Quantization Asymmetry

Quantization asymmetry has been defined as physical theories at the atomic and nuclear levels that quantize almost everything except space and time [1]. The continuous space-time assumption in classical and Standard Model (SM) physics and in General Relativity (GR) presently has no known justification other than tradition and superstition. Binary mechanics (BM) [2] may be seen as an instance of quantization asymmetry breaking, so to speak, since it implements quantization symmetry. In 2010, publication of the postulates of BM and some of their consequences began a transition in physics from quantization asymmetry to symmetry. This article outlines some major headlines in this developing story that has impact in virtually all sub-specialities in physics.

Fig. 1: What Death of a Theory Looks Like


Do The Math.
The quantum mechanics (QM) wave function may misrepresent position in continuous (real number) coordinates which are only an approximation of actual positions where only integer coordinates are allowed with spatial quantization (Fig. 1). QM calculation results may indicate motion when there was none or may overestimate or underestimate motion distance. Fig. 2 shows similar results for time quantization, without blood splatter graphics.

Fig. 2: Dead Continuous Time Theory Autopsy


QM infinitesimal operators are quite simply the wrong math when position and time may have only integer values in the BM quantized space-time frame. Thus, at the fineness level of BM, QM predictions may be distorted or outright incorrect. As a consequence, the success of QM formalism at the atomic level is becoming more difficult to duplicate at the nuclear physics level.

SM mathematical models are proclaimed to be "self-consistent", while clearly exhibiting fatal physical, logical and mathematical incoherence due to their now discredited assumption of continuous space-time. Attempting to model every point (e.g., [3] [4]), SM math requires belief in miracles, specifically that field encoding devices and operator action devices are infinite in number and infinitely small in size in any volume. Such miracles might be deemed outlandish even in theology schools (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: One Day On A Newspaper Puzzle Page


Thus, pages of equations are simply inapplicable at the more microscopic BM level of fineness. As a consolation, much of SM math will continue to produce useful approximations at the atomic level where the above sorts of error "average out", just as Newtonian and Maxwellian math is still used beneficially at even more macroscopic levels.

A Retro Cult In The Physics Community?
Quantization asymmetry may be examined as a behavioral phenomenon [1]. With the complexity of human behavior, who can adequately address the question of how apparently highly intelligent people can exhibit such a firm faith in the miracles arising from the continuous space-time assumption? Theologians may have debated the number of angels that might dance on the head of a pin (Fig. 3), but legacy physics puts them to shame asserting that an infinite number of things fit on a pin head, and they are infinitely small, too, "So there. Top that."

This cult-like faith may partly depend on insufficient comprehension of the role of mathematics in science [3]. For example, even with added bells and whistles including complex amplitudes and spinor matrices, QM and SM math expressions are basically a statistical modeling of data. As such, these equations describe the data, not the underlying physical processes producing it. For example, a normal curve may describe the distribution of test scores in Physics 101, but not how or why a particular student came to get a particular score. In brief, statistical description of the data is only a first observational step in physics, which, unlike statistics, strives to understand the mechanisms producing physical events.

In contrast, in much physics literature, one finds that the statistical math is treated as if it were the physics, not merely a description of hopefully relevant data. When one student raises a hand in the lecture hall (think "measurement"), the other students do not disappear as in "wave function collapse"; the scored test papers in the professor's office do not disappear. The normal curve of test scores is not the students, but rather only a description of some aspect of the students. That is, "wave function collapse" is a sort of primitive pre-science thinking which may be essentially egocentric, "If I don't know it, it doesn't exist" and "Nothing exists beyond what I know". This egocentric sun-rotates-around-the-earth mentality of cult believers may obscure the fact that physics (how things work) and statistics (modeling data, hypothesis testing, etc) are different intellectual disciplines. For example, devising equations with a "best fit" to data distributions is mathematical or statistical modeling, not physical modeling.

This distinction between physics as a science and descriptive math equations (e.g., Newton's laws, Maxwell's equations, Dirac's spinor equation) might be obscured by the fact that engineers can use the equations to design useful things, which does not necessarily require any comprehension of the underlying mechanisms that account for the observed physical phenomena. This distinction may be further blurred by the fact that a good statistical model can "predict" outcomes in future samples. In short, statistical modeling is part of physics as a science, but not all of it.

Consider that about two generations have grown up with fiat, paper money with no experience of real money which is an effective store of wealth, namely gold and silver. They have no idea that paper money represents only a promise to deliver, while real money physically in hand is not a liability of someone else which might not be honored. Likewise, several generations of physicists have never experienced the central focus of what physics is as a science, the ability to physically model how things work, which has been precluded by the continuous space-time theory incorporated into QM, SM and GR mathematics.

Finally, in accordance with the principle of freedom of religion, the present commentary hopes to clarify issues in science, without restricting the right of all, including physicists, to practice their religious beliefs, even including continuous space-time.

Fig. 4: Regime Change in Physics Theory


Continuous Space-Time Prevents Physics Advances.
The "golden age" when continuous space-time produced an abundance of advances in physics may have ended (Fig. 4). If physics is about how things work, some things are needed for examination. Chemistry has its ball-and-stick models of molecules. Atomic physics has its little electron orbit and distribution models. BM postulates objects of finite size enabling physical modeling. But with the continuous space-time theory, QM and SM math expressions posit infinite numbers of infinitely small field encoding and operator action devices -- lots of nothing. Similarly, GR math posits infinite numbers of infinitely small inertial motion guidance devices, otherwise described as space-time distortions, ripples or curvature -- more lots of nothing.

Has there been a "hostile takeover" of physics by statistics? Or has reliance on a cult of the faithful effectively excluded any physical modeling of how things work? Without things, any attempt to elucidate physical mechanisms is not possible, is off the table. Instead, for the mathematically impaired, the statistical descriptions are the reality, not just a useful description of it -- a notion which contradicts itself. For example, data summarization with statistics is wrongly elevated to a fundamental physics principle as in "quantum indeterminacy of position."

Continuous space-time mathematics asserts there is nothing to physically model with everything being infinitely small (i.e., nothing), including the "point-like particles". Thus, with the absence of physical modeling, major research labs resort to producing children's cartoons about their presumed findings as a possibly last ditch effort to protect the sanctity of the sacred cult creed and hide its defects.

Fortunately, with the advent of BM, the cult elite appear to be playing their end-game. For example, a Fermilab faq on the holometer project [5] states, "we don't have a complete theory for ... quanta of space and time", brazenly claiming ignorance of BM and its milestone achievements. Is academic scholarship among Fermilab participants so poor that an ignorance ploy can be fabricated invoked without loosing credibility? Very unlikely.

The "ignorance" end-game card is being played more and more frequently as in "Everybody in the world knows where anti-matter is except us; please help us find it with some big money funding."

Want To Be A Physicist? Obedience Required.
Students entering college and university physics degree programs present a daunting challenge. For one thing, they typically are dedicated to science, i.e., the search for new knowledge using well-established observational and experimental research methods. On entry, they know that the physical interpretation of a geometric point is nothing beyond a position coordinate. They know that infinitely small things posited by SM and GR math are really fiction, are nothing at all. Hence, the peculiar phenomenon of quantization asymmetry typically may require serious indoctrination training and widespread use of carrot and stick tactics. For example, a carrot may be a membership reward in a "collaboration" of as many as 1000 "scientists" for some bigger budget research projects; the stick for apostates may be real or imagined loss of prospects for academic promotion in physics departments or even loss of paycheck entirely.

Over some decades, this situation might be viewed as a sort of "hostile takeover" of physics as a science by a cult-like minority of enforcers of the sacred creed of continuous space-time. This description would have seemed to be unbelievable, an over exaggeration, even to the author prior to some months ago. After all, everybody knows that physicists are guided by sound logical thinking and verifiable observations, right? However, the anti-science, anti-freedom posture of this sort of retro cult in the physics community was illustrated in a live demonstration provided by string theorist Joseph Polchinski, which was fully documented [6]. In this episode, a presumably well-established physicist in a high-rated physics department left no stone unturned, appearing to assert (1) that he was evidently unable to talk science and defend his own work and (2) that he was willing to publicly damage his own reputation as a person of mature character apparently in order to fend off any question of the cult creed. Some may applaud this level of obedience and self-sacrifice, but not the anti-science objective exhibited.

A recent review [7] of a Phys. Rev. Lett. article by an International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) team may further illustrate this peculiar behavioral phenomenon, stating "For some quantum gravity models however, the texture of space-time is 'granular' at tiny scales (below the so-called Planck scale, 10^-33 cm), as if it were a variable mesh of solids and voids (or a complex foam). One of the great problems of physics today is to understand the passage from a continuous to a discrete description of space-time: is there an abrupt change or is there gradual transition? Where does the change occur?"

Notice the obedience. In this case, continuous space-time can only be timidly challenged with granularity only below the Planck length, which, along with the Planck time, may be no more than faulty fiction, given the flaws illustrated above (Figs. 1 - 2). These obedient, fully brain-washed trained writers seem to offer everything: space-time will and will not be quantized simultaneously. Another silly egocentric idea, namely that spatial granularity appears or disappears depending on what human masters of the universe choose to measure. Egocentric because it stipulates that the universe changes to please humans, being granular or not depending on where we look below or above the so-called Planck length. How does the universe know what humans are looking at?

In contrast, BM goes "The Full Monty" in space-time quantization [2], completely updating the classical notions, which remain supreme in SM and GR legacy physics.

Future data from the SISSA team project will be of interest. To their credit, "small-scale deviations from the principle of locality" are considered and are fundamental in BM postulates, as described previously [8].

Physicists Rounded Up In Massive Detention Facilities.
Meanwhile, physicists are being "rounded up" in massive "international scientific collaborations", especially for large budget projects. Examples include LIGO with greater than 1000 "scientists", the ATLAS experiment with over 3000 "physicists" and ALICE sporting more than 1300 "members", representing only the tip of the "collaborations" iceberg. These projects each probably need no more than a dozen "scientists", if even that, so the thousands of others are essentially engineers, technicians and workers to design, build and operate expensive equipment. Promoting engineers to "physicist" status may be part of the carrot and stick tactic described above. Further, these collaborations may foster group-think, lack of creativity and innovation, and above all, conformity to the cult creed, with the net result of loss of a vast amount of intellectual resources in the physics community which might otherwise produce advances in physics.

Hence, to some extent, these collaborations may represent a sort of confinement of physicists in "re-education" or "detention" camps, since cult leaders know there is nothing but tradition and superstition preventing complete collapse of the classical continuous space-time creed. Re-education because doubt can creep into matters of faith. Detention to prevent thousands of talented, very smart people from engaging in free thought and pursuit of new knowledge per their original dream when students. Cult leaders know that if something is unsustainable, it will stop eventually. Hence, the giant collaborations are figuratively pumped with steroids and growth hormone to prolong leadership control and enhance acquisition of funding, "Mr. Politician: Could thousands of physicists all be wrong? We really, really need a budget increase. Making something from nothing is not cheap."

However, these collaborations are not necessarily always unfortunate or all bad. Indeed, as far as the author knows, all recent and current research in physics confirms BM postulates, results and predictions, especially if the data obtained is examined, and not the possibly misguided theoretical notions of the original investigators (e.g., [9]) which might mis-direct attention away from real critical issues with scientific merit.

Why Physicists Are Angry.
No wonder more and more physicists are angry these days and voting with their feet by coming to the free, on-line Journal of Binary Mechanics. One might suspect that thousands of physicists in the "scientific collaborations" have in fact been effectively demoted from "scientist" to engineer or technician. One example is the possible "new particle" seen in Large Hadron Collider data at CERN which appears to be a trivial result already predicted by BM [10]. But serious physicists would not want to spend the rest of their lives essentially as accountants pursuing this sort of trivial book-keeping exercise.

Imagine the potential frustration. Those who signed up for scientific pursuits when they were students find they have been reduced to "worker bees" in service of a cult elite. Not to mention that many of the research objectives of these big budget projects lack scientific merit, at least from the viewpoint of BM, which appears to be in a sort of "golden age" where continuing research has been producing major breakthroughs almost like clockwork.

The Presumptive Nominee Is Quantization Symmetry.
This article has suggested that quantization asymmetry in classical continuous space-time theory is inadequate at more microscopic levels of fineness addressed in BM which implements quantization symmetry. Further, continuous space-time theory may have achieved a sort of cult status with faithful adherents resisting quantization symmetry. Hence, quantization asymmetry may earn a place in the top ten list including things like perpetual motion machines and other tin-foil-hat conceptions.

Hopefully, the reading was as fun as the writing. Lastly, can you pass the pop quiz in Fig. 5?

Fig. 5: Check Correct Answer


References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2011.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Physics standard model forensics" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2015.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Spot the physics theory" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.
[5] Fermilab. "Holometer faq" April, 2016.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Polchinski's 'new normal' physics" J. Bin. Mech. June, 2015.
[7] phys.org "The universe, where space-time becomes descrete" April, 2016.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Bell inequality violation myth debunked" J. Bin. Mech. December, 2015.
[9] Keene, J. J. "LIGO gravity wave mechanism" J. Bin. Mech. April, 2016.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Meson and baryon composition" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2016.
© 2016 James J Keene