On the Fundamental Physical Constants : I . Phenomenology

The fundamental physical constants (FCs) are parametrized. The results reveal that: 1) FCs are field coupling constants. With the exception of ratio of identities such as μ = mp/me, there are no dimensionless constants – all FCs, including α and π, are dimensional. 2) The constant k = 1.6022 x 10-19 implicates: i) atomic unit of torque, it causes matter’s intrinsic rotation on all (atomic to cosmic) scales; ii) motion of unrestricted bodies through free space and random thermal (Brownian) motion in condensed matter; iii) superluminal space expansion, i.e., Hubble effect is not an acceleration but tangential velocity (πc) of free space; and iv) common parametric definition of radioactivity and stellar explosion/supernova. 3) Newtonian gravitation comprises two potentials, a spherical pneumatic torque field G1 acts to inflate the gravitational envelope and a combination of force fields G2 impacts an acute hydrostatic pressure on the individual and common envelopes of the gravitating bodies; the two contrary force fields function to create a coherent rigid system in dynamic equilibrium. 4) The bosonic unit mass gravitational acceleration constant, gw = 7.9433 x 1059 m s-2 kg-1 is associated with the strong nuclear force (SNF), it binds matter on all (atomic to cosmic) scales. 5) Although the classical electron radius (CER) formulation re = e/mec yields correct value, it is nonetheless fortuitous as me deviates from the theoretical value by twenty orders of magnitude and theory does not link spatial dimension to electrostatics charge quantum. 6) Successful evaluation of re by three alternative methods implies that an attempt to relegate the CER as currently obtains in the Standard Model seeks to re-engineer reality. 7) Electron bosonic radius identifies with the astronomical unit, it accounts for “spooky” action at a distance and “entanglement” effects. 8) Planck length fails to relate to atomic spatial dimension indicating that Planck space does not refer to the atom. 9) Electric, magnetic and gravitational effects are all motivated by torque but its magnitude differs according to the order: electrical (N m) > magnetic (N m)0.75 > gravitational (N m)0.25. It is submitted that even if the atom degraded with cosmological epoch, values of the FCs would remain fixed because they are parametric relative quantities.


Introduction
Two papers, one by Max Born (1935) and the other by Paul Dirac (1937) were particularly instrumental to subsequent development of theories of the fundamental constants (FCs) including some current centre stage cosmological models that claim space and time variability.The quanta of investments in this area of physical research in virtually all developed and emerging nations underline the global importance attached to the subject, Srinivasan (2016), Ubachs et al. (2015); indeed, it seems there must be much more to unraveling the FCs than meets the eye.Research findings are, of course, varied; there are tenable cases for variable constants, Barrow & Webb (2014), Duff (2004), Webb et al. (2001), however, current majority findings would support cosmologically invariant constants within the course of accessible history of spacetime evolution, Ade et al. (2014), Varshalovich et al. (1996), Varshalovich, Ivanchik, and Potekhin (1999), Bogdonaite et al. (2014), Godun et al. (2014), Ubachs et al. (2015).The underlying factors remain elusive, while the values are uncannily specific, existing theories yield no clue regarding their origin, Srinivasan (2016), Ubachs (2015).Wilzeck (2007) aptly summarizes the existing scenario: "The multiplicity and variety of fundamental constants [particularly in the Standard Model] are esthetic and conceptual shortcomings in our present understanding of foundational physics".Here, we consider the classical foundations of some of the most widely researched fundamental physical constants.

Fine Structure Constant, α
Following Sommerfeld's definition of α with a combination of other physical constants = 2 /ℎ , recorded contemplation on the theoretical basis began effectively with Born's (1935) address to the Southern India Academy of Science.His contribution to existing knowledge of α is invaluable, it touches upon virtually all aspects of the electromagnetic (e-m) field and much more.He makes far reaching deductions, many of which inform current notions of e-m interactions, behavior of the electron in an e-m environment and even α's "importance for appearance of the physical world and our method to describe it.It makes it possible to separate atoms from the surrounding fields and to ascribe to them stationary states".It is hard to fathom that speculation could accommodate so much affirmation but, quite unintended, his approach, although firmly grounded on well established classical foundations, would seem to have influenced subsequent supremacy of aesthetic beauty over and above visualizability and cognizance.He would seem to regard α well above whatever might have given rise to it or indeed nature's fundamental building block when he avers that: "The great value 1/α =137 is the decisive factor for the order of magnitude of all physical phenomena when reduced to electronic units … the number 137 is the dominant factor for all natural phenomena", only to submit to the inescapable fact that the constant "… is not explained by existing theories.This is a very unsatisfactory situation".Several brilliant contributions have been made to build upon Born's foundation and deepen our understanding of α, Berkenstein (1982), Feynman (1985), Berkenstein (2002), Gabrielse et al. (2006), Schonfeld and Wilde (2012), Springer (2013), Kirakosyan (2015), Consiglio (2016), however, as with all other constants, the causality appears intractable.

Planck Constant, h
A most visible mainstream effort to develop a theoretical framework for h is reported by Lipovka (2014).However, given the rigor and sophistry of the standard procedure, his final result makes very interesting comparison with the apparently dismissible mundane classical approach reported by Schreiber (2006).As usual, the standard approach takes a dizzy tour through the gamut of details of the familiar formalism to arrive "… from the geometry of our universe" at the estimate where the parameters are traditionally defined.The approach, of course, retrieves the established value ℎ = 6.67 10 [ ] .Schreiber, however, simply uses classical dimensional analysis to submit that, if the classical mass formula is right, h must be an atomic constant defined with the expression: ( 2 ) where m, r and c are respectively atomic (rest) mass, radius and speed of light in vacuum.Given ( ) = 7.373 10 , and ( ) = 1.5 10 , see Obande (2016a), we have ℎ = 6.62607 10 .The coefficient of eq. ( 2) doubles for condensed matter and given particulate electron's ( ) = 4.8828 10 , ( ) = 9.1312 10 with = 3.71535 10 m/s, we get ℎ = 6.62609 10 J s. Thus, without evoking cosmological parameters, the classical procedure effortlessly reproduces h's familiar value.The literature has never lacked proposals for theoretical derivation of h, see for instance van der Togt (2009).

Speed of Light, c
The classical mass formula = ℎ / constrains variability of the vacuum speed of light c o as it would entail atomic mass variability, Obande (2016b).

Proton/Electron Mass Ratio, μ
CODATA 2014 gives / = = 1838.683661,the value, of course, indicates quite a margin between m p and m e .Existing theories fail to account for this margin and the subject continues to occupy considerable research attention.In his famous lecture, Born (1935) noted that an account of the "enormous difference… has been suggested by Pryce.He started from the experimental fact that both kinds of particles, … have the same angular momentum.As the spin is not connected with an accumulation of energy, the state 0+½ with no electromagnetic momentum (ℓ = 0) should have only electrostatic energy, whereas the state 1-½ which has a finite electromagnetic momentum (ℓ = 1) has an additional electromagnetic energy, which might explain the great mass difference".A recent attempt seeks explanation in relative abilities of p+ and e -to couple to the "Planck vacuum state", Daywitt (2014).

Electron Charge, e-
In view of space we shall present results of investigation of phenomenology of electric charge in a separate report.Briefly, our finding supports much of the positions of Belyakov (2010), Filho (2015) and Weng (2016).Specifically, we share Belyakov's position that charge relates to momentum and note that the same conclusion has all along been evident from Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's (1926) formalization of spin.

Fundamental Length
1.7.1 Planck Length, First Bohr Orbit, Compton Wavelength and Classical Electron Radius Planck's energy quantization translates naturally to space and time quantization and informs Planck scale dimensions (PSD); these days the subject admits of far reaching conjectures, Amelino-Camelia (2001), Amelino-Camelia (2003), Aloisio et al. (2005), Amelino-Camelia (2007); it retrieves with the expression: Born (1935) reasons from first principles to argue that Sommerfeld's fine structure constant, = 2 /ℎ (4) "is a brilliant proof, simultaneously of Einstein's principle of relativity and Planck's quantum theory" and proceeds to relate α to atomic dimensions thus, = / = (137) = 18770 (5) where is first orbit of H-atom and = ( ) = 2.8179403226 10 is classical electron radius (CER), i.e., = and where is electron Compton wavelength.Equations (3) to (7) form the theoretical bases of prevailing notions of atomic and electronic units of space.

The Geometric Constant Pi, π
Recent attempts to probe π beyond its geometrical meaning would include the reports of: Pasamentier and Lehmann (2004); Arndt and Haenel (2006); Friedman and Hagen (2015), and Boeing (2016)].Pasamentier & Lehmann's allusion to π as "the World's Most Mysterious Number", and Boeing's ultimate attribution, "The World is Pi" simultaneously underline the constant's over-riding ubiquity and relevance.Nonetheless, it is doubtful if, apart from their aesthetic beauty, these theoretical frameworks have added to unraveling π.

Convergence of Standard Model (SM) and Classical (CM) Quantum Philosophies
Parametrization reveals that the FCs derive specificity equally from the atomic bosonic and fermionic e-m fields.In order to demonstrate "oneness" or doublet nature of the two fields, it is relevant to demonstrate convergence of the SM and CM world views as juxtaposed in Table 1.Notably, CM recognizes the boson field as the cosmic vacuum field and sees this field and each of the three "mass generation" fermion fields as independent yet interactive ref. frames or universes working in perfect harmony with one another to define a common experience of reality.Notably, the two fields do not interact to jointly define a given constant and, in cases where a common parametric coupling defines the same constant, its fermionic value is usually several orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding bosonic value.Although it recognizes the distinction between the boson and the fermion, the SM is yet to appreciate that the two fields are integral forms of the atom, see Obande (2016aObande ( ), (2016b)).Here, we show that observational value of the FC derives from independent linear correlation of atomic fermionic and bosonic field parameters.

Procedure
The procedure is described in detail in an earlier brief report on causalities of gravitation, electricity and magnetism, Obande (2015a); here, we present a broader horizon of the subject.Basically, we assume that the atom is an e-m harmonic oscillator comprising doublet wave (bosonic) and particle (fermionic) components and proceed to evaluate the respective simple harmonic motion (SHM) parameters.Value of the FC obtains from analysis of selfinteractions (couplings) of the following field parameters: rest mass m, radius , density , angular speed , centripetal force , elastic modulus , longitudinal stress , and strain rate .Each parameter is correlated with every other one in a log-log plot and, following a set of simple rules, the correlation coefficient (coupling constant) yields the FC, while the exponent indicates the couple's geometry, Obande (2015aObande ( ), (2017)).
We recommend familiarization with the earlier report as it would greatly facilitate readability of this one; indeed, the raw data for the present investigation are contained in Table 2 therein.

Results and Discussion
The results are presented in nine sets of eight equations in Tables 2 and 3 for the fermion and boson fields respectively.Each set describes interactions of a chosen independent parameter with eight others that constitute the dependent variants, a snapshot of the entire results is presented in Table 4.The equation is numbered according to its position in the table, for example, eq.(2A(vii)) refers to Table 2, set A, item (vii).A list of notations and some general comments are provided in the Appendix; the details are presented.
. Dimensional analysis gives = 0.3355( / ) .= 7.4498 10 (m s - 2 /kg) 0.25 , i.e., α is dimensional, it is fermionic field's intrinsic tendency to tangential acceleration per unit mass.With c o = 3.71535229 x 10 -14 m/s, the innate tendency of condensed matter to tangential acceleration is, of course, imperceptible for most practical purposes, however, the property might be responsible for precession of large objects in circular motion.
The same coupling that gives α in the fermion causes electrical effect in the boson field, i.e., / .= 1.9953 10 ( / ) .(3A(vii)) Use of bosonic electron parameters gives 2.006 x 10 14 , the value reflects CODATA's eV = 2.417989 x 10 14 Hz.This result is particularly interesting, the value traces to inverse fermion transverse field, i.e., 2.36 / = 1.995 10 , where = 3.71535229 10 . No natural e-m oscillation exceeds nine orders of magnitude (Obande (2015b)), a simple analysis that refutes the eV-Hz assignment to 10 14 Hz follows shortly.In reality, coefficient of (3A(vii)) points to a much needed parametric bridge between the microcosmic (boson) and macrocosmic (fermion) fields uncannily reminiscent of Born's (1935) "…α's importance for appearance of the physical world …".In other words, / .indicates a bosonic wave process that converts absolute to relative atomic mass values, it awaits further investigation.
The analysis reveals as follows: i. Alpha α is an exclusive condensed matter atomic constant, it is the fermion field frequency-stress coupling constant.The same parametric coupling that manifests α in the fermion would seem responsible for evolution of condensed matter from the microcosm.ii.Alpha α is not dimensionless as empiricism presumes, theory reveals the dimension ( / ) ., i.e., particulate matter's intrinsic tendency to tangential acceleration per unit mass.iii.We have shown severally that the electron e is first element of nature's chemical periodicity, Obande (2016a), ( 2016b), (2015a); here, we find it sharing common parametric ratios with all other elements, i.e., in line with Born (1935), e is not a point charge, it is "extended".iv.We find no hint of literature's claim to ubiquity of α in e-m field interactions; besides, eq. ( 4) is a mathematical construct nonetheless faulted because theory does not link α directly to e, h or c.
= ( / ) .= 1.0698 10 , almost identical to CODATA's h/2π.Given our earlier results, we infer that parametric differences between boson and fermion field definitions of h reflect corresponding differences in processes that produce matter in absolute and relative atomic mass forms, see Obande (2016a).we present here with compelling quantitative evidence that μ is a universal field invariant.The argument for atomic mass degradation on cosmological time scale would seem to ignore key pertinent fundamental issues: a) μ is a relative quantity, therefore, its variability would require a random atomic mass degradation process; b) a random atomic mass phenomenon of any kind would engender abnormal entropy changes and disrupt the harmonic resonances constituting the stable equilibrium that sustains a timeless cosmos.ii.No immediate reason is found for the special significance attached to μ value; indeed, relative atomic mass = / is a "μ" of sort, since invariance of is taken for granted, it is hard to see why quotient of the proton/electron mass would be expected to vary given that H and e are very stable species; the situation is attributable to non-recognition of the elemental electron, Grimes & Adams (1979), Dye (2003).Mu μ is , i.e., proton atomic mass relative to e's value.iii.The large divergence between and reflects presence of 22 chemical elements occurring between e and p in the natural periodicity of the chemical elements, Obande (2016a).At the moment these elements are empirically inaccessible but they are implicated in imprecise location of H in conventional (Mendeleev) periodicity.

Fundamental Charge, e -
The literature gives F = 96,485.3251C and e-= 1.6021766208 x 10 -19 C to create a whopping 23 orders of magnitude divergence between p+ and e-; interestingly, physicists seem satisfied with this huge divergence but quite agitated with the three order difference between m p and m e .It signals a patent cognition crisis in the notion of "charge" particularly as it relates to (rest) mass.We highlight the e-vs.F contradiction with simple examination of quantitative expressions for μ. ( ) .= 1.0691 10 /( ) Earlier, we reasoned that the 20 orders of magnitude divergence between empirical and theoretical e-values is accountable if we assume "that an external field above some threshold voltage drastically suppresses, or indeed nullifies intrinsic atomic spin that creates charge…", Obande (2016a).Here, it reveals │e-│ an atomic reality that relates to values of the atom's diverse parametric self-interactions.Observe that the quotients of ( 9) to ( 12) are each ~10 -19 except (11) which is an order higher.It turns out that │e-│~1.6 x 10 -19 is among the most decisive determinants of spacetime characteristics on atomic to cosmic scales.
Equations ( 9) and ( 10) describe parametric couplings realizing │e-│~ 10 -19 in the fermion field, the unit mr indicates torque, its magnitude kmr varies only slightly with the couple's specifics.It reveals that: a) matter is intrinsically subject to a universal invariant torque that causes the atom's innate spin; b) the conversion factor 1eV = 1.60217662 x 10 -19 J is in error, theoretically 1eV = 1.4813 x 10 -38 J. ii.
Equation ( 11), 3/ = 3.3819 10 ( / ) gives = 9.418467565 10 = ; in other words, the bosonic field coupling constant / ~ 10 traces to light's tangential velocity, it indicates superluminal expansion of vacuum space, i.e., the Hubble effect is not an acceleration, space expands (radiates) at a constant superluminal velocity = , Nielsen, Guffanti & Sakar (2016).Notably, it is indicated here that the effect is measurable as a fixed vacuum field flux density/stress quotient ρ w /σ w = 8.5114 10 / a; thus, if tensile parameters of the vacuum field were accessible, the Hubble effect would register with the herein ρ w /σ w value.iii.
Equation ( 12), / = 3 / = 1.0691 10 /{( / ) } describes an effect in which the torque field imposes an accelerated bulk compression that couples with angular speed to impact an aggressive hydrostatic pressure on the bosonic envelope.It implies that in order to maintain vacuum isotropic and isostasic invariance, the torque field transforms from planar to a spherical envelope to constitute a tremendous pneumatic pressure field.We deduce as follows: a) on atomic scale, the device couples with an increase of ω with Z value to effect spontaneous radioactivity at Ac, ω = 2 x 10 10 rad s -1 , Obande (2015c); b) on stellar and galactic scales, the effect is likely responsible for stellar explosion/supernova.We refrain from stating the well-known technological implications of eq. ( 12).iv.

Newtonian Gravitational Constant G
CODATA (2014) gives = 6.67407 10 .The investigation reveals that Newtonian gravitation is an exclusive bosonic field effect, two bosonic field parametric couplings are implicated: , Emiliani (1995), the subject is normally omitted in CODATA lists; the following field parametric couplings are implicated: = 2.348 10 ( ) .( / ) .In other words, Newtonian and Galilean gravitational effects arise from very interesting couplings of e-m force fields details of which would require an elaborate account; here, we highlight only a few key points: i.
The equality = = ( ) .(see also eqs.(2C(iii)) and (3C(iii)) reveals that both Newtonian and Galilean gravitation involve a pneumatic (centrifugal) force field identified here with torque.The torque field is three dimensional in the vacuum, therefore, spherical; its strength, of course, increases with an increase in the gravitating body's mass and distance from the centre thus, it is strongest at the equator and least at the poles.ii.
Theory reveals two Newtonian gravitational potentials: the one arising from the pneumatic torque field defined by = ( ) .and the other a combination of reversed spherical angular momentum and accelerated tangential velocity defined by = ( ) .( / ) .both directed inwards to consolidate structural integrity of individual gravitating bodies and secure their common envelope.Clearly, manifests gravitational "pull" effect; thus, theory reveals an intense hydrostatic pressure that pulls the bodies together to counteract the outward push of the pneumatic torque field and achieve a rigid solid system in dynamic equilibrium.iii.
Galilean gravitation is an exclusive fermionic wave phenomenon, it comprises contributions from three parametric interactions: the interaction g 1 is an intrinsic torque field whose strength depends, of course, on the body's mass, radius and angular speed; g 2 comprises the body's combined tangential and angular motion, while g 3 implicates an additional torque field in translational potential.With respect to condensed matter's tangential motion potential, marginal value of the transverse field forecloses perceivable translation, however, translational tendency would bear strongly on precession; amongst other effects, the tendency would account for: a) perpetual tangential (translational) motion of unrestricted bodies through free space and b) random (thermal) motion of condensed matter down to constituent atoms of the molecule.

The Strong Nuclear Force
Equation (2F(iii)) inspires association with g the equivalent bosonic field coupling / = 7.9433 10 (3F(iii)) it reveals an incredibly over-bearing bosonic field unit mass gravitational (radial) acceleration: = = / = 7.9433 10 ( 1 3 ) Dimensional analysis gives = = 8.0269 10 .We consider two extreme cases of elements of the chemical periodicity e, and At, e marks onset of the natural periodicity and At marks onset of spontaneous radioactivity, Obande (2015c).Electron bosonic ( ) and fermionic ( ) field unit mass centripetal (gravitational) forces are: = 7.9433 10 would identify with the strong nuclear force (SNF), it is a bosonic unit mass centripetal force field holding matter together on atomic to cosmic scales, Obande (2015a).Increase of with mass and with radial distance would account for increase of gravitational potential from the centre of mass, i.e., the further you remove a composite (say, a nuclide or payload) from the centre of mass (nucleus), the tougher the process gets.

