Is there any reason that in principle the basis of the 'fine structure constant' ~[1/137.036] cannot be understood as a simple geometric ratio?
For example, commencing with a [2 x 2 x 2] unit cube, centre [N], of 1/2-pole [root3]=[*3] and 1/2-face diagonal [root2]=[*2], and imagining 3 fundamental components [A]=[2--*3], [B]=[2--*2] and [C]=[B--A]=[*3--*2]. then if the component [A] is projected from the pole to the face diagonal, it becomes ([*3] x [A])/[*2]=0.3281694=[Ap]; such that, relative to [C]=0.317837245196, a disparity [p]=0.0103321540278 is implied: ([Ap]--[C])=[p].
Now if these components [Ap] and [C] are permitted to elaborate on this common face diagonal axis of the cube such that multiples of [p], thus [2p], [3p] and so on arise to define a cumulative disparity between them, one immediately notices that 137p=[*2+p'], where [p']=0.00129153943, and [8p']~=[p], or equally, [*2]/[p]=136.875.
If it is further supposed that [*2] represents an effective limit in this divergence between [Ap] and [C], following upon which in a sequential linear elaboration of these components in an extrapolation of that axis in [*2] unit intervals, these then converge, and if with respect to that first cube and a cubic lattice structure extrapolating from it a second cube and lattice identical to it is imagined whose corner is [N], then if an oscillatory dynamic is imagined to inhere between these two aspects of what becomes a 'reciprocal cubic lattice structure' in space --potentially a 'unitary phase structure'--, these components [A], [Ap] and [C] arising in its poles and (horizontal) diagonal face axes in particular may be considered to define the basic configuration of such an interplay; whereupon the residual [p] and the ratio [p]/[*2] become definitive and central.
Moreover, if this dynamic interplay is considered within a singular context--even a universal frame in which it is mediated by a correspondingly singular 'force'--, the basis is also conceivably suggested for a 'unitary wave principle' primarily comprising these two principal components. As such, it is also worth observing that the relative frequency of occurrence of [p] and [p'] is precisely [137:1]. The question stands.