Abstract and Introduction
Analysis of energy quanta distributions among spatial objects called spots [1] [2] revealed two quantum-level phenomena relevant to gravitation: dispersion and concentration of energy quanta (Fig. 1). First, in a lower energy density range, spots with multiple energy quanta dispersed, or lost, energy which was distributed to spots with initial lower, even zero, energy content. Second, at higher energy density, spots concentrated energy more than expected by random distribution. In brief, quantum analysis of spatial distribution of energy (and/or mass) identified two mechanisms which disperse or concentrate energy probably relevant to gravitational phenomena. A third mechanism was the effect of surface temperature on gravitation reported previously [3] [4] [5] [6]. The present results further integrate gravitation and space-time-energy quantization in binary mechanics and support a multi-factor treatment of gravity-related phenomena.
Methods and Results
Quanta Dispersion and Concentration. A simulated 72x72x72 spot volume was gradually increased in 1-state bit energy density starting near absolute vacuum, defined as zero density, by running experiment 2 in the Binary Mechanics Lab Simulator v2.4 (BMLS), as described previously [7]. For each simulator Tick in which the four time-development bit operations were applied in SUVF order (S, scalar; U, unconditional; V, vector; F, strong), the number of spots exhibiting each possible count ranging from zero and six 1-state bits was recorded and expressed as observed proportions in the E_prob_dist_{time stamp}.csv output file, where N = 723 = 373248 spots for each energy density (0 to 0.4 shown in Fig. 1).
The expected proportions based on random distribution of energy quanta (1-state bits) were calculated as reported previously [8]. For each energy density, the expected proportion was PjQk where P is energy density (as proportion of maximum possible density), Q = 1 - P, j = spot quanta count (0 to 6) and k = 6 - j. Fig. 1 shows spot energies E (E = 0, 1, 2, 3), where E is the number of quanta (1-state bits) per spot, as differences between observed and expected values.
The standard error for each difference was based on the observed proportions. For example, at the peak of E = 1 (pink) in Fig. 1, energy density was 0.1689, the observed proportion was 0.457 and the standard error = sqr(0.457 x (1 - 0.457) / 373248) = approx. 0.000815. In this example, the standard error is about the size of the symbols used to plot points in Fig. 1. In short, any clearly visible deviation of observed from expected in Fig. 1 is statistically significant. Questions regarding a specific point would require standard error calculation from the observed proportion for that point.
Fig. 1 indicates energy dispersion by reduced spot counts for E = 0, E = 2 between density >= 0.028 and < 0.125 and E = 3 with density >= 0.056 and < 0.285. In these energy density ranges, the observed proportions of spots with E = 0, 2 or 3 was less than expected, most notably for E = 0. The only way to reduce E = 0 spot counts is addition of one or more quanta to those spots.
Energy concentration was also found in two energy density ranges by increased spot counts for E = 2 with density >= 0.125 to 0.400 and E = 3 with density > 0.300 to 0.400. In these cases, the time-development bit operations concentrated quanta by increasing energy E in the affected spots.
As a consistency check, note that the peak of the E = 1 data at energy density 0.1689 matched the energy density of 0.1667 where perfect random seeding of the simulated volume has an expected value of E = 1, where 1 of 6 bit loci in a spot is 1-state.
Increased Variance and Quanta Dispersion. Fig. 2 shows variance of quanta positions in electron and proton bit cycles [9] in three dimensions (expressed as standard deviations in the BMLS output *.csv file) increased over time, starting with a randomly seeded density of 0.1667 at BMLS Tick 0. Application of the time-evolution bit operations in each Tick typically increases the spread of 1-state bits in a simulated volume compared to a randomly seeded initial state.
Baryogenesis and Quanta Concentration. Proton presence has been operationally defined as two or more 1-state M bits in each of three matter right-handed d quark spots (red, blue and green colors) in a spot cube [1] [2]. Proton count is the EdR variable in BMLS output. Each spot cube spatial object contains eight spots, each corresponding to a specific elementary particle. Hence, in a simulated volume, the number of spots N represents N/8 spot cubes.
Nucleons per spot cube as {EdR count}/{N/8} may vary from zero to 1, expressing nucleon density independent of simulation volume dimension. Nucleon density represents all proton events as defined above, including those spot cubes which also contain an electron particle (two or more M quanta) in their electron spots thereby representing neutrons.
Fig. 3 shows baryogenesis [10] which concentrates quanta and is mostly completed after several hundred BMLS Ticks.
Starting from a randomized initial state, both the quanta dispersion and concentration mechanisms complete their actions rather quickly (Figs. 2 and 3). A BMLS Tick = 4T, where T is the primary time constant [11]. For example, 200 BMLS Ticks = 200 x 4 x 7.143E-25 sec = approx. 5.714E-22 seconds.
Discussion
Multi-Factor Gravity Treatment. This report suggests a multi-factor treatment of gravitational phenomena by adding quanta dispersion and concentration mechanisms to the role of object surface temperature reported previously. This developing multi-factor account of gravitation focuses attention on three factors thus far.
First, the energy dispersion mechanism may act as a two-edged sword. The observation of increased variance in spatial quanta distribution (Fig. 2) suggests that this factor may oppose aggregation of quanta. On the other hand, consider that nucleon mass (or energy equivalent) is thought to be the major variable in Newton's Universal Gravitation and Einstein's General Relativity. Also, the present data used nucleon definition requiring concentration of quanta in multiple spots in particular particle proton bit cycle loci associated with a "home" spot cube.
Thus, it is possible that quanta dispersion may act within spot cubes to distribute energy to M bit loci among the three matter d quark colors, to meet the requirement to generate EdR counts. Noteworthy in this context is that 7 of 8 spot types occur in the proton bit cycle while only one spot type accounts for the electron bit cycle. In sum, perhaps ironically, when acting within the proton bit cycle, the quanta dispersion mechanism may facilitate quanta concentration.
Second, the energy concentration mechanism seems simple, namely that baryogenesis (and related compositions seen in other hadrons) involves mass/energy aggregation (Fig. 3) which conventional concepts might classify as gravitational phenomena. Recall that the 42 bit loci in the proton bit cycle represent 242 different hadron states and resonances. This concentration mechanism is of course "amplified" where substantially larger numbers of quanta are aggregated in high atomic weight nuclei.
Third is the surface temperature mechanism demonstrated by the author [4] [5] [6] and by the temperature dependence of the Casimir force [12]. In the 2011 study [3], some 10,000 km in earth-moon distance measured by lunar laser ranging was accounted for by surface temperature based on a quantum motion mechanism [13].
Shot In The Head Stops Zombies. The reader may choose between two perspectives. One is the legacy single-variable treatments of gravitation highlighting mass or its energy equivalent in Universal Gravitation and General Relativity, both based on out-dated continuous space-time math (e.g., positions in real numbers, infinitesimal increments in position or time allowed, and infinities/singularities allowed). Einstein's contribution was probably the best anyone could expect without knowledge of energy-space-time quantization. Consider the recent demonstration that proton/nucleon mass is not constant, but instead varies as a function of surrounding energy density [14]. This finding may be the proverbial "shot in the head" for legacy "zombie" theories. The other perspective is the suggested multi-factor treatment where quantum events account for gravitational effects at any microscopic or macroscopic level of fineness.
The legacy alternative has been routinely qualified with statements like "gravitational effects are too small to be considered at the quantum mechanics level of fineness" resulting in a perhaps artificial barrier between 20th century quantum mechanics notions and gravity as observed at macroscopic levels. With space-time-energy quantization in 21st century physics, this "gap" or "barrier" between quantum and macroscopic events may be eliminated with further development of the suggested multi-factor approach to gravity.
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Zero Kelvin particle composition" JBinMech February, 2019.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" JBinMech February, 2011.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Gravity increased by lunar surface temperature differential" JBinMech August, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physics news: gravity game-changer" JBinMech October, 2014.
[5] Keene, J. J. "GRACE: gravity surface temperature dependence" JBinMech February, 2016.
[6] Keene, J. J. "LIGO gravity wave mechanism" JBinMech April, 2016.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Absolute maximum temperature" JBinMech March, 2011.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Particle states evolution" JBinMech April, 2018.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Proton and electron bit cycles" JBinMech April, 2015.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Baryogenesis" JBinMech May, 2011.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics FAQ" JBinMech August, 2018.
[12] Wikipedia. "Casimir effect" April, 2011.
[13] Keene, J. J. "A law of motion" JBinMech September, 2011.
[14] Keene, J. J. "Proton-electron mass ratio derivation" JBinMech April, 2018.
© 2019 James J Keene
