This framework derives physical constants in Aether Physics Model using Quantum Measurement Units, suggesting unification of propagation and charge structures.
This work develops a closed derivation framework for fundamental physical constants within the Aether Physics Model (APM) using Quantum Measurement Units (QMU). The approach begins from a minimal substrate set consisting of electrostatic charge, a gravitational substrate quantity (denoted Gforce), electron mass, the Compton wavelength, and a fundamental quantum frequency. From these quantities, all major physical constants are derived through geometric closure relations. The propagation relation is given by\[c = λ_C F_q,\]establishing the speed of light as a direct consequence of spatial and chronovibrational structure. Electromagnetic propagation follows from the Aether closure relation\[A_u · curl = c^2 = 1/μ_0 ε_0,\]providing a decomposition of the electromagnetic propagation constant into an expansive (Aether unit) and torsional (curl) sector. The charge sector is governed by the phase relation\[{e^2}{{e_emax}^2} = 8π α,\]which interprets the fine-structure constant as a geometric ratio between electrostatic and magnetic charge distributions. Gravitational scaling arises from substrate loading:\[m_a = {Gforce}{λ_C {F_q}^2},\]with the SI gravitational constant appearing as a bridge quantity,\[G = {Gforce\,{λ_C}^2}{{m_a}^2}.\] These relations unify propagation, charge, and gravitational structure within a single closure hierarchy. Observable constants are interpreted as projections of an underlying volumetric--chronovibrational geometry rather than independent empirical inputs. Numerical evaluation using CODATA 2022 values confirms that the closure relations reproduce the known values of \(c\), \(h\), and \(G\) within the SI system. The resulting framework provides a consistent algebraic structure in which the apparent multiplicity of physical constants reduces to a smaller set of substrate invariants governed by geometric closure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David W. Thomson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: