Fundamental Physical Constants Doctrine

Abstract and Introduction
The fundamental physical constants doctrine hides the failure of popular physical theories including legacy quantum mechanics and both special and general relativity. The so-called "fundamental constants" are in fact the greatest body of unexplained data in physics. The doctrine acts to obscure the now obvious fact that these unexplained observations comprise basic unsolved mysteries in physics. Instead of addressing these basic questions, the doctrine teaches that these observations are essentially a sort of "no-go zone" for theoretical physicists. First, these observations are typically confined to a short Appendix A in physics books, wrongly labelled "fundamental constants" (Fig. 1). Second, "natural units" in basic equations help hide the fact that the measured values of these "constants" remains unexplained although these values are used as "input parameters". Third, accepted interrelationships or dependencies among many of these constants indicate mathematically that they contain redundant information and could not be "fundamental". Finally, binary mechanics is thus far the only comprehensive physical theory to derive the values of the so-called fundamental constants from first principles [1].

Fig. 1: The Greatest Body Of Unexplained Data In Physics

Idols in a sacred temple. The "fundamental constants" doctrine advocated in the physics community consists of a dogma and propaganda, misdirecting attention away from endeavors that we call science and physics (Fig. 2). The "axiom" synonym might suggest that these so-called constants might be treated as "givens" or "assumptions", like idols in a sacred temple, outside the purvue of physics research. Never mind that they are a major body of unexplained measurements which would normally be the object of intense investigation to discover a credible theoretical basis for their observed values.

Fig. 2: Doctrine Definition and Synonyms

A supposed special status for many of 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".

Workers remove light speed c idol from the temple. Light speed measurements are said to date back to the 17th century. However, prior to binary mechanics, there was no account of why vacuum light speed c was approximately 300,000 km/sec, instead of some other measured value, say 10,000 or 900,000 km/sec, without reference to other unexplained constants. Expression of light speed c as a function of other unexplained constants does not qualify as a derivation of the measured value from first principles. Hence, the first-ever true derivation of light velocity c from first principles of quantum theory was a historic achievement [2]. In short, one of the "non-derivable" idols in the "fundamental constants" temple crumbled (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Primary Physical Constants

Workers move new physics into the temple. What if a supposed constant is not really constant? Some believe that discovery of such variability would imply "new physics". Two of several examples might be mentioned.

Fig. 4: Light Speed in Bit Velocity Units and Vacuum Energy Density

First, Fig. 4 (from [3]) shows results of a 2016 study where light speed depends on vacuum energy density, which added important amendments to Einstein's postulate of constant vacuum light speed. Note that Einstein did the best anyone could, without knowledge of vacuum composition [4] and quantization of space, time and energy [1].

Second, according to a 2020 binary mechanics study, a proposed measured value of the fine-structure constant α was also found to depend on vacuum energy density [5].

The word "constant" is a mathematics term in simple linear expressions such as y = ax, where y and x are two variables and a is the proportionality constant. For the light speed c example, we have {meters} = c{seconds}. So listing vacuum light speed c as a "constant" may be appropriate in some contexts. The problem arises when the adjective "fundamental" is added, since we now know that light speed is a secondary constant, not a fundamental or primary constant in physics (Fig. 3).

"Oops, there goes another temple idol." Similarly, Planck's constant h is a proportionality constant relating energy E to electromagnetic radiation frequency f: E = hf. Since the first-ever derivation of Planck's h from first principles and the classical expression for angular momentum in 2015 [6], it, too, is now categorized as a secondary, not fundamental, constant.

Fig. 3 (from [1]) lists other secondary constants, which may also be seen as predictions, including electron electric dipole moment (EDM), proton electric dipole moment (EDM), electron rest mass m_e, elementary charge e, electron magnetic dipole moment and fine structure constant α.

Poof, let's hide the idols. "Natural Units" is the practice of setting all "univeral physical constants" to one (1) in physics equations. There are a number of ways in which natural units may be defined. This practice may have merit in simplifying key equations. On the other hand, equations in natural units where the so-called fundamental constants do not explicitly appear may tend to deflect attention from the unexplained status of the "hidden" constants.

When all else fails, do the math. Many theorists claim to derive one or more of the so-called fundamental constants. The essential question is: (1) Are their calculations based only on first principles or (2) are they using some unexplained, so-called fundamental constants to calculate others? The latter possibility would not be truly new ground, since inter-relationships among these unexplained measures (the "fundamental constants") have been a fixture in physics literature for decades.

For example, with vacuum permittivity normalized, one may write

α = e² / (2hc) eq. 1

where α is the fine-structure constant, e is elementary charge, h is Planck's constant and c is vacuum light speed.

With simple algebra, one can rearrange eq. 1 to express any value in terms of the others. Clearly, there is redundant information in the values in eq. 1. There is not even one physical constant value in eq. 1 that does not depend on the other values. Mathematically, eq. 1 is equivalent to several perhaps somewhat shocking statements. First, the so-called "fundamental constants" in eq. 1 are not fundamental. Second, these "constants" could not be fundamental. That is what eq. 1 states.

Some form of eq. 1 appears in almost every book on particle and atomic physics. Yet the author does not recall even one presentation of eq. 1 where its meaning was clearly understood. Look up the expression for electron magnetic dipole moment, which includes electron rest mass m_e in the parade of redundant information where so-called "fundamental constants" are clearly not independent values.

The presence of redundant information means that the so-called "fundamental constants" must be based on a set of values which are invariant and independent of each other. This set of values was discovered, as presented above, and presented as the primary constants of physics (Fig. 3).

References
[1] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics FAQ" JBinMech August, 2018.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Light speed derivation" JBinMech February, 2020.
[3] Keene, J. J. "Light speed at zero Kelvin" JBinMech January, 2016.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Vacuum composition" JBinMech December, 2019.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Fine structure constant derivation" JBinMech June, 2020.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic proton spin derivation" JBinMech December, 2018.
© 2020 James J Keene