Remember:
Divergence
problems are theory based. The internal structure of the energy sources
are simply not “captured”. Taking into account the finite,
realphysical oriented, phenomenological nature of objects, the "infinities"
resolve plausibly. The selfevident fact that the distance on a spherical surface does not correspond to the "straight" distance between points A and B requires no abstraction. This leads to the

"abstract" The main object of the
elementary
body theory is
the elementary body a pulsating hollow sphere. At
maximum expansion the hollow spherical shellmass is at rest. The
equations of motion  based on a sine
function  describe the complete transformation of this shellmass into
motion energy without rest mass (photon).
Negative energy values e.g. of the Dirac equation are natural results of the elementary body dynamics.
A consideration of the elementary
body provides an accurate theoretical value
for the proton radius. Elementary body theory based the proton radius is
the 
"abstract"
[ http://www.psi.ch/media/protonsizepuzzlereinforced ]
[ http://www.psi.ch/media/weiterraetselumdasproton ]
Furthermore:
Concept
of electric charge Electric charge is a secondary term/concept of standard phycics that suggests a "phenomenological entity" that is uncoupled from the mass (and the radius) of the charge carrier. Based
on elementarybody theory all charge interactions are clearly
traceable to massradius couplings. Conveniently, electrical
charges in the elementarybody model occur only as an implicit function
of the Sommerfeld finestructure constant α as a
(formal) result of the massradius coupling. "Keys" for understanding the formation of matter are the phenomenologically founded charge possibilities. First, the energetically (strong) elementary body charge q_{0} (which energetically equals m_{0}) and the elementary electric charge e.
f7 was "introduced" to show that the [elementary body] charge q_{0} is ("only") a scaled massradius function.
Wishful thinking and
reality The Quark Parton Model (QPM), developed by Richard
Feynman in the 1960s, describes nucleons as the composition of basic
pointlike components that Feynman partons called. These components
were then identified with the quarks, postulated by GellMann and
Zweig at the same time a few years earlier. According to the
QuarkParton Model, a deep inelastic scattering event (DIS deep
inelastic scattering) is to be understood as an incoherent
superposition of elastic leptonparticle scattering processes. A cascade of interaction conjectures, approximations,
corrections, and additional theoretical objects subsequently "refined"
the theoretical nucleon model. A fundamental (epistemological) problem is immediately
recognizable. All experimental setups, implementations, and
interpretations of deep elastic scattering are extremely theory based. Fundamental contradictions exist at the theoretical
basis of the Standard Model of particle physics, which, despite better
knowledge, are not corrected. An example: The nonexistent spin
of quarks and gluons A landmark, farreaching wrong decision was made in
1988. The first assumption was, due to the theoretical
specifications of the mid1960s, that in the image of the SM the
postulated proton spin is composed to 100% of the spin components of
the quarks. This assumption was not confirmed in 1988 in the EMC
experiments. On the contrary, much smaller, even zerocompatible
components were measured (ΔΣ = 0.12 ± 0.17 European Muon Collaboration).
The quark
thesis of fermionic spin1/2 particles was thus refuted. From a
scientific point of view, the "quark idea" would have had to
be experimentally based, argumentatively "buried". With what
justification are quarks "imagined" as spin1/2particles? Also, the second assumption that the gluons contribute
to the proton spin did not yield the desired result. In the third,
current version of the theory, quarks, gluons and their
dynamicalrelativistic orbital angular momentum generate the proton
spin. On closer inspection, this second readjustment has the
“advantage” that the result in the context of the lattice gauge theory and constructs, such as "pion clouds",
algorithmically "calculated" can’t be falsified. But even
this purely theoretical based measure obviously does not justify
classification of the quarks as fermions. No matter how constructed
the asymmetrical ensemble of unobservable postulated theoretical
objects and interactions is advertised, the quarks themselves were
never "measured" as spin1/2 particles. Further more: In sum, the quark masses postulated according to the SM
do not yield the nucleon masses by far. Gluons are massless. Postulated UpQuark mass: 2.3 ± 0.7 ± 0.5 MeV / c²
up (u) Postulated downquark mass: 4.8 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 MeV / c²
down (d) 938,272 0813 (58) MeV / c² Proton mass duu ~ 0,8 
1,2% (!!!) Quark mass fraction 939,565 4133 (58) MeV / c² neutron mass ddu ~ 1,1 
1,4% (!!!) Quark mass fraction Thus, also heavy ions composed of protons and neutrons
(such as lead or gold nuclei) can not be represented by quarks and
gluons. This means that according to the principle of massenergy
equivalence, nucleons and, ultimately, heavy ions consist almost
entirely of phenomenologically indeterminate binding
energy. Even more complicated is the fact that the ions are
accelerated to almost the speed of light before they collide. This
means that there is also a considerable amount of external energy
added to the binding energy. Neither the theory of relativity neither
the SM does tell us how these phenomenologically can be divided into
translational energy and "mass equivalence." Protagonists of the SM are so convinced of their belief
that they have obviously lost sight of the essential. Why should a
postulated complex, multiobjectasymmetric, chargefragmented,
dynamic substructure create a spin value 1/2 and an elementary charge
of exactly 1·e over
dynamic states in the temporal or statistical mean? The comparison
with the SM pointpostulated, "leptonic" electron, with spin
value 1/2 and elementary charge 1·e, which are "created" without "dynamic effort"
and structure, identifies the quarksgluon thesis as a fairy tale. The "fragmentation of matter" as an »end in itself« of mathematical theories and the inevitable increase of irrelevant knowledge, especially in the form of virtual particles, has become established standard thinking. Instead of simplification, the concepts of formal postulations and "refining theories" obviously do not end in the growth of knowledge but in scientific arbitrariness. Mathematicalbased fundamental physics urgently requires a naturalphilosophical oriented regulation.

Unfortunately there is no (complete) English translation for the "Elementarkörpertheorie" yet available. "Feel free" to use a common webbrowser translation tool. You'll discover useful information, insights and surprising equations to deduce and calculate physical values based on massradiusrelations such as... Sommerfeld Finestructure constant, neutron mass, mass(es) of charged pions, mass and radius of the universe, Planck units, cosmic microwave background temperature, ... 
[ Emailcontact: Dirk Freyling: dfreyling@fastmail.net ] 