick range. For example, the zero values for wavelength (y-axis) represent a range of zero to seven Ticks.

However crude, the measurement proved to be sufficient to delimit at least four bit density ranges defined by bit emission wavelength.

1. Starting from maximum bit density at Tick 0 in the simulation, the highest energy (shortest wavelength) emissions were seen as temperature rises from absolute zero to absolute maximum and then drops back to about 70 percent of this temperature range (about 7800 in the temperature scale in Fig. 1).

2. Next, a second, distinct bit density range appeared with a wavelength plateau in the 8 to 15 spectrum Tick range, over a temperature (S + V) from about 3000 to 7400.

3. A third bit density range spans wavelengths from 16 to 23 spectrum Ticks at temperatures scaled from 1845 to 2532.

4. A fourth density range includes much lower energy wavelengths from 120 to 200 over temperatures from absolute zero to 1299. The abrupt jump from range 3 and 4 is due to a change in the peak with greater amplitude in the typically, multi-peaked spectrums.

Fig. 3: Bit Density Ranges as Percent Temperature Range
Fig. 3 illustrates the five emission power ranges and four wavelength ranges described as a percents of temperature range from absolute zero Kelvin to maximum possible degrees Kelvin. Of immediate interest is the fact that reasonably conservative specification of these two sets of ranges for emission power and wavelength do not appear to be redundant. Indeed, a quite complex picture of a variety of physical states seems to emerge.

Discussion
Since multi-peaked spectrums are typically observed, the choice for the emission wavelength parameter as the highest amplitude peak in the spectrum is admittedly somewhat crude and perhaps over-simplified. However, the results obtained may justify these measurements as useful to explore where interesting phenomena might be found and studied in further detail.

The overall objective of the present exploratory study was to identify where more detailed studies might help calibrate raw data from the BM simulator in terms of degrees Kelvin and establish estimates for other fundamental BM constants such as distance d and time t. As these objectives are achieved, these sorts of data sets may be revisited and the observed emission powers and wavelengths expressed in familiar units for power and length.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Strong Operation Disabled by Inertia

2011-03-26T10:22:00.015-04:00

In binary mechanics (BM) [1], unconditional, scalar, vector and strong bit operations determine the exact time development of the bit distribution (e.g., Eq. 1 in [2]). Unconditional, scalar and vector operations each define bit motion within one of three spatial dimensions. In contrast to these intra-dimensional operations, the inter-dimensional strong operation defines bit motion between spatial dimensions. This note discusses the strong bit operation and how it may be modified by a BM quantity called inertia.

Fig. 1: Strong Bit Operation

Legend: blue, bit in zero state; black, bit in one state.
Strong Bit Operation
Fig. 1 shows a perpendicular pair of spot units oriented in the x and z dimensions, viewed from above the xy plane. In the strong operation time tick, the initial state (t = 0) bit gradient from the x-to-z spot units over BM distance unit d, defining the strong potential (grey rectangle), moves the bit from the x spot unit to the z spot unit (t = 1).

In left-handed spots (Eq. 30, Table 1 and Fig. 3 in [1]), strong bit motion occurs in x-to-y, y-to-z and z-to-x directions. This within-spot spin direction is reverse in right-handed spots: x-to-z, z-to-y and y-to-x.

Strong bit motion is always lite-to-mite for the electron spot and mite-to-lite for the positron spot. In contrast to these lepton spots, the six quark spots each contain a mite-mite, a lite-lite, and a mite-lite transition. To visualize these combinations, imagine that loci in the grey rectangle in Fig. 1 were both mites or both lites.

The strong mite-mite and lite-lite transitions in quark spots change the mite-lite phase of those bits with respect to those participating in mite-lite transitions in any of the four bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong.

This lepton-quark difference may partially explain lepton and quark behavior and challenge the theorist with choices. For example, should all three types of bit transitions be allowed in quarks? Or alternatively, does the correct physics permit only one or two of the three permutations described?

The present assumption is that all three transition types in quark spots are allowed or enabled, which yields the result of the 84 tick baryon bit cycle [3].

Inertia
Fig. 2 illustrates inertia (green rectangle) which is thought to prevent, over-ride or disable bit motion due to the strong potential.

Fig. 2: Inertia Disables Strong Bit Operation

Legend: blue, bit in zero state; black, bit in one state.
With the four binary permutations of the two bits in a spot unit, inertia is said to exist if the mite and lite bits are both in the one state (green rectangle in Fig. 2). Thus,

p = ml (1)

where inertia (p = 0,1) is the product of the mite (m) and lite (l) states (0,1).

Several considerations may justify this definition of inertia. The state of bits in adjacent spot units was used to define scalar and vector potentials [2], which raises the obvious question of the possible physical significance of the states of the two adjacent bits in a spot unit. Defining inertia may be viewed as a sort of theoretical symmetry.

In addition, inertia increases the odds that bits will exit lepton and quark bit cycles, a requirement for particle motion. However, strictly speaking, inertia is not the only bit pattern that favors exit from bit cycles. For example, if the bit in the destination spot unit is in the one state, the strong potential is also "blocked" (equals zero). In this situation, the bit in the source spot unit will exit the spot and corresponding bit cycle in the subsequent unconditional bit motion tick. This result has a similar effect to that of inertia.

Finally, the inertia label may be consistent with the result that it prevents a change in motion direction (scattering) seen in the strong bit operation.

In summary, if both bits in a "source" spot unit are in the zero state, the strong potential is zero and no strong bit motion occurs. If one or both of the two bits is in the one state, a strong potential is possible. However, if both bits are in the one state (inertia p = 1), strong bit motion is disabled.

The current version of the BM simulator (HotSpot 1.21) implements the strong bit operation described above and is available for download here.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Superconductivity in Binary Mechanics

2011-03-25T23:28:00.007-04:00

A possible binary mechanical (BM) [1] basis for superconductivity at low temperatures is presented.

Methods
The present data was obtained from the output .csv file of the BM simulator, using procedures described previously for a 48x48x48 spot cube simulation [2] [3]. Per a kinetic motion concept, temperature was operationally defined as the sum of bit motion per Tick due to either scalar (S) or vector (V) potentials. The proportion of bits in electron spots was the ratio of the bits in electron spots (e-L column in output file) to the total bits (Total column).

Results
Fig. 1: Proportion of bits in electron spots vs temperature
Fig. 1 plots the proportion of bits in electron spots vs temperature (S + V) over a range from absolute zero to maximum temperature on the lower density side of the inverted U temperature-density curve.

As temperature decreases, more bits occupy electron spots. Then at about 200 on the horizontal temperature scale, the percent of bits in electron spots rises almost vertically. As temperature decreases further toward absolute zero, bits in electron spots peak at about 36 percent of all bits in the simulated space.

Discussion
BM space is thought to be organized in spot cubes consisting of eight spots, two lepton spots (electron and positron) and six quark spots [4]. If bits are randomly distributed at any arbitrary density, electron spots would be expected to contain one in eight, or 12.5 percent. This expectation is close to the 13.9 percent seen at maximum temperature in Fig. 1.

Remarkably, as temperature decreases, electron spots appeared to capture and hold bits at an accelerating rate. When electron spots contained about one third of all bits in the spatial distribution (33 percent), this accumulation rate rose dramatically until an apparent maximum concentration of bits in electron spots was observed at 36 percent.

This observed accumulation of bits in electron spots as an inverse function of temperature is consistent with BM fundamentals. First, among the eight spot types, the electron spot is unique in that it tends to capture and hold bits by virtue of its 12 tick (3 simulator Ticks) bit cycle (one seventh the 84 tick baryon bit cycle [5]).

As temperature decreases, by definition, electromagnetic (EM) potentials related to heat content, decrease. The EM bit operations can result in loss of bits by electron spots. For example, a stable state consists of three mites in an electron spot. However, a scalar or vector potential can cause a "phase change" when a mite moves to a lite position. This lite cannot cycle within the spot, since its destination loci is already occupied by a mite. That is, the strong potential is zero and no inter-dimensional motion required by the cycle occurs. As a result, in the next unconditional bit operation, this lite exits the electron spot.

In short, at decreased temperature, EM events causing bits to leave electron spots decrease.

Why superconductivity? As a non-expert in this field of physics, the author might still mention the idea that at low temperatures, more electrons may be available to conduct current. The present data appears to be consistent with this formulation.

In addition, the scalar potential in BM is very efficient in spatially dispersing like-charged mites. Thus, excess charge applied to one side of a material at low temperature would be expected to conduct very efficiently to the other side. Indeed, modelling such behavior with BM simulations should be quite feasible.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Absolute Maximum Temperature" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Maximum temperature at half maximum bit density" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Absolute Maximum Temperature

2011-03-25T18:59:00.013-04:00

Updated: April 19, 2011
Binary mechanics (BM)[1] predicted an absolute maximum temperature which would be found below maximum energy density defined as maximum bit density [2]. A pilot study supported this hypothesis [3]. The present report replicates and polishes these results using a different method. Instead of starting with maximum bit density as in the pilot study, the present report started with a near-zero bit density, slowly adding bits randomly in small perturbation increments in each BM simulator Tick.

Methods
Data collection was conducted with the BM simulator, HotSpot 1.26 which may be downloaded here.

The procedure started with a 48x48x48 simulated cube of space with about 0.001 initial bit density. With each simulator Tick (4 BM time units, one for each bit operation), a procedure increased bit density by about 0.001, until maximum bit density was obtained. Simulator Box mode was ON to "reflect" bits exiting the simulated space back into it.

To replicate this experiment with a different randomization sequence, click Cancel for the HotSpot input file dialog. At the first prompt, enter 48,21. At the second prompt, enter 15,0.0009,0. As the Tick 0 initial state display is printed on the screen, immediately press the 2 key, activating HotSpot Experiment 2 (Ex=2), which automates the protocol.

Results
Fig. 1: Temperature vs Bit Density
Fig. 1 plots the first temperature-related measure used in the pilot study as a function of proportion maximum bit density (zero to one) from the 48x48x48 spot cube data.

With the present perturbation method, the primary operational definition of temperature peaked at 0.682 at 0.602 of maximum bit density.

Fig. 2: pRMS vs Bit Density

The pRMS momentum values were derived from position changes per simulator Tick, sqr((p1² + p2² + p3²)/3), where {p1, p2, p3} are the average position changes over the simulated space, comparing the present and previous Tick.

Below peak-temperature bit density, at least three waves of increased whole body motion (pRMS) were discernible, with peaks just below the 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 bit density levels. The wavelength of these three peaks, then, might be expressed in bit density units and is about 0.2.

As in the pilot study, above peak temperature at proportion maximum density 0.6 (Fig. 1), while temperature is falling, another major pRMS peak occurred (Fig. 2).

Discussion
The present data confirms the pilot study report [3], again suggesting the existence of an absolute maximum temperature, per the operational definition of bit motion due to EM bit operations. Absolute maximum temperature occurred at a bit density of about 0.6 maximum density.

However, the pilot study found maximum temperature at about 0.346 maximum density. This difference between the present and pilot studies may be due to the different methods. The present 0.6 density estimate at which maximum temperature was observed used a density variation method which might be deemed opposite to that used in the pilot study. The present method started from near-zero density slowly incrementing it with the Box option ON, while the pilot study started from absolute maximum density and followed the decrease in density due to bits exiting the simulated cube of space with the Box option OFF.

This methodological difference may explain the different maximum temperature densities, namely the density at which maximum temperature occurs may depend on the content in the spatial volume. In simple terms, different materials may reach maximum temperature at different bit densities.

In any case, the present and previous pilot data suggest that the density at which maximum temperature is achieved is not a constant, but depends on some combination of methods used and content in the simulated volume.

Bit density is thought to relate to energy content [2]. If the existence of an absolute maximum temperature is correct, then the inverted U shape of the temperature curve (Fig. 1) states that quite different states and their energy levels can have the same temperature. A perhaps paradoxical result is that maximum energy is associated with absolute zero temperature, at which all the energy is potential with no kinetic energy.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Maximum temperature at half maximum bit density" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Electromagnetic Bit Operations Revised

2011-03-19T01:35:00.025-04:00

Updated: May 2, 2011
This note summarizes recent revisions in bit operations in binary mechanics (BM) [1] for the electromagnetic (EM) forces. Scalar and vector potentials are defined which may in turn result in bit motion.

Fig. 1: Scalar Potentials in Concurrent Spot Units
Fig. 1 shows right and left pairs of concurrent spot units. Each spot unit contains a mite bit loci (circles) and a lite bit loci (arrows), the direction of which determines unconditional bit motion. The spot unit is thought to occupy a 1dx1dx2d volume of space, with a mite or lite in each of two 1dx1dx1d cubes where d is the BM distance unit. Spot unit parity determines the sign of mite electric charge (1, -1). Hence, the juxtaposed mites in the concurrent spot unit pairs have the same charge sign, positive or negative. The scalar potential is the presence of a concurrent mite; the scalar force is defined as the presence of two mites, namely that both mite loci are in the one state (grey rectangles in Fig. 1, eqs. 9 and 10 in [1]).

In the BM tick dedicated to the scalar bit operation, if the scalar force is present, the mite bits move to the lite loci, if they are empty (zero state). With four bits in each concurrent pair of spot units, there are sixteen possible configurations. Table 1 lists the four permutations where a scalar force exists (equals one), showing initial and final states in this tick. In short, the electrostatic scalar force is the product of the two mite states.

Table 1: Scalar Bit Operation
Right Mites Left Mites
------------- -------------
Initial Final Initial Final Comment
1M 0L 0M 1L 0L 1M 1L 0M Both mites move
1M 0L 0M 1L 0L 1M 1L 0M

1M 1L 1M 1L 1L 1M 1L 1M
1M 0L 0M 1L 0L 1M 1L 0M One mite moves

1M 0L 0M 1L 0L 1M 1L 0M One mite moves
1M 1L 1M 1L 1L 1M 1L 1M

1M 1L 1M 1L 1L 1M 1L 1M No mite motion
1M 1L 1M 1L 1L 1M 1L 1M
Legend: State (0,1) of mite (M) or lite (L)

This scalar bit operation is used in all released versions up to the HotSpot 1.10 BM simulator [2]. In the original 1994 paper [1], the scalar operation was described as a bit annihilation process.

A typical simulator result is that the incidence of bit motion due to scalar forces decreases to zero over time, indicating effective repulsion, dispersion or separation of like-charged mites in the simulated space, which is what the electrostatic (scalar) potential is supposed to do.

Fig. 2: Vector Force in Countercurrent Spot Units
In countercurrent pairs of spot units, juxtaposition of a mite and a lite produces a vector force (grey rectangles in Fig. 2, eqs. 13 and 14 in [1]). Similar to the scalar force, the vector force equals the product of two bit states. Table 2 lists bit operations that occur if a vector force equals one:

Table 2: Vector Bit Operation
Right Mite Left Mite
------------- -------------
Initial Final Initial Final Comment
1L 0M 1L 0M 0L 1M 1L 0M Left mite moves
1M 0L 0M 1L 0M 1L 0M 1L Right mite moves

1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M
1M 0L 0M 1L 0M 1L 0M 1L Only right mite moves

1L 0M 1L 0M 0L 1M 1L 0M Only left mite moves
1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L

1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M No mite motion
1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L 1M 1L
Legend: State (0,1) of mite (M) or lite (L)

Similar to Table 1, Table 2 lists the four permutations of bits in the one state in a pair of countercurrent spot units. Only one mite may move per vector force instance, whereas a single scalar force instance may result in motion of two mites (first bit pattern in Table 1).

Notice that two statements may appear to be true: charge motion creates a magnetic field and a magnetic field causes charge acceleration. However, in BM the magnetic (vector) potential is seen to be the cause of mite motion, not the reverse. However, in a subsequent tick, the lite resulting from the mite motion, may itself create a vector potential. Hence, the above cause-and-effect description is true when time resolution is increased to reveal the order of events at the single tick level.

For both the scalar and vector bit operations, a force may exist without corresponding bit motion, which may be seen as a new result of BM.

In version 1.10 of the HotSpot BM simulator, a different bit operation was used for the vector force, which was dropped because it could cause bits to "freeze" in some experiments. However, HotSpot 1.20 uses the vector bit operation shown in Table 2, which solves that problem.

To review, the common features for all BM forces, the unconditional, scalar, vector and strong bit operations, might be summarized:

1. Bit states over BM distance d define a force which may be zero or one.

2. Coupling constants always equal one and are therefore omitted from expressions. Relative strengths of the BM forces, as might be expressed in coupling constants, are measured by their counts per bit operation cycle (4 ticks), which are tabulated by the BM simulator.

3. A bit (at a locus in the one state) moves as a result of a potential only when the destination bit locus is empty (in the zero state).

4. If a potential equals one, by definition, the source bit is always in the one state.

5. For the EM scalar and vector bit operations, only mite bits, not lite bits, may move as a result of a force.

6. The present assumption is that each bit operation occurs in a single tick. Hence, four ticks are required to conduct the four bit operations in a defined order, which might be said to complete one cycle in the time development of a BM state (bit distribution).

In short,

B₄ = F(S(U(V(B₀)))) (1)

where B₄ is the final bit state after 4 ticks, one for each bit operation; B₀ is the initial bit distribution; and V, U, S and F are the vector, unconditional, scalar and strong operations respectively. In contrast, in the 1994 paper [1], expressions were originally written with a different assumption that all bit operations could occur in a single tick.

7. For the intra-dimensional bit operations -- unconditional, scalar and vector, bit motion is always in the lite direction. For the scalar and vector operations, the potentials require one bit in the one state at a bit locus perpendicular to the direction that the bit may move (if its destination locus is empty).

Further, all countercurrent spot unit pairs reside within the spot cube (Fig. 3 in [3]) which directs attention to the apparent importance of magetic (vector) forces within particles such as baryons. In contrast, all concurrent spot unit pairs are located at the six spot cube surfaces, with one spot unit in each pair in a different spot cube, perhaps high-lighting the role of electrostatic (scalar) forces in determining interactions among spot cubes.

Finally, the classical EM four-vector, still used in quantum mechanics, becomes a six-vector in BM with three components each for scalar and vector operations [1]. Thus, the term "scalar" is not mathematically precise, since the electrostatic force is also deemed to be a "vector" in BM. Likewise, the precise definition of a vector is only analogical to the perpendicular arrangement of spot units in three spatial dimensions [3], where clearly, there is no single point of origin of the "vector".

In short, this six-vector is precisely a collection of six values (0,1) in an abstract space enumerating the EM potentials which may cause bit motion in a spot. "Scalar" and "vector" terminology provide descriptors for the respective bit operations, mostly to suggest their electrostatic and magnetic analogs in classical physics.

This BM postulate may partially explain difficulties experienced in quantum mechanic treatments where the level of fineness involves very small distances and short times, which are low integer multiples of the BM constants for distance d and time tick t. For example, consider the headaches associated with representation of the so-called point charge in classical quantum mechanic simulations[4].

That scalar potentials may exhibit directionality in BM can coexist with the concept of a point charge exerting equal force at a distance in any direction may be due to statistical methods used in classical and quantum mechanics which simply average out such directionality over distances much greater than the BM distance d, near which the directionality under some circumstances may be quite evident. Also, time resolution in typical measurements is no doubt much less than the 12 tick electron bit cycle [3], during which a particular mite bit occupies all three mite locations in an electron spot. Further, if an electron spot contains 2 or 3 mite bits, electrostatic directionality would be even more difficult to detect even if time resolution were increased.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Maximum Temperature Below Half Maximum Bit Density

2011-03-17T20:03:00.030-04:00

Updated: April 19, 2011
Binary mechanics (BM) [1] has predicted [2] that increased temperature is correlated with BM bit density over a wide range and a definite physical limitation on how high temperature could rise. In short, maximum possible temperature was predicted. A further speculation was that maximum possible temperature is attained below maximum bit density at which one might imagine that particle motion is less than the maximum possible, per considerations similar to those applicable in classical statistical mechanics. The present pilot study confirms these predictions based on data obtained with BM simulation software [3].

Methods
The BM simulator was started filling an entire 48x48x48 spot simulated cube of space with every bit set to one, so the initial state was maximum bit density.

Upon starting the HotSpot 1.26 simulator, click Cancel for the input file dialog and enter "48,21" at the first input prompt. At the "Mechanics..." input prompt, type "15,1,0" thereby setting initial bit density to 1.0 which is the maximum possible.

The simulator was run to a minimum bit density, at which time all excess electromagnetic (EM) energy (heat?) had dissipated as bits exited the simulated space, indicated by zero incidence of scalar or vector potentials.

As temperature relates to kinetic energy, the degree of motion of objects in our volume of space was of interest. Two measures were used.

First, objects were individual bits moving due to EM forces due to scalar and vector potentials, which produce mite, but not lite, motion. Each instance of a scalar or vector potential may result in a mite bit motion of exactly one unit of BM distance d, if the destination bit loci is empty (in the zero state). Thus, bit motion due to EM potentials was the operational definition of the kinetic energy underlying temperature.

These values are obtained from the Excel-format .csv output file of the simulator, where the ((S+V)/Mites)^2 temperature column tallied average mite motion kinetic energy, based on the S, V and Mites columns, according to the standard kinetic energy formula, mv²/2, where mite mass was set to 1 and the 1/2 factor dropped. The scalar potential (S column, blue) and the vector potential (V column, purple), each scaled by dividing by total Mites, was plotted over time (Tick column) in Fig. 1. Temperature was plotted versus bit density (Density column, which is Total column divided by the initial Tick 0 Total) expressed as a range from zero to one (Fig. 2).

Second, the net momentum components (p1, p2, p3 columns) pertain to net position change (r1, r2, r3 columns) of all bits in the simulated volume for each simulator Tick. The net position values is a center of bits analogical to a center of mass value. The RMS of these momentum components was computed -- sqr((p1² + p2² + p3²)/3), providing a crude look at the nature of the overall position changes (motion) of all bits in the volume. This RMS momentum value was plotted versus bit density in Fig. 3.

Results
Fig. 1: Proportion Scalar and Vector Bit Motion vs Simulator Ticks
Fig. 1 shows that at maximum bit densities (Tick 0), the incidence of bit motion due to EM forces is zero represented by zero bit motion counts for both scalar (blue) and vector potentials (purple). As time precedes, bit density decreases as bits exit the simulated space leaving empty bits -- that is, bit loci in the zero state, which are required for these EM potentials to result in bit motions. As a consequence, both the scalar and vector bit motion counts rise and peak. Peak temperature (Fig. 2) occurred at Tick 63, between the scalar and vector motion peaks.

Later, both counts decrease as bit density further decreases, as this "heat" energy leaves the simulated volume literally bit-by-bit. In the end, no further bit motion due to the EM potentials occurs for a different reason, namely lack of the bit juxtapositions at BM distance d between adjacent parallel spot units required for these potentials.

Fig. 2: Temperature vs Proportion Maximum Bit Density
Fig. 2 shows that temperature per the operational definition (Methods) peaks at 0.346, well below half maximum possible density.

As typical in simulator experiments with randomized initial states at a wide range of densities, these initial states are probably "unnatural" to some degree. Indeed, even in a few ticks, one can observe the bit distributions "reorganizing" themselves and bits perhaps representing excited states eventually exit the simulated volume. In Fig. 2, this final low energy state occurs at a bit density of about 0.07.

Fig. 3: RMS Momentum vs Proportion Maximum Bit Density
Finally, Fig. 3 plots the RMS of the net momentum components of all bits in the volume versus bit density as a proportion of absolute maximum density. Below maximum temperature, three peaks in this whole body motion occurred at 0.0736, 0.0844 and 0.1515 maximum density. A notable low in pRMS occurred at density 0.2452.

Above the absolute maximum temperature at density 0.346, another whole body motion peak occurred at density 0.4171, even though, at this point, temperature has dropped (Fig. 2).

Discussion
The rationale for the present operational definition for temperature (Fig. 2) was based on the relation of EM forces to heat in classical mechanics and thermodynamics and on the BM finding that particles like the proton and electron can exist in a perfect vacuum without any scalar or vector potentials present [4]. The other two bit operations in BM, unconditional and strong, function primarily in intra-particle events, which do not require either BM scalar or vector potentials.

With this operational definition of temperature, the simulator results show that absolute maximum temperature occurred at about 0.346 maximum bit density.

The reported peak mite bit motion in Fig. 2 is consistent with the BM prediction that absolute maximum temperature may in fact be a reality. In sum, a temperature of zero Kelvins is generally recognized as a lower limit. Now BM predicts an upper limit. The data reported support this possibility. One might argue that the zero bit motion due to EM potentials at the lowest bit density of about 0.07 may represent a very low temperature, if not zero degrees Kelvin.

At absolute zero Kelvin, bit motion continues at the intra-particle level, in the electron [5] and proton (baryon) [6] bit cycles, which depend on the unconditional and strong bit operations.

Of course, the fact that a very cold, stable final state was obtained with a bit density of 0.07 in this experiment does not exclude other cold, stable states at much lower bit densities, achieved with appropriate initial bit distributions. These considerations are entirely consistent with observation of single protons in the cold near vacuum of outer space and indeed, a BM single bit in a baryon bit cycle in a perfect vacuum [6].

If the simulator is started at lower initial bit densities, once excited states shed bits that are eventually lost by exiting the simulated volume, again the final lower energy states may represent zero degrees Kelvin. In other words, a range of bit densities may be in very low temperature states. A zero bit density, defined as an absolute vacuum, would be very cold indeed.

The possible novelty of the present results may lie in the observation that temperature drops from the peak temperature as bit density rises to its maximum, as previously predicted [2]. Maximum bit density may be viewed as an absolute maximum energy density. However, if maximum density is also a zero degree Kelvin state, one might view it as potential rather than kinetic energy.

At present, the temperatures of particular intermediate bit densities have not been calibrated in BM simulations. However, some rather high temperatures are purported to exist -- 10 TK (10 trillion Kelvin) in CERN's proton vs nucleus collisions [7]. Does the peak temperature in Fig. 2 represent 10 TK? Or is there a flaw in the 10 TK estimate, which may have originated by plugging values into an expression where temperature and total energy (potential and kinetic) are assumed to be proportional? A significant insight of the present work may be the apparent disassociation of temperature and total energy in a system (Fig. 2).

At high energy and bit densities, this disassociation occurs because of the paucity of empty bit loci to which bits may move, even though the EM potentials are also maximum. In simple English, it takes more than strong electrical or magnetic fields to move bits, namely that the bits must have somewhere to go -- bit loci in the zero state.

The current results require confirmation with perhaps larger simulated cubes of space to decrease any effect of the "border artifact" which may be seen in spots at the edges of the simulated cube.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Captives in a binary mechanical universe" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Proton and electron in perfect vacuum" In preparation, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[7] Wiki. "Temperature" March, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Captives in a Binary Mechanical Universe

2011-03-12T09:51:00.028-05:00

As implications of the assumptions or postulates of binary mechanics (BM)[1] are explored [2] [3] [4], priority tasks include determination of fundamental constants such as the BM distance unit d in meters and time (tick) unit t in seconds, derivation of other fundamental values such as the proton-electron rest mass ratio and generally, experimental verification that BM postulates and bit operations are both consistent with well-known physical observations (e.g., extremely long life-time of protons and electrons) and indeed provide very low level explanations of these phenomena. This article discusses some issues which may be relevant to successful completion of these goals including a number of BM predictions which may make or break BM as a physical theory.

Boot-strapping a New Physics
All BM basics must be exactly correct in order to fully achieve these goals. One strategy is to isolate components to explore or test specific features of BM.

For example, a recent report [2] may have established the duration (84 ticks) of the central baryon bit cycle by using a single test bit in the HotSpot simulator program [5], which represents this cycle duration as 21 Ticks, each with four sub-ticks.

In that study, the veracity of present implementation of the scalar and vector bit operations was irrelevant, since these operations require at least one additional bit in the simulation to achieve scalar or vector potentials respectively. In addition, with only one test bit in the simulation, the strong potential is never blocked by a second bit in the test bit's destination location. Thus, the 84 tick cycle described depends only on the veracity of the unconditional and strong bit operations utilized.

In sum, this study may have achieved some success in factoring out aspects of BM, as presently conceived, which may not be fully correct.

Another example of this sort of leverage may be the updated simulation software [5] where the order of application of bit operations was edited to unconditional, scalar, vector, strong to achieve much better spatial symmetry in the time (tick) development of BM states from randomized, initial states. In this case, simple observation of the bit density distribution in the simulated cube of space appears to have been sufficient to select a bit operations order resulting in better spatial symmetry over time. Naturally, this edit of operator order which appears to be more reasonable does not guarantee its correctness or completeness. Nonetheless, this sort of experimentation with simulation may point in the right direction.

The Illusion of Mass
Another leverage strategy is examination of unitless ratios among physical constants, such as the ratio of proton and electron rest masses. An introduction to this subject probably requires some contemplation of just how captive we are in the postulated BM universe. For example, mass as reckoned in kilogram units is clearly an illusion, since in BM mass boils down to the difficulty (or probability) of a particle movement in the context of a particular bit distribution in the particle's rather immediate environment.

To make matters worse, many fundamental constants (e.g., Planck's constant h) and expressions (e.g., E = mc²) entangle the mass illusion with length and time parameters. The challenge, then, is to tease out individual components, such as length and time, in order to fix their values in terms of BM fundamental constants such as length d and time t.

The unitless proton-electron rest mass ratio may be helpful toward this objective since it represents a probability ratio in BM, as suggested above. That is, at presumably base energy levels (per rest mass), the probability that bits in the vicinity of an electron would cause it to move to an adjacent electron spot is about 1836 times greater than the corresponding probability for proton motion over the same distance.

This apparently fundamental fact is projected into our experience with all the baggage associated with the fact that the sensory systems in our bodies and the event detectors in our experiments are all confined to a world of particles with somewhat limited ability to measure background or subthreshold bit densities and patterns. In the BM simulator (HotSpot), such vacuum bit states may be seen after a simulated cube of randomized bits settles down to a base or low energy state, indicated in part by cessation of bits radiating (exiting) from the simulated cube of space.

Nonetheless, many ingenious investigators in physics have offered a wide range of concepts about what may fill the vacuum, from ether to electromagnetic or gravity force fields to virtual particles. More recently, the ideas of dark matter and dark energy have emerged as vacuum constituents, with some experimental verification. Although captives in a BM universe, very clever minds have found ways to make observations suggesting something is in fact present in the so-called vacuum.

As BM was formulated, the author defined a spot unit consisting of two binary bits, the mite thought to relate to "matter" with mass and the massless lites thought to relate to particles such as photons. These two spot unit bits were thought to correspond to the real and imaginary components of complex numbers routinely used in quantum mechanics (QM) expressions, such as its wave functions [1]. A crucial difference is that the complex value (amplitude) squared estimates a probability, whereas in BM there is no guessing. That is, the two spot unit components (mite and lite) are each definitely either zero or one. Further, there is no guessing (or Heisenberg uncertainty) regarding the time development of these bit states, given fully defined bit operations.

In this light, the manner in which QM attempts to represent physical states in continuous space and time is clearly an approximation or educated guess, rather than a basis for a precise physical theory. The author nor anybody else need make this assertion, since admission that QM is only a statistical approximation is formalized via its origins in statistical mechanics, advanced statistics and widely accepted concepts such as Heisenberg uncertainty.

Indeed, the author cannot recall reading any justification for quantization of a growing number of variables while space and time must be continuous variables. Not even the fact that quantum electrodynamic calculations have been typically conducted by parsing components into an orthogonal lattice of tiny cubes, seems to have inspired investigators to question the apparently sacred assumption of continuous space and time.

This QM situation goes from bad to worse when small distances or time intervals are considered. When the level of fineness approaches small multiples of BM length d and time t, what happens? Worshippers of continuous space and time might wish to process a point charge located at position (r1, r2, r3) = (3.6, 5.4, 2.2) at time 8.9. For the moment we can ignore the suspension of disbelief required to assert that something (a charge) is nothing (a point with no dimension), and then that this nothing might actually be something (a small charged sphere). Of course, the position and time above simply do not exist in BM, where integer multiples are used. For lattice calculations in QM, one might truncate the values to position (3, 5, 2) at time 8 or round the values to (4, 5, 2) at time 9. At this point, the accuracy of the resulting statistical approximation may be seriously compromised as well as its validity since entirely misleading or incorrect results might be obtained.

On the question of precision, there are no fudge factors in BM, no excuses. A result is either precisely correct or incorrect. In contrast, when a result in QM is not right, an infinity of alternate results may be trotted out using excuses such as "the event was actually elsewhere in the probability distribution" or the old favorite -- the uncertainty fudge factor: "Anything can happen as long as it does not take too long".

In this context, if the holy ground of continuous space and time was surrounded by a wall, one might be prompted to declare, "Mr. Physics, tear down this wall."

As described, historically, QM is largely a continuation of the mind-set of classical statistical mechanics, as the foundational math used is essentially identical, continuously adding new terms (spin, color and whatnot) to better model experimental data. In short, QM is a dead-end street. Stepping back for a view of the big picture, it might be evident that clever mathematicians will always be able to cook up expressions that fit experimental data. And then, the most simple irreducible form of these expressions is deemed to be the most acceptable physical theory.

In contrast, BM wins the simplicity game by a mile, as a criterion for a preferred scientific theory. What could be more simple than an entire universe built from a single fundamental object, a spot unit composed of two binary bits? Until such time as researchers attempt to peer inside the spot unit to apprehend its inner structure and workings, BM wins the gold metal for simplicity in theoretical physics. On a perhaps humorous note, one might rename BM as "2-bit mechanics" or the "25-cent theory".

The foregoing little commentary should not be construed as an attack on QM or the many, very smart people who developed or worked with it. Rather, the author tips the hat in gratitude to these dedicated investigators.

If one insists that the mite bit has mass as understood in conventional physics, there may be no end to problems and possible contradictions. For example, does an electron mite have a different mass than a proton mite? If yes, what would be the justification for such a proposition? The mite in BM is an abstract binary bit, period. Mass as such does not enter into any BM equation, such as those defining time development (bit operations) of its state vector (the bit distribution).

If the idea that different mites in different spots (e.g., lepton, quark) have different masses proves to be absurd or without any reasonable justification, does one have to conclude that mass in our experience (and experiments) is merely a sort of artifact or illusion originating from the more fundamental underlying fact that the probabilities to accelerate an electron or proton are markedly different?

The good news is that mass, when considered in terms of unitless ratios, may well be extracted from BM simulations where these probabilities are itemized and their ratios computed. Frankly, such a demonstration would be sensational (pun intended) physics news, that this "2-bit theory" might both account for and explain observed ratios such as proton-electron rest masses. One might plausibly envision entirely feasible similar work that might simultaneously estimate and explain other unitless ratios.

Fences Help Maintain Captivity
A good fence may keep a dog in a yard. BM implies some definite borders in the world we experience which may be construed as theoretical predictions as well as upper or lower limits to BM constants such as length d and tick time t. Violation of even one of these predictions might well be fatal for BM as a physical theory.

1. Perhaps the most obvious prediction is maximum energy density, which is simply defined as all bits (mite and lite) in the one state in a selected volume of space. For high energy physicists, once this maximum energy density is obtained, one can go no further. Consider that additional bits cannot be forced into such a volume if there is no place for them to go.

2. At first glance, for workers in high temperature and high pressure states, one might assume that increased temperature or pressure is correlated with BM bit density over a wide range. These workers are invited to calibrate this supposed relationship. Therefore, BM would predict a definite physical limitation on how high temperature and pressure could rise. In short, maximum possible temperature and pressure are predicted.

To the extent that temperature is viewed as kinetic energy in particle motion, one might further speculate that maximum possible temperature is attained below maximum bit density at which one might imagine that particle motion is less than the maximum possible. At maximum bit density, consider that a particle has nowhere to move to.

In sum, a temperature of zero Kelvins is generally recognized as a lower limit. Now BM predicts an upper limit. At present, the temperatures of particular intermediate bit densities have not been calibrated in BM simulations. Concerning the lower temperature limit, it is well-known that matter does not simply disappear at or near zero Kelvin. That is, the low final bit densities observed in BM simulations might well be representations of very low temperatures.

3. For volumes with higher conventional mass density, such as black holes or atomic nuclei, one might expect that the corresponding BM bit density is in fact far below the BM maximum bit density, because simulation experiments starting with maximum density are seen to be highly unstable excited states (e.g., Fig. 1 in [6]).

In other words, the very dense, heavy particles represented have very short life-times, simply because the strong potential required for bit cycling is less likely if destination bit loci are already occupied. As a result, unconditional bit motion predominates resulting in dramatic bit dispersion. Also, at high bit densities, scalar potentials (justaposition of like-charged mites) are more likely which results in further bit motion to lite loci.

4. BM predicts a maximum possible frequency at or near 1/2t, where t is the tick duration in seconds and the factor 2 is inserted with the assumption that an order of magnitude of 2 ticks is required to realize an observable oscillation. Hence, the highest energy observed gamma rays may provide an upper limit to the BM fundamental constant t.

That gamma rays are deemed to be high energy is entirely consistent with BM, since such radiation would deliver more bits per unit time to a spatial volume.

5. One notices our captivity as denizens of a BM universe when frequency is routinely converted to wave length, thus entangling length and time parameters in the window of our perceptual capability. Nonetheless, redundant though it may be, BM necessarily predicts a minimum possible wavelength on the order of 2d based on considerations similar to those for maximum possible frequency.

6. BM predicts that bit velocity v equal to d/t is substantially greater than the observed speed of light c. Consider that all bit motion is along one of three perpendicular directions. However, over any larger distance at an arbitrary angle to the BM spatial reference frame [1], such as might be used to measure light velocity, the bits required to realize the measurement must most often travel a significantly greater distance, implying a greater bit velocity. That BM fundamental velocity is probably greater than the speed of light is another indicator of our captivity, since light velocity is commonly regarded as a limit in our experience and science.

This greater bit velocity v must be consistent with estimated upper limits for BM constants d and t.

7. Anisotropy is predicted and indeed a number of physical observations, such as background cosmic microwave radiation, might be studied in the context of the seemingly fantastic BM idea that a particular spatial reference frame may apply to the entire universe and thereby play a significant role in some anisotrophic phenomena.

On the other hand, as conventional concepts in physics go, this may not require more suspension of disbelief than many other ideas in physics that have been widely accepted.

8. Another obvious BM prediction is that any postulated "particle" in the Standard Model and beyond may be represented as one or more bit patterns in BM space. If this cannot be done, either BM or the particle postulator is wrong.

In other words, BM appears to assert that all possible particles have already been discovered. Just open a laptop and play with bit patterns and observe all that can be, which can be well understood with no more math training than binary logic -- and, or, xor, if-then, etc, determining which bits will be set (one) or cleared (zero) in each tick. All possible particles can be rather easily observed, as well as all possible particle interactions, at an almost infinitesimal cost compared to all the real estate, copper and whatnot required to build high energy colliders. Sounds like a bargain.

The First Minutes
If BM were a movie, so far only the first few minutes have been presented, perhaps enough to decide if the rest is worth watching.

For example, the author is not yet prepared to offer a specific rule to define which bit patterns are observable particles, leaving the remainder in equally ill-defined categories such as dark matter and energy or EM force fields and the like. However, we do have a range to work with. One may stipulate that an observable particle -- a vague reference to items such as protons and electrons among many others -- must have at least one bit in the one state, else absolutely nothing is present. At the other extreme, maximum bit density in any set of spots appears to be an unstable high energy or excited state. Hence, one might guess that the specific rule for a particle might have an upper limit for the minimum number of bits required, probably well below maximum bit density for the spots used by a particular particle (see, e.g, Table 3 in [1]).

Considering a specific case, a spot contains 6 bits -- 3 mites and 3 lites. To keep things simple, consider the one-spot electron particle. It has been suggested that the lites might best represent lower excited states. Hence, our specific rule would seem to boil down to one to three mites as the choices for our particle threshold, where subthreshold bits are not experienced (detected) as particles.

This issue requires further thought and investigation. For example, it not yet known exactly how we experience underlying BM quantized space, time and events (by our sensory organs or detectors used in experiments). Do the bit states in all ticks enter into the picture or is our experience confined to an odd tick world or an even tick world, not to mention a n tick key-hole view? As in motion picture or computer animation, might it be that as BM bit operations churn away, our experience (perceivable world) consists only of frames selected at presumably equal intervals of n ticks? Indeed, the HotSpot simulator does exactly that, displaying bit density and histograms only at every fourth tick.

In short, a rule to define a particle may involve considerations involving both bit counts at one or more spots and time in terms of a tick count n, where n is one or more, possibly as much as 84 which was reported as the central baryon bit cycle time in tick units [2].

A possibly encouraging sign is an observation from the HotSpot simulator. Starting from randomized initial bit states, as bit density decreases due to bits lost by exiting the simulated space, one can see in the XRAY view that higher density sub-volumes are often evident. Are these our particles? As reported previously, both the electron and baryons contain bit loops which would tend to capture and hold incoming bits. Could there be one or more simple atoms there? There is always the next question.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulation software" Feb, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

The Central Baryon Bit Cycle

2011-03-11T19:06:00.012-05:00

Binary mechanics (BM)[1] simulation software [2] is used to describe the central baryon bit cycle, shown in purple in Fig. 3 of [3]. The right-handed quark spots (drR, dgR and dbR) each have three bit cycles which define their extent of spatial influence. That is, the location of a bit in these cycles can create or modify scalar, vector or strong potentials, which in turn can modify the respective bit operations at those locations in quantized BM space.

All three right-handed quarks share the central baryon bit cycle, which suggests that its complete detail is a good place to start to understand the properties of baryons such as protons and neutrons. The present description is based on a specific interpretation of BM space, which is composed of spot units assembled into spots which further combine in an array of spot cubes [4].

Methods
HotSpot 1.10 -- the BM simulator program -- was used to itemize the travels of a single test bit in the central baryon bit cycle. With only a single bit in the simulated space, there is no possibility of interference from any other bits creating or modifying scalar, vector or strong potentials. Indeed, scalar and vector potentials require juxtaposed bits in concurrent and counter-current locations respectively and therefore cannot affect our results. Further, a strong potential occurs only when another bit does not already occupy the site to which our test bit would scatter via an inter-dimensional bit operation. If only one test bit exists in the simulated space, the strong potential is always operative (equal to one).

In sum, in this experiment, only two bit operations were possible -- unconditional bit motion and inter-dimensional bit motion due to the strong potential.

Table 1 was obtained from the HotSpot output file using the 011glu1.mat initialization file, which is included in the "ini" sub-directory, so the reader may run the program and perhaps better visualize the results. The 101glu1.mat input file shows the same bit cycle from a different starting point. Regarding the file naming convention, the first three characters are the spot IJK parities with the rest indicating one gluon bit.

Results
Table 1 lists the central baryon bit cycle in terms of HotSpot Ticks, which each consist of four BM ticks, one each for the unconditional, scalar, vector and strong bit operations. Tick 0 is the initial state defined in the input file to which we return in Tick 21. Hence, Ticks 1 to 21 define the steps in the cycle.

Table 1: Central Baryon Bit Cycle in HotSpot Ticks
Tick Type Q Spot r1 r2 r3 p1 p2 p3
0 Glu 0 drR 32 34 34 -1 -1 0
1 Qua 1 dgL 32 35 33 0 1 -1
2 Glu 0 dgL 33 35 32 1 0 -1
3 Pho 0 e+R* 33 36 33 0 1 1
4 Glu 0 drL* 34 36 32 1 0 -1
5 Qua -1 dbR 34 35 33 0 -1 1
6 Qua 1 dbR 35 34 33 1 -1 0
7 Glu 0 dbR 34 34 32 -1 0 -1
8 Qua 1 drL 35 33 32 1 -1 0
9 Glu 0 drL 35 32 33 0 -1 1
10 Pho 0 e+R* 36 33 33 1 1 0
11 Glu 0 dbL* 36 32 34 0 -1 1
12 Qua -1 dgR 35 33 34 -1 1 0
13 Qua 1 dgR 34 33 35 -1 0 1
14 Glu 0 dgR 34 32 34 0 -1 -1
15 Qua 1 dbL 33 32 35 -1 0 1
16 Glu 0 dbL 32 33 35 -1 1 0
17 Pho 0 e+R* 33 33 36 1 0 1
18 Glu 0 dgL* 32 34 36 -1 1 0
19 Qua -1 drR 33 34 35 1 0 -1
20 Qua 1 drR 33 35 34 0 1 -1
21 Glu 0 drR 32 34 34 -1 -1 0
LEGEND: Qua, quark mite; Glu, gluonic lite; Pho, photonic lite; Q, sign of mite charge; Spot, d quark (d) with r, g or b color and right (R) or left (L) handedness; position, r1, r2, r3 in BM distance units; momentum, p1, p2, p3

The central baryon bit cycle consists of 21 simulator Ticks, or a total of 84 BM ticks, if each of the four possible bit operations each transpire in one tick.

The momentum components (p1, p2, p3) indicate the change in position (r1, r2, r3) of the test bit in each simulator Tick, where the two non-zero components represent the bit motion from unconditional and strong operations, which were the only ones possible in this experiment. The momentum components are presented for clarity, since they are redundant with the position data, merely showing the change in the respective components (r1, r2, r3).

In this data, IJK spot parity may be obtained where positions 32, 33 and 36 are even parity (zero) and positions 34 and 35 are odd parity (one). For example, at Tick 1 with position 32, 35, 33, the IJK parity is 010 which defines the dgL spot.

The spots marked with * are outside the spot cube in one of three different adjacent spot cubes (Ticks 3 and 4; Ticks 10 and 11; Ticks 17 and 18). These consist of only the positron (e+R) spot and left-handed quark spots (drL, dbL, dgL).

A modified version of HotSpot was used to display the exact sequence of bit motion in the central baryon bit cycle (Table 2).

Table 2: Central Baryon Bit Cycle in HotSpot Ticks
Tick Type Q Spot r1 r2 r3 p1 p2 p3
0 Glu 0 drR 32 34 34 0 0 0
1u Qua 1 dgL 32 34 33 0 0 -1
1s Qua 1 dgL 32 35 33 0 1 0
2u Glu 0 dgL 33 35 33 1 0 0
2s Glu 0 dgL 33 35 32 0 0 -1
3u Lep 1 e+R* 33 36 32 0 1 0
3s Pho 0 e+R* 33 36 33 0 0 1
4u Qua -1 drL* 34 36 33 1 0 0
4s Glu 0 drL* 34 36 32 0 0 -1
5u Qua -1 dbR 34 35 32 0 -1 0
5s Qua -1 dbR 34 35 33 0 0 1
6u Glu 0 dbR 35 35 33 1 0 0
6s Qua 1 dbR 35 34 33 0 -1 0
7u Glu 0 dbR 35 34 32 0 0 -1
7s Glu 0 dbR 34 34 32 -1 0 0
8u Qua 1 drL 34 33 32 0 -1 0
8s Qua 1 drL 35 33 32 1 0 0
9u Glu 0 drL 35 33 33 0 0 1
9s Glu 0 drL 35 32 33 0 -1 0
10u Lep 1 e+R* 36 32 33 1 0 0
10s Pho 0 e+R* 36 33 33 0 1 0
11u Qua -1 dbL* 36 33 34 0 0 1
11s Glu 0 dbL* 36 32 34 0 -1 0
12u Qua -1 dgR 35 32 34 -1 0 0
12s Qua -1 dgR 35 33 34 0 1 0
13u Glu 0 dgR 35 33 35 0 0 1
13s Qua 1 dgR 34 33 35 -1 0 0
14u Glu 0 dgR 34 32 35 0 -1 0
14s Glu 0 dgR 34 32 34 0 0 -1
15u Qua 1 dbL 33 32 34 -1 0 0
15s Qua 1 dbL 33 32 35 0 0 1
16u Glu 0 dbL 33 33 35 0 1 0
16s Glu 0 dbL 32 33 35 -1 0 0
17u Lep 1 e+R* 32 33 36 0 0 1
17s Pho 0 e+R* 33 33 36 1 0 0
18u Qua -1 dgL* 33 34 36 0 1 0
18s Glu 0 dgL* 32 34 36 -1 0 0
19u Qua -1 drR 32 34 35 0 0 -1
19s Qua -1 drR 33 34 35 1 0 0
20u Glu 0 drR 33 35 35 0 1 0
20s Qua 1 drR 33 35 34 0 0 -1
21u Glu 0 drR 32 35 34 -1 0 0
21s Glu 0 drR 32 34 34 0 -1 0
LEGEND: same as Table 1 adding Lep, lepton mite.

In Table 2, each line is an interval (Ticks 1 to 21) showing a single bit motion over one unit of BM distance due to an unconditional (u) or strong (s) operation.

Within the spot cube (no *), the right-handed quarks (R) have equal color representation, each color with six intervals. Similarly, the left-handed quarks (L) have equal color representation, but only four intervals each. That is, the test bit spends 50 percent more time in R quarks (matter) than in L quarks (antimatter).

For 12 (*) of the 42 intervals from Tick 1 to 21, the test bit spends equal time in one of three adjacent spot cubes.

The sum of the charge sign column (Q) is 3, in nominal agreement with a positively charged proton.

Discussion
The present simulation assumes a particular physical interpretation of BM space [4] and has revealed a 84 BM tick central baryon bit cycle. Half of these 84 ticks is assigned to scalar and vector bit operations, which were factored out in this experiment by using a single test bit in the simulated space, thereby eliminating the possibility of scalar or vector potentials. Hence, it might be imagined that our test bit was motionless for one half of the time (not shown in Table 2).

Most of the reported bit cycle occured within one central spot cube, where the test bit was located in right-handed (R, matter) quark spots for 50 percent more time than in left-handed (L, antimatter) quark spots. This finding is directionally consistent with observed matter versus antimatter asymmetry and may partially provide a simple explanation of this phenomenon, at least concerning quarks. Namely, for the R quarks, the handedness (chirality) requires the test bit to cycle through all six bit locations in their respective spots before exiting to the next L quark in the cycle sequence. On the other hand, the test bit cycles through only four bit locations of the L quarks in the spot cube, before exiting to the next spot in the sequence. For each of the L quark spots within this central spot cube, the next spot is a positron (e+R*) spot in an adjacent spot cube.

The two "unused" bit locations in each of the three L quarks in the central spot cube comprise spot units in which interactions (interference) among spot cubes may be realized. These interactions may play a role in binding nucleons together as well as motion (acceleration) of baryon particles to adjacent spot cubes.

The reported central (or shared) baryon bit cycle does not appear to interact at all with the electron (e-L) or positron (e+R) spots within its own central spot cube.

The six faces of the central spot cube correspond to eight adjacent spot cubes. The central baryon bit cycle ventures into only three of these, indicating a spatial asymmetry in its overall shape. Previous work on proton bit loops (cycles) [3] showed that the shape of the proton, as defined by the locations where its bits might create or modify BM potentials, is not spherical. The present description of the central baryon loop further highlights this point.

Three of the nine possible bit loops for right-handed quarks described above are shared in this central baryon loop. Thus, the overall shape of a proton may be determined by the exact spatial distribution of the seven different loops as shown in Fig. 3 of [3], using the above method for each of the remaining six loops.

If such precise itemizations of baryon bit loops prove to be correct, it may increase understanding of baryon behavior. For example, a significant result of this study is that the central loop ventures into three neighboring spot cubes, which may lead to better understanding of binding among nucleons. Further, this information is required to itemize the exact conditions required for motion of baryons in BM space (to adjacent spot cubes).

Conventional quantum mechanics can only provide approximations, if not outright distortions, on these important matters, at this nuclear physics level of fineness, since it assumes continuous space and time, while quantizing virtually everything else. Some of these more general issues will be discussed in a future article.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulator updated" March, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" February, 2011.
© 2011 James J Keene

Binary Mechanics Simulator Updated

2011-03-11T17:08:00.011-05:00

Updated: May 24, 2011
A new version of the binary mechanics (BM)[1] simulation software -- HotSpot 1.26 -- has been released and is available as a free download here. New features will be summarized, along with comments on data shown in this screen-shot:Fig. 1: 40x40x40 Default Experiment

New Features in HotSpot 1.26
1. The order of the non-commuting bit operations is now VUSF, shown in the upper-right of Fig. 1, which is vector (V), unconditional (U), scalar (S) and strong (F). This may be the physically correct order.

2. A Particle option (P key) was added (default is ON) where eight lepton and quark spot counts (e-L, dbR, dwR, drR, etc, shown in reverse video blue) require 2 or more mites, to define a "particle threshold". For baryons (EdR and EdL; purple), with Particle ON, each count requires all three corresponding R or L quarks to meet or exceed the 2-mite per spot criterion.

In future simulator versions, the dwR and dwL counts will be dgR and dgL, since the quark color designation was changed from white (w) to green (g), probably to make physics 101 textbooks more colorful.

3. Several values have been added. The I count is inertia. %M is percent of absolute maximum density where each spot can hold no more than 6 bits. %M is therefore always greater than the other density values based on bits per spatial volume, since 2 sub-cubes are void in each 2x2x2 spot. KE is the sum of mite motion counts S and V. The standard deviations in each dimension are also displayed (sd1, sd2 and sd3). Qs is the net count of mite signs (related to 1/3 electrostatic charge) and Q is the running average of Qs over the number of simulator Ticks specified by the cycle parameter (default = 21, which is the central baryon bit cycle time).

4. To avoid manual keyboard input, the initial state may be loaded from a file. The "ini" sub-directory in the download contains some samples of such files. Input files are created automatically after initialization in each program run, so the same initial state and parameters can be reloaded later. In the case of random bit distributions in the initial state, this feature is useful to repeat experiments with different conditions starting from the same initial state.

5. If the initial state is defined by keyboard inputs, a file is created in the "ini" sub-directory so this manual input will not be required again. These files are named "inixxxxx.mat" where xxxxx is a hex time-stamp, and may be renamed to more intuitive names, as may be seen in the sample "ini" files in the download.

In summary, the initial state is set (1) by an existing "ini" file or (2) by manual input which is saved as a new "ini" file for future use by the program.

6. After a solid rectangular volume is initialized with manual keyboard inputs as in the previous version, a new prompt is added -- "More (Y,N)?". If yes, the program will recycle to allow initialization of another volume (which may overlap the previous one), thus allowing easy setup of more complex initial states. When complete, just hit "Enter" (for No) at the "More" prompt.

7. An Excel-compatible, tick-by-tick output file containing key raw data is written to the "dat" sub-directory. The first line is column labels.

These .csv output files are named using the same base name as the initial state file described above. This file may likewise be renamed to better indicate the nature of the experiment.

This allows the user to employ his own software to further analyze and display the data. Examples: Plots over time (Ticks) may be done. The "OutBits" column is the Tick series used to compute the spectrum in HotSpot (left histogram in Fig. 1) and may be used as input to other spectrum analysis programs.

HotSpot allows one to start with a particular initial state, and then vary control parameters. For example, one might turn off some of the bit operations (the "Mech" bitmask) as shown in the Help screen. Another example is the "Box" option.

Studies thus far have indicated that "excess energy" tends to be "radiated" in the form of bits leaving the simulated volume of space[2]. Let's assume one wants to "inject" those lost bits back into the space, which would tend to keep the bit density fairly constant. This is the "Box" option. On a later Tick, bits exiting the space are injected back in via the nearest counter-current site from the exit site of each bit. One might do this as follows.

The first display is Tick 0 showing the initial state before anything has been done. When the screen starts printing this display, press the "b" key immediately to change to "Box" mode, which will be shown in the upper-right "opt" option entry. In this mode the bit density will remain more or less constant. This "bits-in-a-box" mode may be relevant to studies of "higher energy" or "higher temperature" events. A typical result is an increased incidence of bits in antimatter spots (e+R, dbL, dwL, drL), exactly as one might predict.

The Default Experiment
1. Perhaps the most important feature of the results shown in Fig. 1 is much better spatial symmetry due to the change in the order of bit operations. This experiment begins with a randomized bit distribution which may contain "momentum" configurations. In this context, one would not expect perfect symmetry. However, if one repeats many runs with new random initial states, there is still a tendency for bit motion to distribute bits symmetrically.

2. This version still has some asymmetry at border spots, on the edge of the simulated space, but perhaps less than that seen in the previous versions. One work-around is to use spaces with DIM greater than 32. For example, if DIM is set to 48, then the program will display the center 32x32x32 spots in the 48x48x48 simulated cube, placing the border spots some 8 spots away from the displayed image. Likewise, the Density histogram on the right would span this 32x32x32 sub-space. However, the data summaries at the right would still include all the DIM=48 spots in the present HotSpot version.

3. The results shown replicate the prior finding [2] that the incidence of matter far exceeds that of antimatter in the bit density range used which started with 0.194 per spatial volume -- a trend seen as the randomized bits begin to "reorganize" themselves even in the first few ticks.

4. If a particular random initial state results in excess net charge counts (Q above), the usual result is that this net charge trends toward zero net charge over time, if excess bits exit the space (Box mode OFF), consistent with well-known physics.

The next article will examine in detail the central bit cycle that occurs in baryons such as protons and neutrons, shown in purple in Fig. 3 in [3].

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics simulation software" Feb, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
© 2011 James J Keene

Binary Mechanics Simulation Software

2011-02-20T00:38:00.026-05:00

Computer software to simulate the time development of binary mechanics [1] states has produced some encouraging results consistent with well-known physics. The program to be presented was originally written as a console program for 16-bit computers in 1994 and recently ported to HotBasic, which is faster than C language variants (C, C+, C++, etc). Any initial state may be used and its development over time observed. Fig. 1 shows mite and lite bits exploding from an initial state of all bits set for maximum bit density in a sphere with a radius of 8 spots.
Fig. 1: Solid View of "Exploding Sphere"

Each icon represents a spot showing mites (+, -) and lites for the X (<, left; >, right), Y (^, up; v, down) and Z (*, oncoming; x, receding) dimensions. Where a spot contains both mite and lite, preference is to show the mite, unless a program option is selected to show lites only.

This solid view shows only the "surface", namely those spots containing bits closest to the observer in the Z dimension projected on the XY plane displayed. The color codes indicate distance from the observer (yellow closest and purple most distant in the case shown in Fig. 1).

The histogram on the right in Fig. 1 is the average of three histograms, one each for the X, Y and Z dimensions, intended to illustrate the degree of spatial symmetry in bit distribution.

The distribution taken after about 21 ticks for Fig. 1 shows mite and lite bits emerging from the 8-spot radius, maximum-density initial state, which, as can be seen, is not stable. It is as if energy, in the form of material (mites) and radiation (lites), is being emitted in all directions.

HotSpot Simulator Software
The simulation program (named HotSpot) includes an engine to implement the time development of the bit states in a cube of space. To increase speed, the core engine was written with Assembler language inserts into the HotBasic code. Additional components display and analyze data (Fig. 2). A free Windows version of HotSpot may be downloaded here.
Fig. 2: Tick 520 Plane View From Random Initial Bit State

The size of the simulated space cube may be selected at run-time and was set to 32 spots as displayed in the upper-right text "Dim = 32". The plane view shows bit pattern in a 3-spot deep plane perpendicular to the Z dimension ("XYplane 16" in the text on the right). In this plane view, the color-coding of the bit icons indicates number of bits in the slice of the cube. In short, the plane view is like a thin section of a solid material. In real-time, the user may move the displayed plane closer (decreased Z) or further (increased Z) from the observer with simple keyboard inputs (+, -).

Fig. 2 is a snapshot of "Tick 520" where each HotSpot Tick consists of four binary mechanics ticks, one for each bit motion type. For this experiment, the execution of these "sub-ticks" were ordered unconditional, vector, scalar and strong. The first three are all intra-dimensional while the strong force alone produces inter-dimensional bit motion. Recall that integer space coordinate parity plays a big role in binary mechanics. For example, even parity defines positive mite charge while odd parity defines negative charge. Hence, positron spot 000 has three positive mites and electron spot 111 has three negative mites. The intra- and inter-dimensional forces might similarly correspond to some sort of tick parity.

Moving to the text display on the right, we have 32768 spots in this cube of space (32^3) with 24576 bytes of bit locations, which is the 6 of 8 bits used in each 2d-side cube occupied by each spot [2].

The Loci, Bits and Rand values record initial state (Tick = 0) parameters. Loci has 8 bit flags indicating which spots (000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110 and 111) may be initialized with bits (mites or lites). Bits contains 8 bit flags, one each for the 8 types listed above as icons (2 mites and 6 lites). The 255 value for both Loci and Bits records that all possible loci and bits were enabled for seeding the initial state. Rand, when not zero, indicates the probability of seeding a bit. In the experiment shown, the initial bit density was 0.25.

At start up, if Radius is set to zero, HotSpot asks for an XYZ range which can be seeded with bits. This range may vary from a single spot (e.g., 1,1,1,1,1,1 for one electron spot) to the entire simulated cube of space shown in Fig. 2 (X0, X1, etc).

In summary, the Tick 0 initial state may vary from a single bit to maximum bit density in the selected sub-space.

During an experiment, simple keyboard inputs can alter in real-time which bit types are displayed: mites or lites or both (as in this experiment -- "Mites & Lites"). It is also possible to display leptons or quarks or both and photonic lites or gluonic lites or both. The reverse video line records that all bits are displayed in the experiment shown at Tick 520 ("Lep Qua Pho Glu"). Regardless of which bit types are displayed, the data and analysis in the rest of the text is based on all bits in the simulated space.

The Mech parameter is five bit flags indicating which bit operations are enabled. The flag bits are 1, Unconditional bit motion; 2, Scalar force; 4, Vector force; 8, Strong force; and 16, Gravity. These bit operations may be turned on and off in real-time with simple keyboard inputs. The "Mech 15" value records that all bit operations are on, except Gravity is off.

The gravity section of the original BM paper [1] is perhaps the most speculative. For the present early simulation work, the gravity bit operation is therefore turned off. Also, in the present HotSpot version, the Scalar bit operation has been changed from mutual mite annihilation as proposed in the original BM paper to motion of the two concurrent mite bits to their respective spot unit lites.

The Look parameter contains flags controlling the simulated space display. "Look 7" records that mites (flag bit 0 = 1) and lites (flag bit 1 = 2) are displayed in a plane view (flag bit 2 = 4).

The Opt parameter (which is zero in Fig. 2) indicates various options. For example, HotSpot can turn on or off several options including Box (all emitted bits are reflected back into the corresponding spots from which they came on subsequent Ticks) and Left and/or Right Guns (which "fire" bits into the simulated space).

A Binary Mechanics Experiment
Fig. 2 and 3 show snapshots of a BM experiment.

L, Q, P and G are densities for lepton mites, quark mites, photonic lites and gluonic lites respectively. m and l values are total mite and lite densities where m = L + Q and l = P + G. Density d = m + l and is the total bit density. d seems to indicate the total energy in the simulated space cube. In the Tick 520 snapshot shown, d has declined to 0.09 from the initial approximate 0.25 level ("Rand 0.25"). This decline is due to bits exiting the simulated space cube, shown by the * value, which is a bit current measure (number of bits exiting / space cube surface area).

An obvious result is that high bit densities represent unstable states which tend to distribute bits (energy) to surrounding space until a stable (near base) energy state is achieved. A number of experiments (not shown) presently suggest that this base state for the entire simulated space cube (no more bits emitted) is achieved at a bit density of approximately 0.05 for Dim = 32 simulated spaces.

This emitted "material" (mites) and "radiation" (lites) is analyzed in the left histogram "Spectrum 2" where 2 designates the number of simulation Ticks per histogram bar. As experiments proceed, these histograms may match known spectrums, which would help determine the value(s) of fundamental constants t and d mentioned above in seconds and meters respectively.

The blue reverse video m, l, * and E values are the bit counts associated with the m, l, * and d densities above. E = m + l. In this Tick 520, 17 bits exited the simulated cube (*).

The lite/mite (l/m) and lepton/quark (L/Q) ratios are also tabulated. In an initial state (Tick 0) with completely random bit seeding, l/m approximates 1.00 and L/Q approximates 0.33, since there are three quark spots for each lepton spot (positron or electron). At Tick 520 in the present experiment, l/m equals 0.517 indicating loss of lites is greater than loss of mites among bits that exit the space. In short, most bits that exit the space are lites. On the other hand, the L/Q ratio has increased from a nominal initial value of 0.33 to 0.509, indicating that bits initially seeded to quark spots tend to travel to lepton spots, at least where the initial state (Rand 0.25) is apparently high energy as described above.

Q is the net charge of all the mite bits in the space and each unit represents a plus or minus charge of 1/3. That is, Q/3 would appear to represent the conventional definition of the charge Q. In a random initial state, Q approximates zero, since the number of positive mites (pits) would approximately equal the number of negative mites (nits). However, at Tick 520, Q is -2006, confirming our expectation that electron spots capture bits while positron spots tend to distribute bits to other spots (antimatter quarks)[2].

Hence, the increase in the L/Q ratio over time is largely accounted for by more bits in electron spots (labeled "e-L").

The G (gravity), V (Vector), S (Scalar) and F (Strong) force densities are based on the number of bit motions per tick. G is zero, since Mech 15 indicates that Gravity bit operations are off. The Scalar bit operation (S) incidence is much lower than observed in the earlier Ticks in the experiment. Since the Scalar potential is defined as juxtaposed mites of like charge Q in concurrent spot units, this observed reduction in the S value indicates that the bit operation does work in the sense that the Scalar potential occurs less often, indicating reduced incidence of like charged mites close to each other in concurrent spot units.

The lines with blue and purple labels are bit counts. The blue labels list eight spots with the four matter spots on the left and the four antimatter spots on the right. By Tick 520, clearly the bits located in matter spots outnumber those in antimatter spots.

The purple bit counts EdR and EdL, where dR and dL indicate matter and antimatter d quarks respectively, sum the number of bits in their three quarks if the bit count for each of the three is non-zero. This is a crude accounting attempt to begin evaluating the number of matter and antimatter nucleons.

The result at Tick 520 is that EdR bits outnumber EdL bits, whereas in early Ticks of a random bit distribution these values would be approximately equal.

In the 1994 BM paper, the Standard Model was generally accepted. In the BM treatment, a u quark is viewed as a combination of bits in both a d quark spot and a lepton spot (positron for matter and electron for antimatter). With this treatment it may be seen that the EdR and EdL tabulations are a reasonable starting point since in any case a nucleon would consist of at least three d quarks (all R or all L). In short, a precise BM definition of "what is a nucleon that is directly observable in physical experiment?" is pending.

Considering the intracube bit loop for protons [3], it might also be noted that even for the matter proton (or any nucleon), bits cycle through antimatter quark spots, which would therefore not be expected to show zero bit counts even if the spot cube contained a proton.

Finally, the average bit position in the X (r1), Y (r2) and Z (r3) directions are displayed. The respective p values represent the momentum per Tick on each coordinate axis computed by comparing present and previous Tick positions. A listing of this data over selected intervals might be used to calculate angular momentum in an experiment.
Fig. 3: Tick 2804 Plane View From Random Initial Bit State

By Tick 2804 (Fig. 3), it is evident that the trends identified clearly at Tick 520 or even much earlier in the time development have continued. Net charge Q is much more negative associated with a high electron bit count (e-L), even though total bit count has decreased further as energy is radiated into surrounding space.

The BM bit operations have also dramatically redistributed bits to favor matter spots over antimatter spots. Further, the EdR bit count is now 10 times greater than the EdL count. It might appear that we are indeed on the road to creating nucleons, not to mention a huge number of "free" electrons, and to providing an explanation for observed matter/antimatter asymmetry in physical experiments. It should be clear that one has to pump a whole lot of bits into a relatively small volume of space in order to produce antiparticles.

By Tick 2804, the Scalar potentials and associated bit motions have dropped to zero or nearly so (yellow "S" value). On the face of it, it appears that the BM scalar bit operations are doing the job of increasing distance between mites with like charge.

It may also be noteworthy that Vector potentials and associated bit motions have actually increased comparing Tick 520 and 2804 (yellow "V" value), even though total bit (energy) density is much lower. In short, the per-bit incidence of the vector operations actually increases as energy level (total number of bits) decreases in the simulated space. This appears to agree with the idea in conventional physics thinking that a "magnetic" property is intrinsic to particles even when at low or base energy states.

It may be evident that the rate of bit emission into surrounding space diminishes over time. While watching a HotSpot run for an experiment such as this, one sees huge bursts of exiting bits ocurring at intervals representing a rapid dispersion of energy from the simulated space.

The density histogram shows a tendency for bits to move to higher coordinate axis locations, a spatial asymmetry which may be worrisome. However, the histogram scaling may visually overemphasise the asymmetry, since comparing Figs. 2 and 3, the average position r1, r2, r3 is about 32 at Tick 520 and only about 33 at Tick 2804. In other words, this change in average position is only about one distance d after over 2,000 Ticks. [The r1, r2, and r3 values are scaled in distance d units.]

Below the histograms, the mean and standard deviation of the interval bars is displayed. Considering the low standard deviation in the density histogram, much of this spatial asymmetry appears to be statistically significant.

This unwanted asymmetry observation may be due to "border artifacts", since the present simulation has in effect assumed that the spots at higher-coordinate borders (bottom of the density histogram) behave the same as spots with lower-coordinate borders (top of the density histogram) when bit loops cannot be completed as bits are "lost" by exiting the simulated space.

A further factor may be that electron spots (at higher coordinates) accumulate bits while positron spots (at lower coordinates) distribute bits, many of which are "lost" by moving outside the simulated space. This factor alone would tend to deplete bits at lower coordinates (top of the density histogram).

Summary
This article introduces HotSpot BM simulation software. A continuing task is to clean up the source code and perhaps package modules (e.g., the engine) in a library, which other programmers can use to develop and run their own BM experiments beyond the current capabilities of HotSpot. While getting the BM laws exactly right so correct results are consistently produced is the top priority, eventually a GUI Windows interface may be more user-friendly and versatile in displaying results.

Results of the experiment reported are encouraging to the extent that basic physical phenomenon seem to be evident. Some worrisome aspects of the results may indicate that one or more BM bit operations may not be exactly right and/or that possible simulation artifacts need to be addressed.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation binary mechanics space" Feb, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010
© 2011 James J Keene

Physical Interpretation of Binary Mechanical Space

2011-02-19T20:23:00.022-05:00

Updated: May 31, 2001
Computer simulation of the time development of states (bit patterns) in binary mechanics (BM)[1] requires a physical interpretation of its quantized space. As shown in Fig. 1, let us view a spot unit as two cubes with side length d, a BM fundamental constant, one each for the mite bit (black circles) and the lite bit (black arrows). A spot is thought to consist of three perpendicular spot units.
Fig. 1: Spot 111 Electron
In a previous report [2], the figures illustrated spots as points in three dimensional space with integer coordinates. In the electron spot (Fig. 1), the direction of unconditional bit motion is shown by the direction of the lite bits (black arrows). A tick, another fundamental BM constant, is defined as the time t for one bit to move one unit of distance d. Thus, if a bit moves in a particular tick, its velocity v is d/t. There are only two possible velocities -- v or zero when a bit does not move in a particular tick. If a potential exists, the bit will move if the destination site is empty -- namely, its bit value equals zero. All the binary mechanical forces (unconditional, strong, scalar and vector) follow this rule which stipulates that any location can contain only one bit (mite or lite).

The direction of the strong force, which allows bit motion between dimensions X, Y and Z, is shown by the white arrows.

Use of the term "strong force" is but one of many points which may confuse readers. BM uses terminology from modern physics, but the exact meaning may be different. In BM, "strong force" is presently the only interdimensional bit motion and is important to understand both the electron and baryons, such as the proton, composed of quarks. Indeed, the internal structure, if you will, of the electron is one of the significant results of BM.

A major issue which readers have raised is when BM studies will be published in refereed physics journals. The answer is simple: when I believe its veracity myself. This requires results of computer simulation experiments which are consistent with well known physical observations. The next paper in this venue will introduce the computer simulation software and provide a number of encouraging results. At this time, a number of permutations of equations published previously [1] have been tested toward this end. Meanwhile, the present venue provides a more informal means to publish progress.

Notice that electron spots will tend to capture incoming bits since bits always scatter (white arrows) in a direction to cycle a bit within the spot. If the destination locus is already occupied, then there is no strong potential, and the lite bit can then exit the electron spot in the subsequent unconditional motion tick.

As an example, consider the lite bit in the X dimension. If the mite bit in the Y dimension is empty, then there is a strong potential and this lite bit will scatter (white arrow) to the mite locus in the Y dimension. Otherwise, in the next unconditional motion tick, that lite bit will exit the electron spot and become a mite bit in the spot 011 quark.

Assuming the BM forces do not occur simultaneously, one can consider a repeated four tick sequence, one tick each for unconditional, strong, scalar and vector bit motion. Simulation results can be dramatically different for different order of application of these forces. This assumption ensures that in any tick, a bit may move no more than distance d.

