The zero electron EDM prediction was based on the postulates of binary mechanics (BM) [4] with a physical interpretation of its quantized BM space [5].
Discussion
Just like that. BM quantized space was postulated after former MIT student James Hughes (personal communication, 1993) projected the spinors in a pair of relativistic Dirac quantum mechanical equations of opposite handedness to the eight vertices of a spatial cube. The present author then speculated that these eight points were actually quantized cubic volumes. As a consequence, a absolute minimum spatial volume was postulated as a cube of size d -- the BM fundamental length constant, presently estimated in the approximate order of magnitude of a half femtometer (Keene, in preparation). Hence, it may be evident that the implied physical size of the electron spot is not identical to the much smaller, seemingly point-like apparent electron particle size based on observations of energy quanta (1-state bits) emitted by electron spots. That is, observation of electron presence per se apparently does not serve to estimate the BM fundamental length constant d.
Hence, regarding what experimental observations reveal thus far, the question of internal structure of the electron would properly be associated with the emitted energy quanta (1-state bits). On the other hand, the spot loci where the 1-state bits of "virtual" electrons reside (white circles in fig. 1) are composed of three spot units, as previously described [4] [6].
Time quantization meant that all physical processes, designated bit operations [7], occur in "steps" of an absolute minimum time interval, named a tick, presently estimated to be in the approximate order of magnitude of 10E-25 seconds (Keene, in preparation).
If this were not enough, energy was also quantized in a new manner by postulating that the energy residing in a single quantized size d cubic volume is restricted to a binary value -- zero or one, where one represents the absolute maximum energy per bit locus cube, by removing the seconds value from Planck's constant (energy x seconds). Therefore, the energy density of any BM state vector, consisting of binary bits (0 or 1) distributed in a spatial volume, representing any physical system or objects, can be expressed independently of event time duration (or frequency) considerations.
Just like that, the basic math central to quantum mechanical expressions may be seen as inadequate, only an approximation of real physical systems (state vector) and processes (time-development operators) at the level of fineness treated by BM, where only integer values of state vector position and content and integer increments in position and/or time intervals in operators are allowed. In short, quantum mechanical wave functions with non-integer position coordinates and infinitesimal operators with respect to position or time are both obsolete for heuristic purposes especially for studies involving very short distances or time intervals.
A deal-breaker? A physical theory that departs from the traditional classical and quantum mechanical assumption of continuous space-time calls for cautious intellectual discipline. If even a single prediction based on BM postulates is definitively shown by observations to be false or otherwise flawed, either the entire theory is wrong, one or more of its basic postulates would need revision or at minimum, the logic used to generate the hypothesis would require careful examination. Every one of its predictions tested thus far has been supported by rigorous evidence. On the other hand, caution is still appropriate since BM has proven to be especially productive in generating numerous specific, testable and at times, unexpected or unusual predictions pertinent to all branches of physics. That is, compared to other physical theories where testable hypotheses may be few or not easily delineated, BM may be rightly viewed as both "high risk" as well as "high reward" with this fertile level of hypothesis generation productivity.
Bubble or ring? The present report advances this story favorably one more step, as two independent labs have now provided rather credible support for the BM prediction of zero electron EDM. In 2011, a motivation for the Hudson et al. London group was to describe electron shape while in 2014, the ACME Harvard group was concerned with a "smaller limit" for possible electron EDM which might then exclude some proposals in the literature. On the other hand, the present premise is that the enduring scientific merit of the reports of these groups lies in confirmation of the zero electron EDM hypothesis derived from BM.
Mom and Pop authority. This premise may be easily supported. The London group assumed, apparently without question, that zero electron EDM clearly implies or demonstrates spherical electron shape. Indeed, their abstract states that their "result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision". And the secondary physics news media blindly accepted this interpretation -- hook, line and sinker, as their graphic artists rushed to produce illustrations of beautiful perfect spheres supposed to represent the electron particle. Why? Is it that somebody told them the electron is either a point or a sphere? Well, yes. On the other hand, even a pre-college student versed in elementary geometry can quickly describe a number of other object designs that would also qualify as "perfect spinning tops" that would also yield zero EDM measurements. Evidently, the London group appears to be stronger on the experimentalist compared to theorist side of science.
Meanwhile, a stated objective of the Harvard group was increased electron EDM measurement precision which might then allow or exclude certain extensions to the Standard Model (SM) in physics. Consider that all of these extended models assume continuous space-time without any known justification other than convention or tradition. Therefore, it might be argued that these SM extensions had already been excluded by the unwarranted assumption of continuous space-time. With an awesome number of 17 investigators as co-authors, one might wonder if even one has questioned this assumption or presented any justification for it beyond what Mom and Pop have said and done previously.
Outsourced laboratory work. A growing number of physicists studying BM are no doubt grateful to the London and Harvard groups for producing excellent work which may both exclude some physical theories and include BM.
Editor's note: The reader is invited to post comments in agreement or disagreement with this or other Journal of Binary Mechanics articles at the Binary Mechanics Forum. The Journal also welcomes on-topic articles from other investigators and persons considering serving on the Journal's editorial board.
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Physics news: electron shape" J. Bin. Mech. September, 2011.
[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] Bacon, J. et al. "Order of magnitude smaller limit of the electric dipole moment of the electron" Science, 343, no. 6168, 269-272. DOI:10.1126/science.1248213 January, 2014.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Spot unit components of elementary particles" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
© 2015 James J Keene
