Konträr zur Aussage der Standardphysik, die vier Grundkräfte* postuliert, lässt sich Elementarkörper basierend  auf Grund der (auch skalenkorrespondierenden) MasseRaumKopplung  jedwede Wechselwirkung auf das MasseRadiusVerhältnis der interagierenden Wechselwirkungspartner reduzieren. Das führt zu einer konstruktiven Beschreibungsverarmung, die entweder durch die Radien oder deren reziprok proportionale Massen ausgedrückt werden kann. Mit Hilfe dieser einkomponentigen sprichwörtlichen Minimalbeschreibung lassen sich beispielsweise Grundzustandsenergien, magnetische Momente und insgesamt Materiebildungsmöglichkeiten verstehen und formal analytisch exakt berechnen.
Ein paar Worte zu den Protagonisten des Für und Wider der Systemphysik Daß das Gros der thematisch »WissensBefähigten« SMtreu und QEDbeladen lieber ein neobarockes Phlogistonmärchen a la Quarks favorisiert und vermeintliche SystemKritiker, u.a. aus Gründen dominierender Egozentrik, leider keinen Blick über ihr selbstgewähltes Tellerrandschicksal wagen, ist zwar menschlich, aber sachlich betrachtet wissenschaftsunwürdig. Viele haben „vergessen“, daß auch berechtigte Kritik (zu den Standardmodellen) nur dann „potent“ ist, wenn voraussagefähige Alternativmodelle wahrgenommen und verbreitet werden. Die Ignoranz vieler alternativer Denker steht der Ignoranz der Systembefürworter in nichts nach. Der Protonenradius bzw. Modelle die diesen exakt voraussagen sind richtungweisend. Emotionen, unberechtigter Euphemismus, beispielsweise auf Grund fehlender Voraussagefähigkeit, und Mehrheitsdenken gehören nicht zum Wertekanon wissenschaftlicher Betrachtungen. Die Elementarkörpertheorie liefert nicht nur ein konsistentes, minimalistisches, sondern auch ein phänomenologisch begründetes Modell zum Proton, welches eine MasseRadiusKopplung aus der Invarianz der (Vakuum)Lichtgeschwindigkeit zwanglos ableitet.
Die (objekt)relevanten Einzelergebnisse sind über zielführende Menübegriffe, wie Elementarkörper, Photon, Proton, Elektron, Feinstrukturkonstante,..., Neutrinos,..., Vakuumenergie abrufbar.
Sehr bemerkenswert ist die Herleitung der MasseEnergieÄquivalenz im Rahmen der MasseRadiusKopplung. Siehe: Elementarkörper basierende Herleitung der EnergieMasseBeziehung.
Mathematische Wünsche und RealObjektWirklichkeiten Grundsätzlich
beginnt das „moderne“ Mißverständnis zur Interpretation eines
(quantenmechanischen) Versuches mit der „Idealisierung“, respektive
Reduktion, daß der Versuchsaufbau  der additiv Energie in Form von
elektrischen oder magnetischen Feldern „zur Verfügung stellt“ –
nicht als (energetischer) Wechselwirkungspartner wahrgenommen wird. Werte
vermeintlich intrinsischer ObjektGrössen, wie beispielsweise die »Feinstruktur der Spektrallinien« oder
»anomale magnetische Momente« entstehen
aber erst durch das „Anlegen“ von äußeren "versuchsinhärenten Feldern“. Dieser
logisch nachvollziehbare unvermeidbare „BeobachtungsEffekt“ wird
kategorisch von den Protagonisten der StandardmodellPhysik verdrängt. Es
wird so getan, als ob die zusätzliche Energie nur die inneren
energetischen Verhältnisse ans „Licht“ bringt, die auch ohne
Beobachtung, sprich ohne äußere Energiezufuhr, bereits existieren. Diese
Annahme ist nicht nur diskussionswürdig, diese Annahme ist fatal und
falsch. Es
drängen sich interdisziplinär Fragen nach der Psychologie der Akteure
auf, wie und warum ein (naturwissenschaftlich vor)gebildeter Mensch plötzlich
so unwissenschaftlich falsch agiert? Die ausführliche Beantwortung würde
hier den Fokus zu stark verschieben, die kurze Antwort lautet: Bereits die
klassische Elektrodynamik wie auch die Quantenelektrodynamik (QED) sind im
Kern rein mathematische Konzepte, exemplarisch Divergenz und Unendlichkeit
mathematischer Konstrukte rücken in den Vordergrund, phänomenologische
Aspekte in den Hintergrund. RealObjektPhysik, die sich durch endliche
Massen, endliche Ladungen und endliche räumliche Ausdehnungen
manifestiert, wird nur insofern thematisiert, wie diese in das angestrebte
mathematische Muster passen. Das „Feld“, ob elektrisch, magnetisch
oder gravitativ ist aus naturphilosophischer Sicht eine nach wie vor
unbekannte sekundäre Grösse, ein sekundärer Begriff.