A spot occupies a 2d cube, of which only six bits are defined. That is, each bit is thought to reside in a 1d sub-cube of this 2d cube. The function of the two void 1d sub-cubes is not yet defined. However, for computing values such as bit density, the 2d cube volume for a spot is presently used.

Finally, each of the six bit locations provide a set of X, Y and Z coordinates that can be used to calculate angular momentum -- the intrinsic spin of the spot.

A major BM issue is "what is a single electron?" At present there are several alternatives. (1) A single bit in an electron spot is an electron, because over many ticks, it can occupy all three mite locations in the spot. (2) An electron is two or three mites in a single electron spot which then define possible particle thresholds. We might then postulate that an electron is only observable by scientists if two (or three) mites are present. If so, what is the significance of one mite in an electron spot? Have we just defined what dark matter is?

What about extra lites in an electron spot? A good guess might be that these contribute to increased energy levels for the particular electron. But that is only three photonic lites. Well, there are many additional energy levels when we consider that lites exiting the electron spot may in some sense still belong to that spot since they would naturally influence nearby spots.

Fig. 2: Spot 000 Positron
The positron spot (Fig. 2) presents a markedly different picture. First, mites scatter to lites, whereas in the electron spot lites scatter to mites. Further, all three lites are out-going -- namely, in the next unconditional motion tick, any positron lite bits will exit the positron spot to quark spots. Another difference is that when lites exit an electron spot, by definition as described above, the electron's energy state is elevated from its base state, and the destination spots are all right-handed d quark spots, which are thought to be building blocks for protons. This may well be considered as a new result of BM, that electrons play a key role in proton creation.

It might also be of interest that matter -- electron mites -- most immediately transfer bits to matter -- proton constituents. Likewise, the antimatter positron bits, when leaving a positron spot arrive at the antimatter left-handed d quark spots.

This comparison of the electron and positron spots readily explains the asymmetry which confounds physics -- why more matter than antimatter in the universe. At this point, electron spots clearly tend to collect and hold bits and therefore electrons are much more likely to exist than positrons which tend to disperse their bits.Fig. 3: Spot Cube
Fig. 3 shows the spot cube where the electron spot is not visible in the viewpoint shown. The grey spot is the positron and the rest are red, green and blue quarks. The left-handed antimatter quark spots are to the right, left and below the positron spots, which may help visualize that any lite exiting a positron spot enters a left-handed antimatter quark.

The strong, vector and scalar potentials are based on specific bit gradiants over distance d. The present physical interpretation of spots (Fig. 3) was chosen, in part, because parallel concurrent and countercurrent spot units [1] are adjacent at distance d when assembled into a spot cube.

The next paper will introduce the computer simulation software using this physical interpretation of BM space and present some results consistent with observations that matter is more prevalent than antimatter, both for leptons and for quarks.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics electron, positron and proton" July, 2010.
© 2010 James J Keene

Binary Mechanics Electron, Positron and Proton

2010-07-31T11:59:00.015-04:00

Updated: May 24, 2010
This note presents aspects of the geometry of the electron, positron and proton using binary mechanics.

Fig. 1A shows the electron consists of three "intercube loops" converging at spot 111 (or generally, IJK where I, J and K are all odd integer lattice coordinates). For example, a mite at spot 111 will circulate in one of three loops, depending on the orientation of its spot unit. If spot 111 contains three mites, with no other mites at other locations in its three loops, presumably this is an electron in the lowest possible energy state.

Fig 1A

Mites within the loops may be analogical to "fragments" of "virtual" electrons or positrons (ref). Further, as these mites cirulate, other mites, if present, may converge at particular spots forming the particles determined by the respective parities of IJK at particular spots.

Next we add the "intracube loop" (Fig. 1B) as shown by the dark gray loop in Fig. 3A in the original paper.

Fig. 1B

Fig. 2 shows a positron.

Fig. 2

If we populate the intracube loop (purple in Fig. 3) with 12 mites at appropriate right-handed quark spots (d,u,u), we have a proton. Add the electron within the spot cube and we presumably have a neutron.

Fig. 3 shows a proton.

Fig. 3

Legend: The white (w) color designation was changed to green in the Standard Model.

The proton has three d quarks shown by the red, white and blue dots (spots) and a positron (gray dot at spot 000 without showing its loops in Fig. 2). The base energy state may require 12 mites, three for each component, located at the spots shown at t = 0.

With this positron, two of the d quarks may be seen as u quarks, as shown in Table 3 of "Binary Mechanics" [1]. That each proton binds one or more positrons (as u quark components) would tend to use those bits for proton production. This might be one explanation for the relative paucity of positrons in nature, which are one of the anti-matter particles.

Note that each d quark has one intracube loop (shown in purple), which they share, and two intercube loops. For each d quark, one of the intercube loops insersects with the electron spot (111).

Notice that all the loops shown cycle their bits to return to the t = 0 position. In some sense, then, all of these particles may be said to exist as such only some fraction of the time. As more bits (e.g., mites) are added to particular loops, the "percent existence time" depending on interloop bit synchronization would increase toward 100 percent.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
© 2010 James J Keene

Lorentz Force in Binary Mechanics

2010-07-29T18:02:00.022-04:00

Updated: July 30, 2011
At relatively low bit densities, the Lorentz force is consistent with binary mechanics^[1] (BM), with which this note assumes familiarity.

BM predicts that experimental data for particle events approaching the level of fineness of single BM bits will tend to show anomalies when evaluated with conventional quantum mechanics (QM), which assumes the components of the electromagnetic four-potential (Φ,A) can be defined at arbitrary spatial points in continuous space-time. On the other hand, the BM model quantizes both space and time and assigns each component to slightly different spatial locations (Figs. 1A-1C, 2B-2D).

[Note: Fig. and Table references refer to those in the original paper^[1].]

In BM, primary forces have been defined as transitions in bit state which alter unconditional bit motion which each act independently of the others. One might say that the set of BM forces are orthogonal, which simplifies understanding physical processes. The four fundamental bit operations -- unconditional, scalar, vector and strong, are independent insofar as each is thought to be implemented in a separate quantized time tick in a specific order completing 4-tick bit operations cycles.

The conventional electromagnetic force combines two independent BM forces, designated as scalar and vector primary forces (Table 4), similar to familiar expressions such as the Lorentz force, typically written as

F = q(Φ + v X A) (1)

where the force F is the product of charge q and the sum of scalar potential Φ and the cross-product of the velocity and vector potential A components. F may be evaluated in each of three spatial dimensions in frame, Si, i = 1, 2, 3, chosen with position in S expressed by integer coordinates, Xi, as in a cubic lattice (Fig 1C). Spot unit bits (Fig 1A), lite L and mite M, are oriented parallel to each axis of Si at each coordinate location. At each Xi, three spot units form a spot (Fig 1B).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1C

For one dimension, eq. 1 becomes

F = q(Φ + A') (2)

omitting subscript i = 1, 2, 3 for F, &Phi and A', where A' is the vector result of cross product v X A. Since the scalar and vector bit transitions (forces) act independently in BM as in quantum mechanics, the Lorentz force F may be linked to BM for each independent component:

F = qΦ + qA' (3)

Since a mite M is a binary bit (M = 0,1), the mass in the volume of its position in the spot unit is zero if there is no mite M, or a positive scale factor if a mite is present.

Substituting the product of mass m and acceleration a for F in eq. 3,

ma = qΦ + qA' (4)

Scalar Force. If a mite is present in the spot unit (M = 1), let mass m = 1 and q = -1, 1 (eq. 5 in [1] which describes a sign function of parity in S). If &Phi = 1 then acceleration a = q = -1, 1. On the other hand, if M = 0 then q and m = 0, regardless of the value (0,1) of Φ. Finally, if both q and Φ are non-zero, then F = a = -1, 1.

For acceleration a, recalling that both space and time are quantized, we try description of the spot unit as two cubes with side length d, a BM primary constant, one each for the M and L bits, sharing a common side to form a 2d x d x d volume.

Recalling that the primary constant t is the time interval for one tick of a BM system, we have

v = d/t = 1 (5)

where velocity v is the ratio of two primary constants.

In any bit motion in one tick, a mite or lite moves distance d in time t. That is, all M or L bit motion occurs at maximum velocity v.

With the cubic lattice architecture, it is presently thought that v is greater than the measured speed of light c, since for distances of large integer n multiples of d, a bit must typically "travel" a greater distance than the origin point to destination point, much like a person might move in New York City, traveling streets arranged at right angles and up and down elevators.

This consideration would seem to predict that for the shortest distance nd where integer n = 1, bit velocity v = 1, and as n increases, apparent bit velocity, as measured on a point-to-point line, would decrease to light speed c.

Results as shown in Fig. 2B where the scalar potential Φ accelerates mites of like sign may be interpreted as reducing density of mites of like sign.

Vector Force. One may apply the A' component for dimension i, instead of the Φ component, using the exact same logic concerning initial conditions at t=0 for Lorentz F and acceleration a results.

Discussion

Given unconditional bit motion is the default time development of BM states in the absence of any of the primary forces, it might seem awkward to insert BM quantities into the Lorentz force which assumes continuous space-time and in particular, that the electromagnetic four-potential is presumed to be definable at arbitrary spatial points.

Further, conventional particles such as electron and proton (listed in Table 3 in [1]) are thought to consist of more than one bit. For example, the electron and positron consist of at least 2 bits in a spot which has a maximum capacity of 6 bits. Also, conventional use of the Lorentz force expression applies to particles not individual mite bits as presented above.

Nonetheless, unpublished simulation data suggests that mite acceleration associated with the scalar potential desribed above favors displacement of like-signed bits away from each other, so the parallel presented above at the mite, not particle, level may be relevant after all.

However, caution might be observed in over-interpreting the treatment above of the Lorentz force in BM. There are parallels, which may be somewhat superficial. For example, in BM, Φ and A' each have three independent components, so one might better speak of an electromagnetic six-potential. For consistency, Φ was subscripted for the applicable spatial dimensions i = 1,2,3 in eq. 2 above.

The situation gets worse or better depending on viewpoint when one considers that the fields of bits which "cause" the potentials are located at nominal 90 degree angles to F direction, for both A' and Φ. For vector A' direction, this angle agrees with conventional physical interpretation of the Lorentz force F direction.

These "field" bits are a concurrent mite M_J for Φ (eq. 9 in [1]) and the "oncoming lite" L for A' (eq. 13 in [1]).

The Lorentz force is discussed further in "Quantized electromagnetism" [2], which through the miracle of the internet was published after the present paper -- a citation from the future which would not be possible in print media.

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" July, 2010.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Quantized electromagnetism" May, 2011.
© 2010 James J Keene