The number 137 is suggested by some to be of importance in fundamental physics.The late great Richard Feynmann is known for saying all serious physicists should have it nailed to their office wall. So how do I tackle this 137 from the simplest perspective possible? Well, to start with I realize that I have no idea. Even if Feynmann’s solution is simple elegance in its own right, it is too complex for my very restricted know-how in math and physics. I will die well before I’m close to getting familiar with the basics upon which his solution stands. I must find another way or let it be. Since I seem unable to let things be, I do it my way. As always, I do this knowing I’m putting dunce cap on my head.

In this article I skip the neccesary background details and go straight to Feynmann’s solution. In doing so, I probably miss the whole point from a formal perspective, but my own point is not to be “correct” in a formal way. The point is to play around with it and generate fun ideas. If any of them turn out to be of “real” value to anyone, that’s a bonus.

If you’re at all interested in 137, you probably know the backgrund better than I do, so let’s go head on to the solution:

The Solution: It will here be shown that this problem has a remarkably simple solution confirming Feynman’s conjecture. Let P(n) be the perimeter length of an n sided polygon and r(n) be the distance from its centre to the centre of a side. In analogy with the definition of π = C / 2r we can define an integer dependent generalization, π(n), of π as π(n) = P(n) / (2r(n)) = n tan(π / n). Let us define a set of constants {α(n

_{1}, n_{2})} dependent on the integers n_{1}n_{2}as α(n_{1}, n_{2}) = α(n_{1}, ∞) π(n_{1 }x n_{2}) / π, ………………………* where α(n_{1},∞) = cos(π / n_{1}) / n_{1}. The numerical value of α, the fine structure constant, is given by the special case n_{1}= 137, n_{2}= 29. Thus α = α(137,29) = 0.0072973525318… The experimental value for α is α_{exp}= 0.007297352533(27), the (27) is +/- the experimental uncertainty in the last two digits.

Here’s my image of it:

Instead of a polygon, I use my fundamental units 2D-surface extension which is disc like and have a smooth perimeter. This makes “the center of a side” to mean “anywhere on the only side there is, which is a boundary/limit to the units inherent force”.

Instead of taking the perimeter length as a given, we assume the action of “2r” to be what generates it.

Letting both contribute equal magnitudes, we evaluate them as .5 each, so 2 halves will be what causes the effect of 1 whole.

If we know 2r to be 1, we divide C by 1 and we get 3.

So the π = C / 2r becomes kind of circular:

3 is the same as when divided by/shared by it’s two halves.

The two parents share the same kid…

Now we can freely speculate in what way these values relate, what C really is, how time and space fit in the image and whatnot.

My point is that the most basic unit of measurable reality, the one most fundamental unit, may be the result of two lesser parents. These two are perhaps not empirically detectable on their own, because they do not appear on their own. Perhaps they are never on their own.

I suggest it takes 2 of these units to become what we think of and measure as empirical facts.

I suggest the above image is of a half wavelength, and that this is the essence of a singularity/monopole.

Side note: this is before C becomes less than 3 and before 3 multiplies as to generate Pi additions/decimals.