Editorial
The first-ever derivation of so-called fundamental constants from first principles of quantum theory [1] was a historic event. The first of over 90 papers on binary mechanics appeared in 2010 in JBinMech. But the first paper deriving Planck's constant h was not published until 2015. So physicists around the world had some five years to win the century-long physics grand championship race. A major missed opportunity. They had a chance and they blew it. Instead, Binary Mechanics Lab (BML) crossed the finish line and won the greatest race in physics in over 100 years [2].
Table 1: Unexplained Measurements Wrongly Called "Fundamental Constants"
The 100 year physics grand championship win is history. There is no re-match, re-do or second chance. The results are final, fully documented, based on simple math. The initial derivation of Planck's constant
h in 2015 was followed up with additional derivations of essentially all the so-called fundamental constants, which previously were in fact
the greatest body of unexplained observations in physics [3].
Given the scientific significance of the constant derivations at BML, the key advance paving the way to this milestone achievement was a relatively minor update to quantum theory, namely full quantization of energy, space and time
[1].
In retrospect, it appears that quantum physicists had barricaded themselves in defensive fortifications, such as university physics departments and US National Labs, to protect their creed of contiuous space-time which attempted to portray particles, their position and momentum, with real number math tools at every point in space and time. They had declared, in effect, a moratorium on any new quantization in their physics work. Thus, when BML handed to the physics community the key advance of full quantization on a silver platter in 2010
[4], quantum theorists completely missed the boat. They dropped the ball, so to speak, and lost the race.
Getting back to basics of quantum theory is the key question: why quantize anything? Answer: to explain or account for observed data. Full quantization is just another instance of this process targeting the unsolved mysteries of the specific measured values of so-called constants. For example, why is vacuum light speed about 300,000 km/sec and not some other value, say, 300 km/sec?
Physics historians will no doubt examine every detail of this monumental missed opportunity during 2010 to 2015. The general picture seems to be that multiple reforms may be required in how the physics community conducts its activities, spanning education and research.
The duration of the real opportunity window to develop a sound theoretical basis to account for the specific measured values of the mis-named "fundamental constants" was over 100 years, if we omit the dipole moment values (Table 1). One might think that somebody might have tried full quantization and have achieved success at some point during an entire century. After all, that is what quantum theorists do; they quantize things. But crickets, zip, nothing.
Consider that the Planck mass, length and time values are simply combinations of unexplained values of the so-called fundamental constants. As such, these Planck values are also in the unsolved mystery category. Nonetheless, loop gravity theory (LGT) has explored "granularization" or quantization of length without notable success at the Planck length level. LGT does not attempt full quantization, but instead upholds continuous space-time theory while proposing limited spatial quantization at the Planck length limit level. This "you-can-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" approach may appear to be ego-centric, that somehow the universe magically knows how to behave based on whether a human is viewing lengths above or below the unexplained Planck length. This story may illustrate the command that continuous space-time theory continues to have over investigator outlook.
In sum, the major hurtle to exploring full quantization may be continuous space-time theory which has dominated investigator mindset.
Brief History of Quantum Theory
The good news is that aspiring scientists can be competitive in physics research.
Further good news is the abundance of additional opportunities -- more constants to derive from first principles, more detailed examination and replication of many pilot studies in
JBinMech, more fundamental questions to address with further research, problems in all specialties in physics. Many new races to win. Be the first to cross those finish lines. You have a chance. Don't blow it.
Editor's note: Your feedback is most welcome: jamesjkeene@gmail.com
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics postulates" JBinMech November, 2020.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics FAQ" JBinMech August, 2018.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental physical constants doctrine" JBinMech October, 2020.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" JBinMech July, 2010.
© 2020 James J Keene