ii.
Molar, N A = 6.643 x 10 43 (Obande (2015b)) multiples of ( ) = 4.3175 10 yield a respectable 2.8681 x 10 3 N/u holding together bosonic molar e; the value balloons to molar particulate e' ( ) = 2.4250 10 / ; it would account for inordinately high energy requirement to split the atom.The present finding might inform lower bound energy profile of next generations of smashers that aim at real sub-atomic (i.e., sub-electron) species.However, such a smasher would likely yield no more than the conjugate right and left handed angular momentum vector fields (atomic electrons and positrons) that constitute the neutral molar electron, i.e., + = 2 ., plus a myriad of energy packets that constitute the glue field which binds the two counter-rotating vortices. iii.
Equation (13b) raises a possibility that e-'s experimental procedure might be probing its centripetal force, F e(p ) = 3.6504 x 10 -19 N, not charge; the subject calls for further investigation.

Atomic Spatial Units
Here, we consider values of the classical electron radius, electron Compton wavelength and Planck space.

Classical Electron Radius (CER)
Literature gives, = / = 2.81794 10 (14) with = 4.80 10 , = 2.99792458 10 / .Unless we are in error, ( 14) would seem to raise key fundamental issues: i) theoretically, = 7.3725 10 , certainly not 9.11 10 ; CODATA currently calls the theoretical value "hertz -kilogram relationship" despite literature to the effect that it is e's absolute (bosonic) atomic mass, Amsler et al. (2008), Pai (2015); ii) identification of e-with torque implicates electromotive rather than electrostatic effect and, indeed, eq. ( 14) bears this out in the empirical unit  14) resides in constructing a theoretical framework to link magnitudes of length and charge, it resolves immediately e-identifies with electromotive (velocity) rather than electrostatics (mass) effect.We examine the phenomenon of r e .

Pi, π
In the course of this project we investigated the photon and to our surprise π turns out a photonic dimensional parameter appearing in the expression of velocity (not speed) of light, i.e., = = it identifies with wavelength of a non-matter photonic envelope Obande, (2016b).Here, we present its phenomenology.
Table 2 gives two fermionic field parametric interactions and their inverses indicative of π, i.e.,

Planck Length, ℓ
Results of this investigation present no evidence in Table 2 or 3 of a field coupling suggestive of atomic spatial dimension of the order ~ 10 -35 m.Interactions whose order of magnitude come range such as / .
= 1.122 10 , eq. (3B(vi)) and / .= 1.1479 10 , eq. (3B(vii)), refer to electromotive force not length; furthermore, lowest atomic radii values are ten orders of magnitude higher than ℓ P , and belong to trans-U elements, see Table 2 of Obande (2015a).We deduce, therefore, that ℓ P is not an atomic parameter; indeed, same argument applies to all Planck scale dimensions, they fail to locate in theoretical analyses of e-m fields of the atomic wave-particle composite.
( 1 9 ) The literature value retrieves with 1.606 1.755 10 = 8.85412179 10 .Observe that eq. ( 19)'s unit suggests a torque field in superluminal motion through space at πc; thus, and share common units -torque fields in tangential motion; notably, 's unit is square 's.The results are summarized: i. Magnetic flux density is an exclusive fermionic field effect, it is the fermion field mass-density coupling constant; notably, the unit of magnetic force ( ) .makes interesting comparison with ( ) .for gravitation and ( ) for electricity.ii.
Electron magnetic moment is a bosonic field phenomenon, it is centripetal force-strain rate coupling constant; the unit ( / ) denotes electrical effect, a torque field in accelerated angular speed.iii.
Magnetic permeability constant and electric permittivity constant result from a common bosonic parametric coupling, they differ only with respect to magnitude of the unit, 's unit is square 's.iv.
It is instructive that magnetic flux density B is a fermionic phenomenon while , and are bosonic phenomena; a detailed investigation of the subject might reveal as yet unknown relationship between matter and space on the one hand and electrical and magnetic effects on the other.