„Feldresultierende Beobachtungen“ lassen sich zwar in Abhängigkeit
eines mathematischen Fokus mengenmäßigergebnisorientiert u.a. unter
Zuhilfenahme virtueller Theorieparameter „nachbauen“, bleiben aber
letztendlich ohne plausible Phänomenologie, sozusagen eine Schwarze Box
ohne Erkenntnis. Beispiel: (Anomale) Magnetische Momente "Ich" sehe was, was
"du" nicht siehst …
Die andere Sicht der Dinge
Die experimentellen PenningFallenErgebnisse für Elektron und Proton  in Form von Frequenzmessungen  in Hinblick auf additive („anomale“) Beiträge zur semiklassischen Erwartung erscheinen unter dem Aspekt das nicht intrinsische magnetische Momente der Ladungsträger dafür verantwortlich sind, sondern messungsinhärente additive (Magnet)Feldbeiträge zum magnetischen Moment, die von der jeweiligen Ladungsträgermasse initiiert werden in einem gänzlich anderen InterpretationsZusammenhang.
Diese
additiven Beiträge sind sowohl für Elektron als auch für Proton und
unabhängig von der PenningFalle auch für das Neutron in der Größenordnung
von 1·10^{26}
Joule/Tesla.
Der genaue Wert ist abhängig von der Masse des Ladungsträgers
im „Feld“, bzw. im Fall des Neutrons von der Gestalt des aus Elektron
und Proton gebildeten Neutrons, siehe explizite
Berechnungen zum magnetischen Moment des Neutrons.

Furthermore
(in English):
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.
f_{7} was "introduced" to show that the [elementary body] charge q_{0} is ("only") a scaled massradius function.
Side
note Particle physicists generally use the phenomenologically incorrect term decay even though they mean transformation. Decay would mean that the decay products were (all) components of the original particle. But that is not the case, at least not within the theoretical implications and postulates of the Standard Model of particle physics (SM).
Chargedependent matter formations Basics The extended charge principle leads beyond elementarybody theorybased hydrogen atomforming to additional protonelectron interactions. From the generalized, clear phenomenological process stringently follow the neutron (eq_{0} interaction) and pions (q_{0}q_{0} interaction) as energetically possible (timeinstable) "particles". Without concretizing this here, the charged pions “decay” (convert) into muon and antimuon and then into electron and positron. Overall, "diverse elementary particles" can be formed in the context of the extended charge concept in "formal analogy". Noteworthy is the fact that this formalism provides simple, without free parameters solutions that are in good agreement with the (energy and mass) values of the "formed particles". On the basis of the reduced mass of the electron it can be easily shown how a model view "works wrongly". Considering celestial mechanics, a "small" centroid shift results from the proton to the electron, since the mass of the proton is finite. From the point of view of two equal charges, this assumption is unfounded, since masses in the standard view of physics only have an effect via the (misunderstood) gravitation, which is smaller by almost forty powers of ten to the electrical force. Overall, in the world view of the prevailing physics, a mass can not interact with a charge, because there exists simply no such phenomenology. It is astonishing how this fact was ignored mass psychologically over generations and is still ignored.
... there is no masscentershift "between two equal I charges I
BUT : The model view that the interaction between "charges" that are at a distance r from each other does not occur in matterforming elementarybody theory. In elementarybody theory, the "charges" overlap with/in a common origin.
Reduced
mass alternative in a massspacecoupled model Let's start with the superposition of two elementary bodies A and B, with the masses m_{A} and m_{B} and the masscoupled radii r_{A} and r_{B}. By massradiusconstant equation [F1] there is no "room" for interpretations ► The result applies to all charge carrier constellations (... AB, protonelectron, protonmuon, ...)
Here one can clearly see that the alleged centerofgravity correction of the "celestialmechanical model has nothing to do with (for example proton and electron) with focus on two interacting charges (at a distance r), since electron and proton, as equal charges, can not undergo a shift, either phenomenologically or computationally. NOTICE! Equating an electrical centripetal force with a (only) massdependent centrifugal force is phenomenologically unfounded in the context of physics and is reminiscent of the epizykel theory. The expression for the resulting mass m(r_{A} + r_{B}) in equation [MAB] is mathematically identical to the celestialmechanical centroid correction of two macroscopic masses (reduced mass) which computationally interact elastically as point masses, but the phenomenology for the equation [MAB] is a completely different one. Furthermore,
the calculation of ground state energies is neither
quantum mechanically nor quantum electrodynamically possible. Since a
significant amount is determined by the ratio of the interacting
masses. There is neither QM nor QED based the possibility of
introducing the reduced mass m_{red} = m_{A} / (1 +
m_{A} / m_{B})
quantumfieldphenomenologically. The reduced mass  whether one wants
it to be true or not  is historically derived from "Newtonian
celestial mechanics" within the framework of standard physics.
This means in plain language that in terms of atomic interactions,
these are neither QM nor QED justified. QM and QED are "epicyclic".
Chargedependent matter formation possibilities The chargedependent matter formation generally describes the AB interaction possibilities. A and B are elementary bodies with the masses m_{A} and m_{B} and the reciprocal proportional radii r_{A} and r_{B}. The following applies: m_{A} · r_{A} = m_{B} · r_{B} = F_{EK} = 2h / πc [F1]. The phenomenologically founded formalism leads to the equations:
In the above (matterforming) αfunctionequations, only the masses m_{A} and m_{B} of the interacting elementary bodies occur as variables. The charge as such, or more precisely the charge size, is implicitly determined by the functional relationship of the Sommerfeld fine structure constant α. (Details and derivations see »Ladungsabhängige Materiebildungen«)
ee interaction The term ee
interaction means that two elementary charge carriers interact. The most prominent example of this type of
interaction is the protonelectronbased hydrogen
atom. m_{A} = m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg : electronmass m_{B} = m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg : protonmass c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s α = 0,0072973525664
eq_{0} interaction elementary body carrier A(q_{0}) interacts with elementary carrier B(e). The most prominent example of this type of interaction is the protonelectronbased neutron. The neutron mass m_{n} arises from a matterforming charge interaction of the electron and proton and can be understood and calculated by the interaction of the elementary body charge q_{0} for the electron and the elementary electric charge e for the proton. m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg m_{e}(q_{0})_{ }= (4/α) · m_{e }= 4,99325391071e28 kg c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg ∆m = 1,405600680072e30 kg ∆E_{ee} = 1,263290890450e13 J ~ 0,78848416 MeV Taking into account the phenomenologicallybased, approximationfree approach, in formalanalytic form of the equation: m_{n} = m_{p} + m_{e} + Δm [mq0e], the "theoretical" result of elementary particle theory based neutron mass calculation (according to chargedependent protonelectron interaction) is “sensational”. In addition you'll find below a calculation of the magnetic moment of the neutron (see SUMMARY of FORMULAS).
q_{0}q_{0} interaction Charge carriers A and B interact via the elementary body charge q_{0}. The most prominent example of this type of interaction is the protonelectronbased charged pion.
m_{A} = m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg : electronmass _{ q0}m_{A }= (4/α) · m_{e }= 4,99325391071e28 kg m_{B} = m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg : protonmass _{ q0}m_{B }= (4/α) · m_{p }= 9,16837651891e25 kg c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s α = 0,0072973525664 [mq0q0] ∆m = 4,99053598e28 kg (∆m/2) / m_{π}(exp) ~ 1,00289525 ... ∆m means the mass of two charged pions (matter creation)
The extent to which experimental particle physics can accurately determine resting pion masses is highly doubted. The neutral pion is a "pion" due to the different mass of the charged pions only in the SM requirement. The abstraction, which is "equal" to particles with different masses according to postulated QM superpositions (keyword: quarkonia), is one of the many arbitrariness hypotheses within SM (see SMquark mass uncertainty in the percent error range) and "outside" of mathematical formalism of the SM unfounded.
For masslike interaction partners (for example, protonantiproton or electronpositron) the general αfunction equations simplify  for example the q_{0}q_{0} interaction  to the equations ([Eq0q0] and [mq0q0]):
"Surprising" is the "circumstance"
that in the context of "chargedependent matter formation the
strong protonantiproton interaction follows a matterformation energy
of ~ 257 GeV depending on the (anti) proton mass and the Sommerfeld
finestructure constant α which, according to charge conservation, produces as a
variation possibility two massradiuscoupled "small mass heaps"
(MasseHäufchen) which map uncharged and charged Higgsboson masses.
α = 0,0072973525664 m := m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg : (anti)protonmass ∆E( p^{+}, p^{ }) = 257,15410429801 GeV ∆m( p^{+}, p^{ }) = 4,584188259456e25 [kg] [2q0q0] (∆m( p^{+}, p^{ }) / 2) = 128,57705215 GeV/c² m_{H}^{(0)} _{ }~ 2,228e25 kg ~ 125 GeV/c² (∆m( p^{+}, p^{ }) / 2) / m_{H}^{(0)} _{ }~ 1,02861642 This means that with an "error" ~ 2.9%, based on the Higgs boson mass "detected" at the LHC (m_{H}^{(0)} ~ 125 GeV / c²), elementary particle theory predicts an event which exists in the standard model of Particle physics (SM) only as a theoretically predetermined methodical circular conclusion.
by the way ... There are aspects of the HiggsBosonmass predictions which are barely known.
