Contrary to the statement of standard physics, which postulates four fundamental forces, elementary (scale-corresponding) mass-space coupling - reduces any interaction to the mass-to-radius ratio. This leads to constructive, “easy to understand” objects, which can be expressed either by the radii or their reciprocally proportional masses.

Remember: Divergence problems are theory based. The internal structure of the energy sources are simply not “captured”. Taking into account the finite, real-physical oriented, phenomenological nature of objects, the "infinities" resolve plausibly.

The self-evident 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 Compton wavelength as a mass equivalent. From this consideration follow "geometrically" mass-specific radii. Compton wavelengths are measurands. [ CODATAC(Proton)  CODATAC(Elektron) ]




The main object of the elementary body theory is the elementary body a pulsating hollow sphere. At maximum expansion the hollow spherical shell-mass is at rest.

The equations of motion - based on a sine function - describe the complete transformation of this shell-mass into motion energy without rest mass (photon).  

Overall the deduced dual system created by the elementary body consists on average of no energy, no mass and no space.

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 Compton wavelength λC of the proton divided by π / 2. This result is in excellent accordance with the measured value of the proton radius (investigation muonic hydrogen, July 2010 and 2012/2013 at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland.



[ ]

[ ]




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 elementary-body theory all charge interactions are clearly traceable to mass-radius couplings. Conveniently, electrical charges in the elementary-body model occur only as an implicit function of the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant α as a (formal) result of the mass-radius coupling.

"Keys" for understanding the formation of matter are the phenomenologically founded charge possibilities. First, the energetically (strong) elementary body charge q0 (which energetically equals m0) and the elementary electric charge e.


f7 was "introduced" to show that the [elementary body] charge q0 is ("only") a scaled mass-radius function.



                       Wishful thinking and reality

The Quark Parton Model (QPM), developed by Richard Feynman in the 1960s, describes nucleons as the composition of basic point-like components that Feynman partons called. These components were then identified with the quarks, postulated by Gell-Mann and Zweig at the same time a few years earlier. According to the Quark-Parton Model, a deep inelastic scattering event (DIS deep inelastic scattering) is to be understood as an incoherent superposition of elastic lepton-particle 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, far-reaching wrong decision was made in 1988.

The first assumption was, due to the theoretical specifications of the mid-1960s, 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 zero-compatible components were measured (ΔΣ = 0.12 ± 0.17 European Muon Collaboration). The quark thesis of fermionic spin-1/2 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 spin-1/2-particles?

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 dynamical-relativistic 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 spin-1/2 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 Up-Quark mass: 2.3 ± 0.7 ± 0.5 MeV / c² up (u)

Postulated down-quark 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 mass-energy 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, multi-object-asymmetric, charge-fragmented, 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 point-postulated, "leptonic" electron, with spin value 1/2 and elementary charge 1·e, which are "created" without "dynamic effort" and structure, identifies the quarks-gluon 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. Mathematical-based fundamental physics urgently requires a natural-philosophical 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 mass-radius-relations such as... Sommerfeld Fine-structure constant, neutron mass, mass(es) of charged pions, mass and radius of the universe, Planck units, cosmic microwave background temperature, ...  



[ Email-contact: Dirk Freyling: ]