Summary and Conclusion
The report presents an attempt to demystify the fundamental physical constants with unambiguous identification of the underlying causalities.Based on an earlier submission that the atom is an e-m harmonic oscillator comprising intrinsic wave-particle doublet, the procedure evaluates the oscillator's boson (wave) and fermion (particle) fields' tensile parameters; coefficient of linear correlation (coupling) of one parameter with another reproduces accurate value of the fundamental constant.Dimensional analysis of the constant enables far reaching insight into details of the physical processes involved; the key findings are highlighted.

i.
The fine structure constant α is fermionic field frequency-stress coupling constant; same bosonic field coupling indicates a process of formation of condensed matter from the vacuum field.Dimensional analysis yields the value 7.4645 x 10 -3 m s -2 /kg in line with literature's 7.2974 x 10 -3 ; notably, α is not a dimensionless constant, it identifies with condensed matter's intrinsic tendency to tangential acceleration and would account for precession of bodies in rotational motion.ii.
Planck constant h retrieves as a universal atomic field invariant.Bosonic field's atomic mass couples with field modulus to yield h/J s and angular speed couples with stress to yield h/eV s; similarly, a number of fermion field parameters couple to yield h/eV s directly; specifically, density couples with frequency to give a coefficient from which h/J s readily obtains.iii.
Theoretically, proton/electron mass ratio μ = 2408; reference is made to an earlier report to argue that the huge value reflects presence of twenty two inaccessible elements occurring between p+ and e-in the complete (natural) chemical periodicity.It is explained that e is an element, therefore, μ is relative atomic mass m r , i.e., proton mass relative to electron's value; hence μ's variability would imply m r variability across the periodicity.It is, however, argued that even if atomic mass values degraded with cosmological epoch, it would do so uniformly and still leave m r , hence μ, an invariant.iv.
Proton/electron mass quotient is invoked in different atomic mass units to demonstrate that the empirical value e-= 1.6022 x 10 -19 refers to electromotive not electrostatics unit, in the latter unit e-= 47.062 C. It is, therefore, recommended that atomic unit of charge (i.e., elementary charge) should read F e = 47.062C in line with F P = 96, 485 C; in other words, F (the Faraday) should denote charge, F e and F p its atomic and natural units respectively.v.
The magnitude │e-│ ~10 -19 implicates: a) atomic unit of intrinsic torque (N m) responsible for rotation of matter on all (atomic to cosmic) scales; b) causalities of: i) tangential motion of unhindered bodies through free space; ii) random thermal motion in condensed matter; iii) spontaneous radioactivity of the chemical element and stellar explosion/supernova; c) space expansion at πc, i.e., in line with Nielsen et al. (2016), the Hubble effect is not an acceleration, it is superluminal expansion of space.vi.
Newtonian gravitation is an exclusive bosonic field phenomenon, two potentials are implicated: a pneumatic torque field with constant G 1 acts to inflate the common spatial envelope of the gravitating bodies and a spherical vector field G 2 comprising combined reversed angular momentum and accelerated tangential velocity exerts a superlative hydrostatic pressure on the individual bodies and their common envelope to counteract the effect of G 1 and achieve dynamic equilibrium of the system.Thus, gravitation turns out not a simple mutual pull of two or more bodies but an elaborate balance of contrary forces in dynamic equilibrium.vii.
Universal unit of (Galilean) gravitational acceleration, UGA, defines with three potentials, the potential g 1 shares common parametric combination with G 1 , i.e., = = = = = .For condensed matter it results in an orthogonal planar 2-D equatorial gravitational envelope which transforms in the vacuum field to a spherical envelope; g 2 is a combined tangential and angular motion while g 3 is yet another torque field in translational potential.viii.
The bosonic equivalent of the UGA , i.e., = / = 7.9433 10 is interpreted to indicate the strong nuclear force (SNF) binding matter together on all scales from the atom to the cosmos.The values F e(w) = 2.7 x 10 3 N and F e(p) = 5 x 10 25 N were found binding together molar bosonic and fermionic electron respectively, F e(p) would account for high energy profiles to disintegrate the atom.ix.