David and Sidney
Kahana's predictions about the HiggsBosonmass and the
TopQuarkmass (1993!!!) in a “parameter free fashion” are very
precise. Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hepph/9312316.pdf According to the
standard model (SM) predictions are not possible. How do you explain the
obvious discrepancy? Peter Higgs knew
about their work … he said, “You’re from Brookhaven,
right. Make sure to tell Sid Kahana that he was right about the top
quark 175 GeV and the Higgs boson 125 GeV” [Kahana and Kahana 1993].”… Source:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06934.pdf One would assume
that highly accurate calculations about the Topquarkmass and the
Higgsmass are remarkable. Why didn’t the “Kahanas”
get the “proper” attention? Why is there no adequate mention about
these theoretical achievements?
I strongly believe
that For further reading
see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2794.pdf
... "predictions by
the authors D. E.
Kahana and S. H. Kahana ,
m_{H} = 125
GeV/c² uses dynamical symmetry breaking with the Higgs being a deeply
bound state of two top quarks. At the same time (1993) this model
predicted two years prior to the discovery to the top its mass to be m_{t} =
175 GeV/c²..." Notice! There is just one outstanding »prediction paper« (1993 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hepph/9312316.pdf) which leads to the HiggsBosonmass and the TopQuarkmass with the same theoretical approach prior to the experimental confirmation in 1995 (Top) and 2012 (Higgs).
The uncharged pion ... a pion matter possibility from q_{0}  q_{0} interaction m_{A} = m_{B} = m_{e}^{± }= 9,10938356e31 kg : electronmass = positronmass _{ q0}m_{A }= (4/α) · m_{e }= 4,99325391071e28 kg
∆E( e^{+}, e^{ }) = 140,05050232093 MeV [E2q0q0] ∆m( e^{+}, e^{ }) = 2,496626955355e28 kg [2q0q0] 2,4061764315e28 kg m_{π}^{0} SM  theory laden ∆m( e^{+}, e^{ }) / m_{π}^{0} ~ 1,037591
Wishful thinking and
reality I find it quite amusing and right to the point how Claes Johnson, a Professor of Applied Mathematics, classifies ... Claes Johnson about QM and SRT Concerning the crisis of modern physics it is commonly accepted that one reason is that the two basic building blocks, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are contradictory/incompatile. But two theories which are physical cannot be contradictory, because physics which exists cannot be contradictory. But unphysical theories may well be contradictory, as ghosts can have contradictory qualities. The
Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein is unphysical because the
Lorentz transformation is not a transformation between physical
coordinates, as strongly underlined by its inventor Lorentz, but
misunderstood by the patent clerk Einstein believing that the
transformed time is real and thus that time is relative. Quantum
Mechanics is unphysical because its interpretation is statistical
which makes it nonphysical, because physics is not an insurance
company. Here Einstein was right understanding that God does not play
dice. Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm , Sweden ______________________________________________
Albert Einstein It could be helpful to remember what Albert Einstein
wrote on quantum mechanics: [^{1}] "The ψ function is
to be understood as a description not of a single system but of a system
community [Systemgemeinschaft]. Expressed in raw terms, this is the result:
In the statistical interpretation, there is no complete description of the
individual system. Cautiously one can say this: The attempt to understand
the quantum theoretical description of the individual systems leads to
unnatural theoretical interpretations, which immediately become
unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the
system as a whole and not to the individual system. The whole approach to avoid 'physicalreal' becomes
superfluous. [Es wird dann
der ganze Eiertanz zur Vermeidung des ‘PhysikalischRealen’ überflüssig.]
However, there is a simple physiological reason why this obvious
interpretation is avoided. If statistical quantum theory does not pretend to
describe completely the individual system (and its temporal sequence),
then it seems inevitable to look elsewhere for a complete description of
the individual system. It would be clear from the start that
the elements of such a description within the conceptual scheme of the
statistical quantum theory would not be included. With this, one would
admit that in principle this scheme can not serve as the basis of
theoretical physics.” [^{1}] A. Einstein, Out of
my later years. Phil Lib. According
to the Copenhagen interpretation of 1927, the probability character of
quantum theoretical predictions is not an expression of the imperfection
of the theory, but of the essentially indeterministic (unpredictable)
character of quantum physical natural processes. Furthermore, the "objects
of formalism" "replace" reality without possessing a
reality of its own. The In
the time after the Second World War, the Copenhagen interpretation had
prevailed, in textbooks was now only the HeisenbergBohr quantum theory
without critical comments to find.
