In a series of publications from 2015 to 2020 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], binary mechanics (BM) won the century-long physics grand championship race [9] by deriving the measured values of so-called "fundamental" physical constants from a new set of postulates, asserting full quantization of space, time and energy [10] replacing the now obsolete theory that space, time and energy are continuous. The losers were dozens of famous physicists, including many Nobel Prize winners, principal investigators in big-money grants and prominent social media influencers, and national labs such as Fermilab and CERN with multi-millions in annual government funding [11].
In addition, BM publications clearly excluded General Relativity as a viable theory [12] [13]. Meanwhile, the best experimental physicists in the best labs and academic physics departments in the world continue to produce data supporting BM postulates. In effect, Binary Mechanics Lab (BML) has outsourced research projects to an extensive group of high quality personnel and laboratory resources.
Given the overwhelming defeat of a substantial number of theoretical physicists and major physics research labs, one might expect a flood of congratulations to BML. However, by definition, suffering a rout typically leads to a disorganized retreat. In this case, the losers remained silent and continued to pursue their physics follies as if nothing had happened.
In November, 2024, Directors of three major organizations -- CERN, Fermilab and DARPA -- were specifically addressed on x.com concerning this "post-mortem review" and whether it will be released publicly:
These lab Directors are just one example of the need for frank post-game review in response to BM victories (Fig. 1). Other x.com posts by the author politely targeted individual physicists, academic physics departments and national labs, both in the U.S. and abroad. The main quantifiable response has been a dramatic and sustained increase in page views of the BML web site, home of the free, online Journal of Binary Mechanics.
This response may suggest some speculative conclusions. First, major participants in the physics community are informed to a significant extent of milestone fundamental physics advances at BML. Second, almost all of these participants have thus far not publicly revealed their reactions including their own post-mortem review of their loss. Third, and perhaps most important, apparently none in the physics community have been able to debunk, falsify or challenge BM. If they could, they would. Hence, BM maintains its leading position in theoretical physics.
To make matters worse, the winning, leading position of BM has steadily increased over recent years. That is, players in the physics community who have not updated their basic assumptions to the BM full quantization postulates are falling further and further behind in producing cutting-edge advances in physics and regaining a competitive position.
This article presents topics which might be helpful to consider in a post-mortem review by participants in the physics community.
Math Errors
Given the equations in Fig. 2, the so-called "fundamental constants" are not linearly independent variables [9].
Perhaps the most famous example of this math mistake is the Planck scale based on three unexplained measurements (prior to BM): Planck constant h, Newton gravity constant G and vacuum light speed c. What does one get when unexplained values are combined? Answer: more unexplained values. In contrast, primary constants in the Keene scale [9] provide a truly orthogonal basis and are vastly superior to the essentially useless Planck scale.
Another example of questionable math is the Dirac delta function which provided a sort of quasi-mathematical justification for saying that nothing is really something, as presented previously [14].
The good news is that only three simple math ideas are required to understand BM equations [15]: single digit binary number (0 or 1), AND function logic and the NOT function.
Miracles, Magic and Black Boxes
The physical interpretation of a point is nothing, other than a position in a space.
"This is exactly where magic and miracles entered physics theory. In the real number scale, a point is infinitely small and merely a location, not something physical, unless one wants to add entertainment (magic) and religion (miracles) to science.
... the SM strives to define fields for all points in space-time similar to the pre-QM illustrations you may have seen in science books of electric or magnetic fields. With an infinite number of points in any volume, we are asked to believe that some physical mechanism to "encode" the field values exists at each point and that this physical field encoding device must be infinitely small.
If that were not enough nonsense, in addition to multiple fields, the SM lists a number of "operators" which relate to how physical events actually take place. And unbelievably, these operators are represented in SM equations as "acting" at all points. Thus, we have the totally dumb and dumber conclusion that the physical mechanisms that produce events in this world are infinite in number in any volume and infinitely small. Of course, everybody but physicists knows that a thing which is infinitely tiny is not a thing at all; it is nothing" [14].
These miracles lead to the sacred, magical black box -- an infinite number of them, one at every point in physical space, hiding the real physics in plain sight. A famous example is the vertex points where lines and squiggles meet in Feynman diagrams. In field theory, a physicist may compute the voltage potential at selected points produced by a group of electrons at specified locations. However, the science of physics does not aim to describe people doing things on their computers. Physics wants to know what is happening in the real world. Let's take a look.
A physicist computing the voltages is saying: (1) At every point, there is some sort of black box device. (2) these black boxes are infinitely small. (3) The boxes each contain range-finding equipment and other sensors to determine distance and quantity of charge at all other locations. (4) Each black box contains amazing computing capabilities to reduce this data to a voltage potential. (5) The black boxes perform their functions essentially instantaneously. (6) The boxes are so small that each point in space can contain multiple boxes, one for each field -- electric, magnetic, gravitational, etc. This description is a general summary and omits many details. Would anybody believe this hypothetical physicist?
In our post-game forensics, widespread belief in miraculous black boxes may have prevented success for many ill-fated contenders.
Imposters
Normal development occurs in stages, each of which generally depends on successful completion of previous stages. This development phenomenon has been described in psychology, sociology, biology, biochemistry, etc.
In education, curriculum content is taught in a specific sequence: [1st grade] -> [2nd grade] -> [3rd grade], etc. A bright student who has mastered 2nd grade content can skip the 2nd grade, going straight from 1st to 3rd. This wonderful student will probably continue to excel in the future. What if the 2nd grade is skipped, but the student has not mastered its content? That student is a pretender, an imposter much like Ferdinand Waldo Demara, "The Great Imposter", who pretended to be a doctor without completing medical school and a lawyer without completing law school. Bad things likely follow.
Consider a math content sequence: [numbers] -> [arithmetic] -> [algebra] -> [calculus], etc. Skipping any step likely results in later failure. For example, one cannot be proficient in algebra without knowing arithmetic.
Are there "great imposters" in physics? Yes, one might argue that there are both pretender theories and persons. Consider this discovery sequence:
(light speed c, elementary charge e, Planck constant h, etc)]
-> [2. Formulate new "full quantization" postulates]
-> [3. Derive measured constant values using first principles from the postulates alone]
Is this a valid developmental sequence? As an empirical fact, for over a century, use of the antiquated theory of continuous space, time and energy as step 2 above has failed to accomplish step 3. At minimum, some alternative assumptions in step 2 may be required to achieve step 3. Finally, and perhaps most convincing, in the real world of physics research, BM has achieved step 3 using full quantization axioms in step 2 [9].
If this is a valid sequence of developmental stages, then one can identify many imposter theories and physicists. Prominant among imposter theories are the SM, QM, Special Relativity and General Relativity, all using unexplained measured values in step 1 above as input parameters and failing to provide any credible account of why the constants have particular measured values rather than some other values. To be diplomatic, let physicsits speak for themselves on their position concerning the imposter question.
In sum, an imposter effect might be considered in our post-mortem forensics. On a positive note, aspiring students and physicists might best avoid imposter theories and teachers.
Misinformation vs Disinformation
Incorrect information is rampant in physics literature and internet media. Does it matter, practically or theoretically, that CERN groups wrongly and repeatedly describe 13 TeV soup beam collisions as "proton-proton collisions" [17]? A supposed special status for the so-called fundamental constants has been reinforced by descriptions such as "universal constants", "universal in nature", "immutable" and "non-derivable from more fundamental principles" [18].
Misinformation becomes disinformation when intent to misdirect or deceive is added. Are the misinformation issues above simple ignorance or something more sinister? Do they unfairly deflect attention away from the BM lead in fundamental physics research and publications?
Scientific Method Abandoned
One of Albert Einstein's teachers, mathematician Hermann Minkowski defined "spacetime" as a way to describe the location of an object. In addition to the x, y and z coordinates in a Galilean frame of reference, this spacetime added time t as a fourth dimension expressed as a "distance" ct, where c is vacuum light speed. That is, the t variable was treated as a position coordinate in an abstract space called spacetime, known as a four-dimensional manifold. Forget any general agreement that time t is unidirectional, namely an object can only move forward, not backwards in time, known as the "arrow of time". Maybe we can just ignore that ct in spacetime is not really like spatial dimenstions x, y and z.
A real physics circus began when people wondered if Minkowski spacetime had any use in science. As act one in this circus, Hendrik Lorentz added an observer in spactime. Imagine adding a little doll as our observer in an illustration of spacetime showing the "spacetime cone". Now the spacetime becomes a frame of reference for our observer doll.
In act two, Einstein introduced Special Relativity in 1905, also using Lorentz transformations, but with a different interpretation. By then, the circus crowd was thrilled and did not care that both Lorentz and Einstein had completely abandoned the scientific method.
Where did they go wrong? Time was used as a position coordinate in Lorentz transformations. Thus, time cannot also be an independent variable available to define laws of physics. The problem is the laws of physics require the time t variable. Even if time t does not explicitly appear in an equation for a law of physics (e.g., Coulomb's law, ideal gas law), there is the assumption that the equation remains true with the passage of time.
Thus, there are two alternative uses of the time t variable: define spacetime position or define laws of physics. With the scientific method, spacetime and laws of physics cannot both exist. If we choose spacetime, then there are no independent laws of physics. Without laws of physics, the statement that such laws are "invariant" across two spacetime frames has no meaning and is pure nonsense. If we choose laws of physics, then both spacetime and Lorentz transforms are nothing more than oddities or math protocols, not valid scientific theories with any merit.
In sum, when time t is used as both dependent and independent variables, the scientific method and its design of controlled experiments are explicitly discarded. But many in the physics community crave a good show, featuring the delight of miraculous length contractions and time dilations. Everybody has something they would like to be smaller or to take more or less time. Nobody cares that a Lorentz transform is not even needed if you already have the information (the observed velocity vector of an object) required to do it.
Mathematics is a huge endeavor with its own history, university departments and vast literature. The good news is very little of this math is needed to understand how the universe works [15].
Showmanship Replaces Scientific Discipline
The mission of the fake science news is propaganda to hide the losers of the physics grand championship race (Fig. 1). For example, General Relativity has been eliminated (failed to account for data) [12] [13]. General Relativity remains popular only by abandoning the scientific method and committing a false positive or Type 1 error, saying that something works when it demonstrably does not. In addition, the Planck scale has been replaced by the Keene scale (BM primary constants) [9]. The BM bit function replaces the outdated QM wave function [10].
In a losers game, fringe pseudoscience continues to sell itself as mainstream. Almost all papers on Arxiv.org may create an illusion of scientific merit, although it is primarily a graveyard where reports of low merit work may be buried and forgotten.
Companies hosting internet social media promote social engineers seeking to influence opinion in the physics community and "limited hangout" presentations that appear to offer insights while hiding real critical content. This grand-standing includes popular slogans that QM is not understood and cannot be understood. This sort of showmanship may suggest that physics is the only branch of science that does not require understanding and rigorous analysis and further, that questions should not be asked.
Plagiarism and Copycats
Plagiarism of BM publications may be expected, but clear examples are not yet known. Instead, there may be a trend to echo BM content without citing BM publications. In this video, Jacob Barandes at Harvard may have simply renamed key BM notions: "we need new axioms", "division times", "indivisible operation", "indivisible laws" and "conditional probabilities". Is this just an innocent case of poor scholarship? Are the "new axioms" the BM full quantization postulates? Does "division times" refer to quantized time primary constant T in the Keene scale? Are "indivisible operation" and "indivisible laws" just synonyms for the time-development bit operation equations in BM? Barandes cites every conceivable author except the one who published ideas he tries to describe.
At 1:13:10 in the video, Barandes says four criteria are "required of any good theoretical framework in physics". 1. "It has to be empirically adequate. The predictions have to agree with what we're seeing" (i.e., empirical data). 2. "It shouldn't be vague". 3. "There should be at least a schematic in principle story to be told about how the classical world is supposed to emerge." 4. "It shouldn't depend on a long list ... of ad hoc extra empirical axioms." He suggests that existing theories fail to meet these "minimal requirements", but does not mention that BM does.
BM checks all four boxes. Thus, at the end of the day, Barandes might be counted as a convincing promoter of BM at a famous academic institution. He just needs some scholarship upgrade to cite relevant sources in BM publications to maintain integrity as a credible investigator.
Antiquated Methodology
Compared to BM, the technology of ATLAS, ALICE and CMS experiments at CERN is antiquated; their research methods are inefficient and obsolete; their SM theory is clearly inferior and outdated. Other than that, they're doing great. But in our post-game review, antiquated methodology might have been a roadblock in the path to victory. Mistakes in QM theory unavoidably limit its utility in multiple nanotechnology industries [19].
In contrast, BML has introduced quantum technology advances increasing spatial and temporal resolution by orders of magnitude. Imagine the advantage of BML technology in particle physics. For just one cycle of the some 9 billion ticks per second of cesium 133, the BML time-development engine could produce 1.5E+14 frames of this physical process using bit function analysis. Thus, frame-by-frame analysis could examine exactly how a cesium 133 tick occurs. Even better, experiments could evaluate the effects of variables such as temperature or satellite altitude pertinent to GPS systems.
Human Resources
The big-money labs may never achieve contender status in physics research if continuous space-time theory is not updated to full quantization. To be competitive, BML technology may be a required resource at academic physics departments and US national labs, in addition to numerous commercial enterprises. Attracting the brightest, most talented people is part of this competion.
Binary mechanics provides a clinic on how to do physics. Drop failed assumptions. Try new first principles or postulates. Log stunning advances. Develop new technologies and methodologies. Nobody expected the sweeping and stunning wins by BM in physics and the resulting loss of leadership by CERN, Fermilab and DARPA. In this regime change, those with competence in BM can provide leadership in physics teaching and research. Every academic physics department needs at least one such person.
Many of the best, highest paying positions in physics may be filled by graduating students with demonstrated expertise in BM. Students may apply to have a BML co-sponsor, via email, ZOOM, etc, on their supervising research committees at their home institutions.
Finally, a demographic factor may play a role in the post-game review. Prior to the BM victories, power in the physics community was mostly held by older people populating chairmanships of university departments and key positions in grant applicants at research organizations and in government funding agencies. While this demographic may have the latest digital updates in their phones, computers and software, when it comes to science, they tend to retreat to their caves and ancient analog computers.
In contrast, younger generations may more easily jump into the BM full quantization postulates like ducks in water. With their greater exposure to computer games, they know that continuous space is an illusion produced by little pixels on a screen and that the illusion of continuous time and motion depends on sufficent game fps (frames per second). In other words, this demographic already thinks in terms of quantized space and time.
As a result of this demographic difference, the older generation may tend to conclude that the full quantization postulates look strange and weird. In contrast, the younger generations might tend to the opposite conclusion that the theory that space and time are continuous is quite weird. Considering how demographics roll over time, as the younger generation replaces old-timers, BM postulates might be widely seen as normal and obvious.
Multiple Theories of Everything
BM may be viewed as a theory of everything (TOE). Considering numerous proposed TOEs, what happened in only one of them? Answer: BM derived measured values of so-called fundamental constants (c, e, h, etc) from first principles alone [9], winning the century-long physics grand championship race (Fig. 1).
Logic dictates that there can be only one TOE that is both complete and correct in its irreducible representation. At present, BM is the unchallenged one and only TOE in physics. Contrary to simple logic, gurus in the media pretend there are multiple possible TOEs.
On the other hand, there can be and are multiple imposter TOEs. One can list signs that a TOE is an impostor. Maybe only one is enough, namely that so-called fundamental constants are used as input parameters.
Hence, pursuit of fake, impostor TOEs might be an obstacle to consider in this post-game review.
Unwarranted Assumptions
The centerpiece of this analysis of why BM easily dethroned previous leaders in physics is unwarrented assumptions, namely the now obsolete theory that space, time and energy are continuous. Essentially all of the low-hanging fruit of this theory has been harvested. At present, it is an obstacle to achieving the goal of physics -- further understanding of how things work.
In contrast, BM rolled out different assumptions, namely the full quantization postulates, as a potentially better unifying idea. After pursuing the logical consequences of these new postulates and winning major victories, BM has no real competition.
What if some bright person finds a way to use the axioms that space and time are each continuous to derive the measured values of the so-called fundamental constants? This possibility cannot be excluded. But the fact remains that this has not yet occurred in well over a century [11]. On the other hand, with the alternative axioms of full quantization in BM, these constants were derived from first principles alone, the Keene scale was discovered and its values -- the primary constants -- were identified. At minimum by the "usefulness" criterion, BM may be logged in as the new shiny thing in the physics world.
Discussion
Post-Game Forensics. BM registered a series of stunning wins defying all the oddsmakers. How did this "new kid on the block" defeat the high and mighty, including many prominant physicists, major research organizations and funding governments? With posts on x.com, BML asked. However, if any in-house reviews of these events were done, none have been publicly released thus far. Maybe whistleblowers might surface. For government, FOIA requests might be interesting. Meanwhile, this article tried to examine some of the possible causes of this debacle and dramatic change of leadership in physics.
Reality Meets Fantasy. The prominence and often dominating influence of physics follies causing loss may suggest that many physicists might actually like them. Yes, nobody likes losing. On the other hand, if one has spent great effort to solve a physical problem without success, maybe discarding the scientific method is an attractive alternative. If one has failed to understand what is happening, just make this ignorance a point where lines intersect in Feynman diagrams. If one cannot explain the mechanism of motion, just draw a vector representing displacement of an object.
A wonderful thing about fantasy in the physics follies is that everybody can stumble along together around the race track. What happens if one horse suddenly bolts ahead of the pack and its lead keeps increasing? Soon everybody is watching the winning horse. Here is where reality meets fantasy. In the present story, that reality was the unexpected win of the physics grand championship race by BM. Suddenly, the great masters of physics found themselves in the losers circle as shocked betters tore up their losing tickets. Even worse, there was nobody to bail out the once mighty physicists, research organizations and funding governments and make everything happy again. After the race, the losers are left alone to fend for themselves.
What is next? The physics community might explore reforms which foster success in research and deter failure due to known physics follies. In addition, hope may be found in a new physics gold rush.
New Physics Gold Rush. Tired of being one of a hundred co-authors? Join the migrating physicists headed for BM. Yes, losers of the century-long physics grand championship race (CERN, Fermilab, their government-funded principal investigators, etc) can become competitive again in fundamental physics research. It is not too late to join the party. BM has only begun to scratch the surface of possible fundamental advances spanning the sub-specialties in physics.
For the physicist who determines the correct bit operations order (eq. 17 in [10]), the scientific merit of that achievement could easily exceed several Noble prizes. Nearly every BM publication suggests where new work may be beneficial. Pilot studies need replication with larger sample sizes providing better estimates of quantities and their confidence intervals. The dynamics of many systems need to be examined under controlled conditions, with variations of specific independent variables. New applications of BM predictions and results need further exploration. Be the one to first cross those finish lines.
References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" JBinMech January, 2015.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron magnetic moment derivation" JBinMech February, 2015.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Light speed amendment" JBinMech March, 2015.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Light speed at zero Kelvin" JBinMech January, 2016.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Elementary charge derivation" JBinMech June, 2018.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic proton spin derivation" JBinMech December, 2018.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Light speed derivation" JBinMech February, 2020.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Fine structure constant derivation" JBinMech June, 2020.
[9] Keene, J. J. "How to derive the primary and secondary physical constants" JBinMech March, 2025.
[10] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics postulates" JBinMech November, 2020.
[11] Keene, J. J. "Physicists had a chance and they blew it" JBinMech November, 2020.
[12] Keene, J. J. "Gravity increased by lunar surface temperature differential" JBinMech August, 2011.
[13] Keene, J. J. "GRACE: gravity surface temperature dependence" JBinMech February, 2016.
[14] Keene, J. J. "Physics standard model forensics" JBinMech May, 2015.
[15] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics equations" JBinMech March, 2025.
[16] Keene, J. J. "Physics standard model forensics" JBinMech May, 2015.
[17] Keene, J. J. "Elementary particle energies" JBinMech April, 2015.
[18] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental physical constants doctrine" JBinMech October, 2020.
[19] Keene, J. J. "Quantum technology advance" JBinMech September, 2025.
© 2025 James J Keene