Investigation of atomic spatial dimensions revealed as follows: a) the empirical expression = / is faulted on account of wrong m e value, it is twenty orders of magnitude higher than the theoretical value.b) Based on concordance of r e values calculated with three alternative methods, it is submitted that an attempt to relegate the classical electron radius r e = 2.8179 x 10 -15 m as in the Standard Model seeks to re-engineer physical reality.c) Electron bosonic radius r e(w) = 1.499 x 10 8 m coincides with the astronomical unit AU, it would account for "spooky" action at a distance and "entanglement" effects.d) Planck length is not implicated in parametric couplings that give atomic spatial dimensions, its reference to the atom (and nature) is, therefore, refuted.e) Pi π turns out an e-m field coupling constant, it expresses in rad unit (inclination), therefore, not a dimensionless constant. x.
Analyses of seventy two linear correlations that cover the usual set of tensile properties each for the atomic boson and fermion e-m fields (Tables 1 and 2) strongly suggest that, with the exception of ratio of identities such as μ, there are no dimensionless fundamental physical constants, furthermore, FCs are field parametric quotients, therefore, strictly invariant.
In conclusion, we note that the above constitutes only a sketchy analysis of the voluminous data contained in Tables 1 and 2, adequate analysis would be bulky and require a non-peer review outlet.Although the presentation merely broaches the topic, it is forwarded nonetheless for wider scrutiny with hope to motivate independent investigation and, perhaps, attract much better informed contribution.It is clear from our series of investigations that classical (Newtonian) physics offers arguably the most powerful tool for probing the atom.The approach facilitates visualization, cognition and conceptualization of the atom's nature, its "dance steps" and their perceivable outcomes; it has distinguished itself by reproducing accurate values of observational properties of the atom and of reality, all of which were hitherto absolutely inaccessible, Obande (2015) to (2016).Notably, results of the present investigation would suggest that accessibility of tensile properties of the vacuum field could engender unprecedented revolutions in theoretical physics and technological innovation.We remain convinced that physics has, for quite a long while, had in its firm grips the "Theory of Everything", it is none other than the Planck-Einstein-de Broglie classical mass formula hϑ = mc 2 ; its simplicity hides its awesome analytical power as a tool for probing the atom and the cosmos.An observational theory of nature is now conceivable and it should inform speculation which, left unredeemed, can mislead irretrievably.
Mass Ratio,Theoretically, we have the following mass values: i) proton: value from CODATA's ( ) = 9.10 10 /u has been explained,Obande (2015a).The following field oscillation values are also relevant: i) proton:( ) = 2048 ; ( ) = 4166 ; ii) electron: ( ) = 1.0 ; ( ) = 2.034 .With these values we obtain the respective μ values from ratios of the rest masses and transverse fields, i. e., We have noted previously that the empirical value 1836.15267389results from prevailing theoretical and experimental limitations, Obande (2016a).We deduce as follows from the result:i.Theoretical values of proton and electron atomic masses calculated from the classical mass formula for the boson and fermion fields yield a constant ratio μ = 2048.The value reflects invariability of atomic mass values.A voluminous and growing literature exists on μ,Ubachs et al. (2015); notably, the question of spatial and temporal cosmological evolution remains unsettledVarshalovich (1999),Webb et a. (2001); Substituting literature values in (8) we get, 931.4940958/0.511= 1.01/5.485799x 10 -4 = 96, 485.3253/x, giving x = m e = 52.54755C; notably, the empirical value e-= 52.5476 C compares well with the theoretical value.Theoretically, F = 96,383.383C and e-= 47.062 C in line with the universal proton/electron mass ratio μ = / = 96383.383/47.062= 2048, Obande (2016a).It raises the questions:if literature e-is not charge what is it, and why is it so successful in several quantitative approaches?We address these questions with detailed examination of field couplings that yield │ │ = 1.6022 10 .The following fermionic field couplings are relevant: vacuum field , i.e., velocity not speed of light, Obande (2016b).

Table 1 .
Comparison of Classical and Std.Model world views

Table 2 .
Atomic fermionic (U * r , U o r, U'r) field parametric coupling coefficients

Table 4 .
Causality and effect of atomic fermionic and bosonic waves' self-interaction