___________________________________________
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). Also the next assumption
that (postulated) gluons contribute to the proton spin did not yield
the desired result. In the third, current version of the theory,
quarks, gluons (...virtual QuarkantiQuark pairs if one wishes too)
and ... their dynamicalrelativistic orbital angular momentum generate
the proton spin. On
closer inspection, the second readjustment has the „putative
advantage” that the result in the context of lattice gauge
theory and constructs, such as "pion clouds",
algorithmically "calculated", can’t be falsified. But
this purely theoretical based construction obviously does not justify
the classification of quarks as fermions. No matter how the
asymmetrical ensemble of unobservable postulated theoretical objects
and interactions is advertised and will be advertised in the future,
the quarks themselves were never "measured" as spin½
particles. Summary
in simple words: It is possible to create a theoryladen ensemble of
Quarks and “other” theory objects and their postulated
interactions, but the Quark itself  as an entity  has still no
intrinsic spin ½ in this composition. That means that Quarks
aren’t fermions, no matter what the actual theoretical approach
would be! This is a basic, pure analytical and logical statement. Generally
speaking: If one postulates a theoretical entity with an intrinsic
value but one discovers that one needs to add theoretical objects and
postulated interactions to get the desired intrinsic value, one has to
admit that ones entity has no physical characteristic as such.
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 ½ 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 ½ 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. You'll find more detailed information if you select certain main issues from the website menu (auf Deutsch). "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, ...
... "for now" you'll find "here" (more) important results and a short discription of how to gain those below in the summary of formulas.

Anatomy of anomalous magnetic moments
The entire analysis of (anomalous) magnetic moments is qualitatively and quantitatively very extensive. Here  more or less  only the results are presented in English. Detailed derivations and justifications can only be found in the German version, see Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente. Noteworthy is the fact that the experimental results, if considered without the theoryladen expectations of "leptonic" structureless "or quarkbased substructures, have an easily identifiable commonality: the additional (supposedly anomalous) magnetic moment contribution to the semiclassical for the proton and electron is ~ 1 · 10^{26} Joule/Tesla. [μB_{´}(th)] h = 6,626070040e34 Js e = 1,6021766208e19 As m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg ∆μB (p) = 1,41061e26 J/T [μ_{exp}]  5,0507837e27 J/T [μB_{p}(th)] ~ 0,90553e26 J/T ∆μB(e) = 9,28477e24 J/T [μ_{exp}]  9,27401e24 J/T [μB_{e}(th)] ~ 1,075463e26 J/T
In other words, if one embodies the magnetic field in an "energetic analogy", the metrologically recorded magnetic moment of the proton and the electron result from the energetic superposition with the magnetic field. The magnetic field itself as "energy generator" interacts with electron and proton and provides a measurementinherent, coupled contribution of the order of 1e26 J/T to the measured magnetic moment of the object to be "examined". This means that the entire mathematical QFTmagic around supposedly anomalous (intrinsic) magnetic moments and their "leptonic" QED corrections are theoryinduced, or simply formulated  in the truest sense of the word  irrelevant. Furthermore, it follows that the experimentally determined magnetic moment of the proton is now plausible without a substructure.
Are there, besides the obviously plausible argument,
that one can not simply ignore the energy contribution of the
magnetic field (as usual in QM, QED and QCD), any further
indications for an additive contribution to the magnetic moment of
the tested particles? It is the magnetic moment of the electrically uncharged
neutron, which does not exist in the semiclassical view and gets it
magnetic moment of the postulated neutron substructure. But
is the magnetic moment of the neutron really a proof of a
substructure? Or is this assumption just a theoryladen
interpretation of the standard model? A look at the "naked" numbers confirms the thesis that the magnetic moment of the electrically neutral (protonelcetronbased) neutron results exclusively from the magnetic field contribution that the neutron induces in the (applied) magnetic field: ∆μB_{n}
=
μB_{n}(exp)
 μB_{n}(th)
= 9,6623650e27 J/Tesla
9,6623650e27 J/Tesla  0 J/Tesla Consistent assumption: The measured value
μB_{n}(exp)
~ 9,66237e27 J/T for the (electronprotonbased) neutron magnetic moment is "nothing more" than the measurementinherent
contribution of the magnetic field generated by elementary
bodybased matterforming (chargeinternal) interaction of electron
and proton, "induced" in the magnetic field. Which also
means that only the neutron in a magnetic field has a magnetic
moment! "Proof": If the assumption is right, then the magnetic moment of the electronprotonbased neutron (μB_{n}(exp) = ΔμB_{n}) must be calculated from the measurementinherent magnetic field contributions of electron and proton (ΔμB_{e} and ΔμB_{p}). A "simple" way to connect the three quantities ΔμB_{n}, ΔμB_{e} and ΔμB_{p} without explicit knowledge of the magnetic field embodiment is: (ΔμB_{n}) ² equate to ΔμB_{e} · ΔμB_{p}. Here it must be taken into account that the neutron is composed of the q_{0}electron and eproton charge interaction.
"just remember"... The neutron mass m_{n} arises from a matterforming charge interaction of the electron and proton and can be understood and calculated by the interaction of the elementary body charge q_{0} for the electron and the elementary electric charge e for the proton.
m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg m_{e}(q_{0})_{ }= (4/α) · m_{e }= 4,99325391071e28 kg c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg ∆m = 1,405600680072e30 kg ∆E_{ee} = 1,263290890450e13 J ~ 0,78848416 MeV Taking into account the phenomenologicallybased, approximationfree approach, in formalanalytic form of the equation: m_{n} = m_{p} + m_{e} + Δm [mq0e], the "theoretical" result of elementary particle theory based neutron mass calculation (according to chargedependent protonelectron interaction) is “sensational”.
This can be expressed by the factor 1 + (e/q_{0}) = (1 + (√α/2)). The resulting  consistently phenomenologically justified  result [equation μn] is remarkable...............................................................
Equation [μn] can be "refined" phenomenologically, by including an explicit mass dependence of the neutron in the calculation, which expresses the effective chargedependent mass reduction (inherently coupled to a chargedependent proportional chargeradius magnification) in relation to the total neutron mass. Similar to the hydrogen atom, the object radius increases in dependence of the charge, only that in the case of the neutron the proton interacts as an elementary body carrier e (ep) with the electron as an elementary body carrier q_{0} (q_{0}e). Furthermore, the neutron energy as such is "conserved" overall, whereas the Hatom emits half of the total energy as (α/4) scaled binding energy. The result for the neutron is the factor 2 for the effective charge mass in comparison to the total neutron mass.
phenomenologically based "refined" calculation of the neutron (anomalous) magnetic moment
compare with CODATA [2014] neutron magnetic moment Conclusion The consistently phenomenologicallybased, formalized prediction of the magnetic moment of the neutron (equations [μn] and [μn2]) based on chargeinteraction magnetic contributions of electron and proton (ΔμB_{e} and ΔμB_{p}), identifies the neutron as electronprotonbased. The magnetic moment of the neutron is a pure "magnetic field embodiment", meaning: The "magnetic field free" neutron has  compared to proton and electron  no intrinsic magnetic moment, μB_{n}(exp) consists solely of the magnetic field measurement inherent contribution ΔμB_{n}. ∆μB_{n}
=
μB_{n}(exp)
 μB_{n}(th)
= 9,6623650e27 J/Tesla
9,6623650e27 J/Tesla  0 J/Tesla
Anomalous magnetic moments of proton and electron ”Quantum electrodynamics is not a foundational theory of natural philosophy because it obtains the right result by arbitrary means: dimensional regularization, which changes e, and renormalization, which artificially removes infinities of the path integral method. Quantum electrodynamics is Lorentz covariant only (it is a theory of special relativity). Quantum electrodynamics uses the sum over histories description of the wavefunction. This is an acausal description in which the electron can do anything it likes, go backwards or forwards in time for example. This acausality or unknowability Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron is contradicted fundamentally and diametrically in QED by use of the Huygens Principle, which expresses causality or knowability  the wavefunction is built up by superposition in causal historical sequence  an event is always preceded by a cause, and nothing goes backwards in time. For these and other reasons QED was rejected by Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Dirac and many others from its inception in the late forties.”… To
get an impression of the fundamental theory problem of
"radiation corrections" in a historical context, we
recommend the following contribution of Mario Bacelar Valente: Using concrete examples, Valente shows how resultoriented, partly arbitrary
"mathematical extensions and transformations" are included
in the calculations and how "here and there" terms are
declared to be unphysical and their divergences are not taken into
account. This
is highly problematic, since no binding axiomatic rules apply. It also becomes clear that there are no physical interpretations that
fill the mathematical procedures with phenomenological content."
Regarding the magnetic moment of the electron today's
desired predictability equates to the distance EarthMoon with
proverbial hairwidth accuracy. Metrologically, the question arises
as to whether the information has been lost, that the propagated
measurable "mirror current" or "spinflip" of
individual electrons and protons, for example in the double Penning
trap, are influenced by the measuring apparatus as a "quantum mechanical
observer". The basic "modern" misunderstanding of
interpreting a (quantum mechanical) experiment with "idealization"
or “reduction” means that the experimental setup  which "provides"
additive energy in the form of electric or magnetic fields  does
not act as an (energetic) interaction partner. But
supposedly intrinsic “values” of objects, such as the fine structure of the spectral
lines, or magnetic moments, are partly “created” by the "application
of external fields". This logically comprehensible unavoidable
"observation effect" is categorically denied respectively
ignored by the protagonists of standardmodel physics. Although the accuracy requirements and corrective
measures are understandable, it remains the suspicion of complex
idealizations that produce the results that go far beyond the
capabilities of macroscopic experimental setups. In relation to a
single electron or proton, it is easy to comprehend that "everything"
is  so to speak  macroscopically. It would be nice if researchers
of the Penning trap experiments are less influenced by theoryladen
thinking and much more analytic. Detached from historical quantum mechanical fantasies
(the
Based
on the experimental values for the magnetic moments of electron, proton and neutron, it is concluded
that the magnetic field itself provides an additive,
measurementinherent contribution to the supposedly intrinsic values. First conspicuties It
is noticeable that the experimental values of
the magnetic moments (μB_{e}(exp)/μB_{p}(exp) ~ 658,2107) are significantly different, but the absolute
difference values ΔμB_{e}
and ΔB_{p}
to the theoretical values μB_{e}(th) and μB_{p}(th) are similar. This means: If one subtracts from the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the proton μB_{p}(exp) the (semiclassical) "theoretical" expectation μB_{p}(th) (equation [μintm]) and compare this difference with the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the electron μB_{e} (exp) minus the "theoretical" value of the magnetic moment of the electron μB_{e}(th), it is found that these are "order of magnitude similar" (ΔμB_{e} / ΔμB_{p} ~ 1.19 / 1). ... additive [J/Tesla]  magnetic field contributions to the proton, neutron und electron magnetic moments ...
∆μB_{p} ~ ∆μB_{n} ~ ∆μB_{e} [ ! ] 9,055284175e27 ~ 9,6623650e27 ~ 1,075462794596e26 1 : 1,06704161 : 1,18766322
electron m_{0}(e) = m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg r_{0}(e) = r_{e} = 2h/(πcm_{e}) = 1,5446370702e12 m λ_{C}(e) = λ_{e} = (π/2) · r_{e} 9,27400999205404e24 J/Tesla μB_{e}(th) (semiclassical) theoretical value of the electron magnetic moment 9,284764620e24 J/Tesla μ_{B}e(exp) measurement of the electron magnetic moment () 2,00231930436182 [CODATA2014] g_{e} electron g factor μB_{e}(exp) = ( 1 + 0,00115965218091) · μB_{e}(th) ► f_{e} = 0,00115965218091 1,075462794596e26 J/Tesla : difference value ∆μB_{e} = μB_{e}(exp)  μB_{e}(th) __________________________________________________________________________ proton m_{0}(p) = m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg r_{0}(p) = r_{p} = = 2h/(πcm_{p}) = 8,412356403e16 m λ_{C}(p) = λ_{p} = (π/2) · r_{p} 5,0507836982111e27 J/Tesla μB_{p}(th) (semiclassical) theoretical value of the proton magnetic moment 1,4106067873e26 J/Tesla μB_{p}(exp) Meßwert, magnetische Moment des Protons 5,585694702 [CODATA2014] g_{p} Proton g Faktor μB_{p}(exp) = ( 1 + 1,7928473512) ·μB_{p}(th) ► f_{p} = 1,7928473512 9,0552841747889e27 J/Tesla : Differenzwert ∆μB_{p} = μB_{p}(exp)  μB_{p}(th) __________________________________________________________________________ electronprotonratios 1836,15267376007 = m_{p}/m_{e} = μB_{e}(th) / μB_{p}(th) 2,78961237051261160 = ( m_{p}/m_{e} ) / ( μB_{e}(exp) / μB_{p}(exp) ) = ( μB_{e}(th) / μB_{p}(th) ) / ( μB_{e}(exp) / μB_{p}(exp) ) 658,21068660613 = μB_{e}(exp) / μB_{p}(exp) 1,187662993831791717 = ∆μB_{e} / ∆μB_{p} 1546,021626754602 = f_{p} / f_{e } = ( m_{p}/m_{e} ) / ∆μB_{e} / ∆μB_{p} __________________________________________________________________________ physical constants α = 0,0072973525664 1/α = 137,03599913815451 e = 1,6021766208e19 As : electric elementary charge h = 6,626070040e34 Js : Planck constant c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s : speed of light f_{7} = 4πε_{0}c² = 1e7 A²s²/(kg·m) elementary body charge : q_{0} = 2·e/√α = 3,7510920453946e18 As
Chargecarrierdependent dimension of the measurementinherent contribution to the magnetic moment
Let us continue our analytical „expedition” with a
fundamental consideration, which becomes a surprising calculation.
One question is: Is the inherent magnetic field contribution to
the magnetic moment multidirectional? If the magnetic field contribution were proportional ("normal") to the mass of the magnetic field interacting charge carrier, the ratio of f_{e} to f_{p} would be equal to the ratio of m_{e} to m_{p}. That's
obviously not the case. Measured: 1546.021626754602 = f_{p}
/ f_{e} = (m_{p} / m_{e}) / (∆μB_{e}
/
∆μB_{p}) Suppose that the magnetic contribution contributes onedimensionally "abnormally" to the twodimensional "normal" chargecarrier mass dependence in threedimensional space. With this assumption we obtain, to a good approximation, for the onedimensional ("anomalous") part ~ α/8.
details Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente.
Comparing the above parameterfree equation [gp] with
the gigantic efforts of standard model physicists to determine the
magnetic moment of the proton, shows impressively clear, what
plausible reasoned, analytically observational physics is and how
extremely minimalistic and expedient the model of a massradius
coupled space is in connection with an inherent contribution of the
external magnetic field to the magnetic moments. Equation [gp] can
be easily transformed to the gfactor of the proton :
[CODATA 2014] g_{p}
electron anomalous magnetic moment calculation We calculate the electron (anomalous) magnetic moment with "simple" means, that is, based solely on αterms (... as precisley as it is specified in the "ultraprecise" measurement and QED computer simulations). We start reciprocalproportional with the same αterms that were used to (exactly) calculate the gfactor of the proton. details Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente.
For
a first orientation, compare the above equations with ~ 13,000 (in
words, thirteen thousand !!!) Feynman diagrams and the resulting
millions of numerical calculations, of which analytical results are
available only up to and including the 3rd order. The (only)
analytical QED calculation has a relative standard deviation of only
~ 4.37e8 rather than the ~ 2.6e13 (CODATA 2014) to the
experimental reading. The
"rest" is "faith work" in the form of years of
Monte Carlo integrations on computer clusters. Equation [fe] is a
parody of the resultoriented QED "perturbation
calculation" (including postulated hadronic contributions) for
the determination of the gfactor. For example, the measurementoriented,
numericallydetermined "blue terms" could originate from
the electric (quadrupole) field of the Penning trap. The
naturalphilosophical standards within elementarybody theory allow
only »finetuning«  expressed by equation [fe2] 
to appear consistent and "argumentatively tenable". Thus
the magnetic field gives an additive
contribution to the magnetic moment of the electron ΔμB_{e}
respectively to the f_{e}value, which depends only on "alpha
terms", in very good agreement with the experimental value. The "red terms" 1+ (α/8) +
α/8)² + (α/8)^{3} represent a sequence that could be
thought of fractally terms, but mathematically the conceivable
supplementary terms (α/8)^{4}, (α/8)^{5},
..., (α/8)^{n} lay outside the measurable. For even
the additive term (α/8)^{4} increases f_{e}
'' only by 0.000000000000101 to 0,00115964931173901 instead of
0,001159649311738. So already clearly outside the specified
measuring possibilities. Present
results in the context of a phenomenologically justified
massradiuscoupled magnetic field embodiment stringently followed
the numerical analytical conspicuousness of the experimental
measurement results and the resulting assumption of
measurementinherent magnetic field contributions. The central "(Schwinger) oscillator term" = (α/2π) is derived from
the embodiment of the magnetic field, taking into account the
energetic ratios of the electrical energy and the electric
elementary charge e compared to the total energy, expressed by the
elementary body charge q_{0}. The ratio e/q_{0} =
√α/2 is also consistently decisive for the calculation of
the magnetic moment of the neutron from the proton and electron
magnetic field contributions ΔμB_{e}
and ΔμB_{p}, see equations [μn] and [μn2]. The
αcorrection
calculations for the oscillator term  which lead to fe ('', ''') 
are worthy of discussion, since here a (complete) model of the still
unknown "(magnetic and electric) field phenomenology" is
missing. In this context, coincidence is phenomenologically (due to the consistency of the model), logically and methodically excluded. The result: Leptonic and quarkbased fantasies crumble away. Further consequences: The neutron is electronprotonbased and like the proton without (quarks & Co) substructure. QED has (now) an unsolvable problem; we do not really need to "talk" about QCD here for reasons of insignificance...
to be continued... 