Alright, give several days on this. It is not easy. It has never been done before, for it is the tying together the inverse fine structure constant, rest-mass of electron versus proton and a lot more.
It was easily seen that we can tie together the strong-nuclear force with the chemical bond of chemistry. It only needed the astute observation that the distance involved equals the magnitude of the forces involved. Nuclear distances are 10^6 smaller than chemical bond distances and thus 10^6 stronger.
The spin quantum number m_s of quantum mechanics was easily derived from the Ampere law of Maxwell Equations. It is the astute observation that electrons in atoms share suborbitals. That takes place only if there is an attraction force of one electron with a second electron and that takes place because parallel currents attract one another.
The Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics derives the speed of light in the Ampere law. Since the speed is derivative of the Maxwell Equations, then all speeds are derivative of the Maxwell Equations. And if speed is a derivative quantity, then kinetic energy and rest mass are both derivative quantities. This is just logical reasoning.
So that leaves only charge as a property of matter that is a primitive notion in the Maxwell Equations along with proton, electron, photon, neutrino and above all *atom*.
So, in physics, what we have is (1) atoms (2) proton, electron, photon, neutrino (3) charge (4) Maxwell Equations and with those four as the axiom set of Physics, we derive everything of Physics.
Now that is unusual for every physicist alive today, but that is normal and par for the course of any mathematician alive today. Because any geometer of mathematics, every day and every minute spent doing geometry of mathematics is all based upon a set of axioms that governs and controls the entirety of geometry for the mathematician.
So, to say to a physicist, that before 2012, you were doing physics in a abysmally muddle headed and wrong way is to understate the problem. That every physicist, to do good physics, and true physics, must adopt a axiom set to keep him/her on the straight and narrow of physics truth and reality. If your physics is not in tune with the Maxwell Equations, well, you are doing science fiction, not physics.
So I need to see how these two special numbers come out of the Maxwell Equations, the 1836 of the rest mass ratio of proton divided by electron and the inverse fine structure constant of 137. I have a feeling or intuition that it comes from the magnetic current density the extra term in Faraday's law when you include magnetic monopoles. And I have the feeling that it is a geometrical aspect, much like that charge is a geometry of whether it is Euclidean, Elliptic or Hyperbolic space.
I did some work on this before with showing that to make a sphere surface, you are limited by the number of "strips of longitude lines" where lines are strips. And so that the numbers 1836 and 137 are limitations of conversion of a sphere in Euclidean geometry to a sphere in Elliptic or Hyperbolic geometry. But when I did that, some years back, I did not have the notion of a magnetic current density of the Maxwell Equations.
One has to keep in mind also, that as the Maxwell Equations are the axiom set over all of Physics, and since mathematics is a subset of physics, that the Maxwell Equations are the axiom set over all of Mathematics. So that the Maxwell Equations can easily replace the Hilbert axioms of geometry. But I have to focus now on just 1836 and 137.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper archiving ?of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts in ?archive ?form is seen here: