(Alex)Dirk Freyling independent researcher & artist
Wissen ist ein Privileg. Die Weitergabe eine Pflicht. Knowledge is a privilege. Sharing is a duty.
Anatomy of anomalous magnetic moments 
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 ∆μB to the supposedly intrinsic values.
"side note"
an alternative model view and its consequences Already for rational logical reasons, the question arises if these contributions (∆μ_{e} , ∆μ_{p} , ∆μ_{n)} have a common cause. The assumption presented here is that these contributions to magnetic moments are external magnetic field measurementinherently contributions and are not intrinsic. This is investigated and confirmed numerically, analytically, phenomenologically as well as formally.
The entire analysis of (anomalous) magnetic moments is qualitatively and quantitatively very extensive. Here  more or less  only the results are presented. Detailed derivations and justifications phenomenological based in the framework of a consistent model can only be found so far in the German version, see Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente.
In other words 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)]
∆μB(p) = 1,41061e26 J/T [μ_{exp}]  5,0507837e27 J/T [μB_{p}(th)] ~ 0,90553163e26 J/T ∆μB(e) = 9,284764620e24 J/T [μ_{exp}]  9,27401e24 J/T [μB_{e}(th)] ~ 1,075462795e26 J/T
h = 6,626070040e34 Js e = 1,6021766208e19 As m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg
In order to promote the significance of the experimentally proven numerical ratios and the motivation to perceive them, it should be noted at this point that the following applies purely in terms of numerical analysis  i.e. first of all without any theoretical model interpretations:
((∆μ_{e})/(∆μ_{p}))³ = 1,67523330412… (α/8) · (m_{p}/m_{e}) =_{ }1,674881678… (α/8) · (m_{p}/m_{e}) / ((∆μ_{e})/(∆μ_{p}))³ = 0,9997900179
In the chapter spin and magnetic moments as well as in the chapters hydrogen atom and fine structure constant α it is shown that the factor α/8 is derived from the energetic relations in the hydrogen atom, i.e. an interaction of proton and electron, phenomenologically justified and is directly connected with the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom, the finestructure constant, the Bohr radius and the associated electric elementary charge. Furthermore, the mass ratio m_{p}/m_{e} plays a central role. It should be noted at this point that the phenomenological foundations lead, among other things, to exact calculations of ground state energies and to the derivation of Sommerfeld's finestructure constant. 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  are irrelevant. Furthermore, it follows that the experimentally determined magnetic moment of the proton is now plausible without a substructure. Since the neutron has no electric charge, the magnetic moment of the neutron reduces to the magnetic field contribution induced by the neutron. In this model, the neutron is electronproton based. This phenomenologically based assumption finds an indirect confirmation by the (exact) calculation possibility of the neutron mass within the framework of this model. 
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) = 0,96623650e26 J/Tesla 0,96623650e26 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"...
phenomenologically based neutron mass, details see the calculation of the neutron mass
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 α = 0,0072973525664 e = 1,6021766208e19 As ∆m = 1,4056006801e30 kg ∆E_{ee} = 1,26329089045e13 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”.
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
∆μ_{B}n_{exp}
m_{e} = 9,10938356e31 kg m_{p} = 1,672621898e27 kg α = 0,0072973525664 ∆m
= 1,4056006801e30 kg
∆μB(p) =
m_{p} + m_{e} + ∆m = 1,67493844e27 kg
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", which is caused in a magnetic field, 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
Nothing less than a Paradigm Shift It is anything but trivial to consider space and time as physical "objects". Space and time are primarily "order patterns of the mind". To "get" physics from these, phenomenological observations and explanations are needed. The central real object question was already at the beginning of the 20th century, is there a massdecoupled space? This question was answered in the affirmative at the latest since the introduction of the recognised inflationary phase within the framework of the ΛCDM model. This was and is phenomenologically wrong and was fatal for the theory developments.
It is psychologically easy to understand
that a new model (
...but remember early "warnings"...
Prehistory Dirac's electron theory 1928 stated ... "The new angular momentum (quantum mechanical spin = QMspin) has nothing in common with what one can imagine under this name as a mechanical quantity. It does not arise from any motion, but from the interaction of a spatial vector with the Dirac matrices in the space of their four abstract dimensions."... Quantum mechanical spin postulate and epicycle theory The omnipresent pathological description procedures of prevailing physics (didactics) by means of concepts like spin or spinorbitinteraction suggestively "to couple" mentally to real physical objects, which possess mass, occupy space and rotate, is schizophrenic since introduction of quantum mechanics. Consider: The electron is "denied" a radius by postulate. Protons are asymmetrically chargefragmented, asymmetrically substructured and their quarks, among other things, provide only one percent of the proton's mass and no intrinsic spin contributions. Discrete orbits have been replaced by probability wave functions leading to "probable", "smeared" locations and momenta. Schizophrenic also because likewise the analogmechanically motivated suggestion is explicitly expressed as in numerous illustrations and semantic secretions. From this consideration follows that all theoretical explanations and calculations about spininteractions ("spinorbitcoupling" ► finestructure, nuclear spin"shell angular momentum" ► hyperfine structure) have no vividness. They are merely  more or less  complex computational rules without real object connection. At this point, the dilemma of quantum mechanical considerations is revealed in an exemplary way. Spectral line splittings can be calculated from a set of quantum mechanical rules. In this context, however, any connection to real physical objects is cut off. The question, why mathematical procedures deliver solutions, which can be assigned to experimental values, cannot be answered due to the missing phenomenology. Furthermore, the question arises in principle, to what extent measurable things are intrinsic? The general “error of thinking” lies in the methodical neglect of the structure  the interaction energy brought in from "outside". Energy splittings are mostly not selfinduced. By "applying" homogeneous or inhomogeneous electric fields or magnetic fields, energy is introduced from outside. Phenomenologically, physical fields are unfounded. From the point of view of an object under investigation (...electron, atom, molecule) they represent infinite energy reservoirs which interact with the "test objects" under investigation. To end this more or less arbitrary situation, it would be mandatory to determine the "field phenomenology" of spectroscopic measurements and in general. This is not possible in the context of the mathematically founded QM further QED and QCD in the context of the standard model of particle physics as well as their (symmetry) extension (supersymmetry = SUSY), because the objects of the theories possess all no real physical claim. In other words Basically, the "modern" misunderstanding for the interpretation of a (quantum mechanical) experiment starts with the "idealization", respectively reduction, that the experimental setup  which "provides" additive energy in form of electric or magnetic fields  is not perceived as (energetic) interaction partner. Values of supposedly intrinsic object quantities, as for example the finestructure of the spectral lines or here magnetic moments arise however only by the "application" of external "fields". This logically comprehensible unavoidable "observation effect" is categorically suppressed by the protagonists of the standard model physics. It is pretended as if the additional energy only brings to "light" the inner energetic conditions which already exist also without observation, i.e. without external energy supply. This assumption is not only worth discussing, this assumption is fatal and wrong.
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} [ ! ] 0,9055316e26 ~ 0,96623650e26 ~ 1,075463e26 1 : 1,0670379 : 1,18766569
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... 
...for general orientation
[ Elementary Body Theory ]
I don't like supervised thinking. The extent to which one or the other statement from my fellow human beings corresponds to my ideas is not a criterion for whether I present it. I am a passionate advocate of aphoristic "language images". By the way: “The language of good science is bad English.“ This is what one of the most renowned englicist in Germany, Ekkehard König, ironically says. "Words made here", partly in the form of satire, irony and cynicism, are an expression of indignation and incomprehension about the questionable, established arbitrariness of today's theoretical models for describing matter.
Preface Nature can only add or subtract. A “secured” »higher mathematical reality« exists exclusively within the framework of axiomatically based language (mathematics). To what extent a correct mathematical structure (»higher mathematical reality«) is physically applicable cannot be decided with the “means” of mathematics (see “indisputably exemplary” epicyclic theory and BanachTarski paradox). Mathematics ultimately captures quantities and cannot distinguish between vacuum cleaner ("dust cleaner") and dust (Staubsauger und Staub). If Euclid (...probably lived in the 3rd century B.C.) was still looking for plausible intuition for mathematical foundations and thus made an interdisciplinary connection that could be evaluated as right or wrong, in modern mathematics the question of right or wrong does not arise. Euclid's definitions are explicit, referring to extramathematical objects of "pure contemplation" such as points, lines, and surfaces. "A point is what has no width. A line is length without width. A surface is what has only length and width." When David Hilbert (1862  1943) axiomatized geometry again in the 20th century, he used only implicit definitions. The objects of geometry were still called "points" and "straight lines" but they were merely elements of not further explicated sets. Hilbert stated that instead of points and straight lines one could always speak of tables and chairs without disturbing the purely logical relationship between these objects. But to what extent axiomatically based abstractions do couple to real physical objects is another matter altogether. Mathematics does not create (new) phenomenology, even if theoretical physicists like to believe this within the framework of the standard models of cosmology and particle physics.
A historical review shows that people who draw attention to mistakes have to reckon with the fact that they will not be believed for decades, while those who publish spectacular “air numbers” within the framework of existing thought models are honored and courted. Critics are perceived by the masses as disagreeable interferers. In the words of Gustave le Bon, “The masses have never thirsted for truth. They turn away from the facts which they dislike and prefer to idolize error when it is able to seduce them. Whoever knows how to deceive them easily becomes their master, whoever tries to enlighten them always becomes their victim. " Whoever strives to belong to a group does not become a critical thinker. Logical and methodical analytical skills, knowledge of historical relationships, selfdeveloped basic knowledge instead of literature reproduced, ambition, selfdiscipline and a good portion of egocentrism are basic requirements for independent thinking and acting. Theory claim and empirical findings An experiment needs a specific question to be conceived. If the question is the result of a mathematical formalism, the result of the experiment is correspondingly loaded with theory. If the measurable results are then preselected and only indirectly "connected" to the postulated theory objects, as is usual within the standard models, there is nothing to counter the arbitrary interpretation. Thought models must be absolutely conceptually transformable in order to acquire an epistemological meaning. A mathematical equation that cannot be conveyed outside is always an »epistemological zero« in the context of a physical thought model.
Less is more...
Contrary to the statement of standard physics which postulates four fundamental forces, elementary (scalecorresponding) massspacecoupling  reduces any interaction to the masstoradius ratio. This leads to constructive, “easy to understand” objects which can be expressed either by its radii or its 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, realphysical oriented, phenomenological nature of objects, the "infinities" resolve plausibly.
[ Elementary Body Theory ] 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 Elementary body theory
(Elementarkörpertheorie [EKT] ) is based on
plausibility and minimalism and provides phenomenologically based
equations without free parameters and a formalism which leads to results
which are in good to very good agreement with experimental measured
values. For a clear understanding and as a result of the
phenomenologically based elementary particle theory generated equations,
neither a variable time, nor mathematical spacetime constructs, nor any
form of substructuring are necessary. The timedependent elementary body equations are
derived from the observed invariance of the (vacuum) speed of light. The
fundamental difference to the (special) theory of relativity
respectively to the Lorentz transformation is the radially
symmetricdynamic character of these equations. The main object of the elementary body theory is the elementary body originally 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 motion energy without rest mass (photon) to mass. The basic massspacemodel requires that the equations
portray both the massless photon and mass. The equations r (t) = r_{0} ·
sin (c · t / r_{0}) and m (t) = m_{0} · sin (c · t /
r_{0}) do exactly that. The
timeless speed of light  as a state of pure motion  is not
contradictory with the matterenergyembodiment.
The transformation from a photon to a massradiuscoupled space does not correspond phenomenologically to a partial oscillation, as was initially assumed (also) within the framework of the elementarybodymodel. The matterforming transformation of a photon corresponds to an irreversible »state change«.
Time reversal, as required "mechanistically" from classical physics to quantum mechanics, is in general contradictory to measuring reality (thermodynamic processes). The fully developed elementary body (r (t) = r_{0}, m (t) = m_{0}) can not regain the state of the photon by itself. The
timedependent mass formation is coupled to the timedependent radius
magnification r = r (v (t)). In simple words, the initial, pure motion
energy gives rise to timedependent spherical surfaces, which as such span
a space whose reciprocal size is a measure of the equivalent mass. After a quarter period (½ · π), the
elementary body is fully developed (r (t) = r_{0}, m (t) = m_{0}), meaning that
the expansion velocity v (t) is zero. Since the process of restingmass reduction corresponds to an inversion of the relativistic dynamics of a velocitydependent momentum mass, the internal dynamics for energy conservation of the elementary body is suggestively called momentummass inversion.
State
as information = photon t = 0 , the entire energy is available as pure information, mass and spaceless
Information
as a material condition = elementary body t
(½π) , the total energy is "present as" mass m_{0}
with radius r_{0} Phenomenologically, the transformation of motion information into spatial information is complete. Without external interaction the elementary body remains in this state. If the elementary body is "excited" from the outside, different interaction scenarios occur which, depending on the energy of the interaction partners, lead to partial annihilation or (full) annihilation. Matterforming partial annihilations are formed in the simplest form by the protonelectron interaction (keywords: Rydberg energy, hydrogen spectrum). Masscoupled space annihilates according to r (t) and m (t). "Radiation" is absorbed or emitted. The interaction reversibility that is possible must be via excitation from the outside. This could be the interaction with other elementary bodies, photons or "embodied fields", which can always be understood as elementary body (states). As mentioned in the context of the derivation of the massenergy equivalence E = mc², the basic misunderstanding ("outside" the elementarybody theory) is that the properties of an interacting photon are projected onto the "resting state" of the photon. However, according to equation [P2.3] and its temporal derivative [P2.3b], as well as [P2m], the »resting state« of the photon is the space and massless, "lightfast" (energy) state of maximum motion. This means that an information is propagated that "unfolds" only upon absorption (interaction) of the photon in accordance with equations [P2.3], [P2m] and their derivatives, and then the timedependent phenomena of interference and (massbased) collision shows. In regard to photons in interstellar space, the light path and thus the photon is invisible. Only when an interaction (absorption) "appears", the photon becomes visible (detectable).
Exact calculation of the Proton radius A consideration of the elementary
body provides an accurate theoretical value
for the proton radius. Elementary body theory based the proton radius is
the
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. 
"abstract"
[ http://www.psi.ch/media/protonsizepuzzlereinforced ]
All cosmological "observational studies" are not controllable laboratory experiments. The postulated theoretical implications strongly influence the experimental interpretations. The human observation period is extremely small compared to the periods of time in which cosmic movements took place and played out. To substantiate assumptions with the data from the human observation period is "farfetched" to put it casually. All current supposedly empirical measurements are (big bang) theory laden. Postulated time spans, distances, and energy densities are subjectivetheoretic. The entire present physical view is based on the paradigm of "physical spacetime". Already Isaac Newton thought that the idea that gravitation could work through empty space was absurd. It is  superordinate and considered as a whole  anything but trivial to regard space and time as physical "objects". Space and time are primarily "order patterns of the mind". In order to "preserve" physics from these mindpatterns, a phenomenological examination and explanation are absolutely necessary. “Remember”: Spacetime is not measurable. The postulate states that within the framework of the (formalised) consideration of the theory of relativity, time and space only exist as a unity. One consequence: we cannot record events in the postulated general relativistic cosmos as a „snapshot” in time, because time does not exist in spacetime. According to the theory of general relativity (GR), there is only spacetime and spacetime cannot be experienced by the senses or by measurement. Despite the impossibility of depicting various mathematically generated theoretical objects and interaction scenarios in a generally understandable and plausible way, it is didactically widespread to convey knowledge with "simplified" (unfortunately wrong) views. An example is the balloon inflated with markings (which are supposed to represent planets, stars, galaxies), which is supposed to depict the cosmic expansion after the Big Bang. This creates a sense of vivid understanding in the viewer. Only this balloon analogy is fundamentally wrong. Because… space or, in simplified form, a balloon surface that expands, but the mathematical construct of spacetime.
iii) According to today's ΛCDMmodel ideas the expansion is accelerated. In the "balloon understanding", the radius expands uniformly or at a slower rate (up to a materialrelated maximum before the balloon bursts). iv) Also concealed are the (fasterthanlight, strongly limited in time) postulated, theorydependent inflationtimeperiod as well as the assumptions and effects of the postulated dark matter and dark energy, which do not occur in the balloon model. And overall the arbitrariness problem of the free parameters is compounded by the unavoidable "axiomatic violation" of the covariance principle. The general theory of relativity was born, among other things, out of the demand to be able to use any coordinate system to describe the laws of nature. According to the covariance principle, the form of the laws of nature should not depend decisively on the choice of the special coordinate system. This requirement is causally mathematical and leads to a variety of possible coordinate systems [metrics]. The systems of equations (Einstein, Friedmann) of the General Theory of Relativity, which form the basis of the statements of the Standard Model of Cosmology, do not provide analytical solutions. According to GR postulate, not only mass but also every form of energy contributes to the curvature of spacetime. This applies including the energy associated with gravity itself. Therefore, Einstein's field equations are nonlinear. But only idealisations and approximations lead to computable solutions to a limited extent. The unavoidable ("covariant") contradictions come with the obviously inadmissible idealisations and approximations of the system of nonlinear, chained differential equations. Mathematically, the covariance principle cannot be "violated" because it is axiomatically justified. Only this axiomatic premise "disappears" with the mutilation" (idealisations and approximations) of the actual equations. In other words, the mathematically correct equations have no analytical solutions. The reduced equations (approximations, idealisation) do have solutions, but these are not covariant. Thus, no solution has a realphysicsbased meaning. This way of using mathematics is arbitrary, since different results are obtained depending on the "taste" of the (self)chosen metric. The 'big bang problem' as a 'primordial singularity' only occurs theoretically if Einstein's credo (: irreversibility is an illusion) is true. This conclusion means, however, that thermodynamics is consistently negated from the outset and one restricts oneself to the flawless Hamiltonian mechanics as the basis of GR, or at least only isentropic processes (no entropy change) are considered in order to at least 'save' the phenomenon of background radiation...
The gravitational constant γ_{G} used in the "known" Newton's law of gravitation refers to the "lengthsmallest" body G {elementary quantum}. This is not obvious since the "normal formulated" law of gravity does not explicitly disclose this original connection.
The secret of very weak gravitation in relation to the electrical interaction and strong interaction is based on the false assumption that there is generally a mass decoupled space. If one considers the space that the macroscopic body spans both by its object expansion and by its radius of interaction, then it becomes clear that the "missing" energy is (in) the space itself. In this sense, the gravitational constant γ_{G} is the "measure of things" for macroscopic bodies.
Macroscopic
bodies and gravity For bodies with radiusmass ratios different from r_{G} / m_{G}, this means „colloquially simply” that "work" had to be done to span a larger (body) space than is naturallycoded in the smallest, most massive elementary quantum {G}. Taking energy conservation into account, this energy can come only from the massdependent resting energy. In the massdependent interaction of gravitation, only the mass fraction (effective mass), which is available after deduction of the mass of equivalent space energy, is then carried. Wellknown macroscopic objects (... billiard ball,
football, earth, sun, ...) obviously do not satisfy the massradiusconstant
equation [F1]. Its real size is larger by many orders of magnitude (even
before the interaction) than Equation [F1] demands massradiuscoupled
for elementary bodies.
In addition, the ratio (R_{O} / M_{O}) is many orders of magnitude greater than the governing elementary quantum. Without knowing the concrete nature of manybody interleaving, it can be generally understood that the [space] energy of the gravitational interaction, which seems to be missing in relation to the rest energy, lies in the real physical object expansion, which is determined by the object radius r_{0} and by the Interaction distance r (interaction radius).
From this follows the effective interaction mass Meff = (r_{G} / r) · m_{x}, which is indirectly expressed by the gravitational constant in Newton's law of gravitation. The gravitational selfenergy equivalent to the effective interaction mass can be derived (also) from the radiusmasscoupled energy of the elementary body (compare equation [E1r]), taking into account the "scaling" using r_{G} / R_{O}.
It follows from these simple plausibility
considerations that gravitation, on the basis of the phenomenology of
an energyconserving, massradiuscoupled space, can be formally
analytically determined within the framework of „simplest”
mathematics. The inner spatial composition and interleaving of the
atomic or molecular structure of the macroscopic manybody objects has
no influence on the gravitational force or gravitational energy as
long as the interaction radius r is greater than the object radius R_{O}
(r > R_{O} = "elastic interaction").
Selfsimilarity The assumption is that the ratio of timedependent universe radius to timedependent universe mass is timeindependent(!). The multiplication of (r_{Uni} / m_{Uni}) with c² is equal to the gravitational constant γ_{G}. These assumptions include a "beautiful" correspondence between cosmos, gravitational constant and the elementary quantum {: G with r_{G}, m_{G}} respectively the Planck sizes for mass (m_{Pl} = ½ · m_{G}) and length r_{PL} (radius, m_{Pl}= ½ · r_{G}). These assumptions lead to concrete calculations, such as the maximum universe mass, the maximum universe radius and with the help of the hydrogen parameters (electron, proton mass and ground state energy) to the calculation of the background radiation temperature.
elementary body based universe (more) details, phenomenology, ... see here
Hydrogen
is by far the most abundant matter of the universe. Hydrogen
accounts for approximately 90% of interstellar matter. As shown, the
omnipresent hydrogen in the universe is the "source" of
3K
background radiation. For reasons of consistency, the Rydberg energy value results stringently from the elementarybody theorybased protonelectron interaction. This ensures that all the equations used can be linked together without any approximation. The deviation from the spectroscopically measured Rydberg energy (E_{Ry}experimental) is: E_{Ry}EBtheory/E_{Ry}experimental ≈ 1.0000025.

Conclusion: The above basic analysis of gravity disenchanted various myths (keywords: graviton, inflation field, dark energy, dark matter, ...) to form a universe. Neither "ARTstandard" differentialgeometric considerations, superlight velocity or fourdimensional spacetime constructions are necessary. Furthermore, the gravitational interaction described here can not be phenomenologically "unified" with quantum field theory (QFT), since there is no need to do so. The postulated "exchange particle objects" of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM), ie gluons and vector bosons and, in the broadest sense, neutrinos, do not "couple" to gravity even if these "force mediators" would exist. Without explicitly stating this, however, there are neither gluons, vector bosons nor neutrinos (see the chapters Standard Model, Neutrinos and the remarks (further down) about the HiggsBoson and SMfantasies). 
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.
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
SM linguistic usage… Particle physicists generally use the phenomenologically wrong term decay although they mean transformations. Decay would mean that the decay products were (all) components of the decaying. But this is not the case, at least not within the framework of the theoretical implications and postulates of the Standard Model of particle physics.
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.
___________________________________________
Brigitte Falkenburg writes in Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality (2007) among other things… "It must be made transparent step by step what physicists themselves consider to be the empirical basis for current knowledge of particle physics. And it must be transparent what the mean in detail when the talk about subatomic particles and fields. The continued use of these terms in quantum physics gives rise to serious semantic problems. Modern particle physics is indeed the hardest case for incommensurability in Kuhn’s sense."… Kuhn 1962. 1970 …"After all, theoryladenness is a bad criterion for making the distinction between safe background knowledge and uncertain assumptions or hypotheses." … "Subatomic structure does not really exist per se. It is only exhibited in a scattering experiment of a given energy, that is, due to an interaction. The higher the energy transfer during the interaction, the smaller the measured structures. In addition, according to the laws of quantum field theory at very high scattering energies, new structures arise. Quantum chromodynamics (i.e. the quantum field theory of strong interactions) tells us that the higher the scattering energy, the more quark antiquark pairs and gluons are created inside the nucleon. According to the model of scattering in this domain, this give rise once again to scaling violations which have indeed observed.44 This sheds new light on Eddington’s old question on whether the experimental method gives rise to discovery or manufacture. Does the interaction at a certain scattering energy reveal the measured structures or does it generate them?" 44 Perkins 2000, 154; Povh et al 1999, 107 – 111 …"It is not possible to trace a measured crosssection back to its individual cause. No causal story relates a measured form factor or structure function to its cause"… …"With the beams generated in particle accelerators, one can neither look into the atom, nor see subatomic structures, nor observe pointlike structures inside the nucleon. Such talk is metaphorical. The only thing a particle makes visible is the macroscopic structure of the target"… …"Niels Bohr’s quantum philosophy…Bohr’s claim was that the classical language is indispensable. This has remained valid up to the present day. At the individual level of clicks in particle detectors and particle tracks on photographs, all measurements results have to expressed in classical terms. Indeed, the use of the familiar physical quantities of length, time, mass and momentumenergy at a subatomic scale is due to an extrapolation of the language of classical physics to the nonclassical domain."...
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 Quark Parton Model describes a complex theory situation and associated theoryladen (highenergy) experiments, the understanding of which is characterized by diverse aspects and a whole series of postulates. How the (here relatively simply described) nested theoryexperimentconstruct looks like, see representative the explanations (part 1 3) of the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Dresden. Part1 fails early on the interpretations of the presented model based on "theoryinternal" assumptions. ... "This is remarkable, especially the neutron as an electrically neutral particle should have vanishing magnetic moment. This already indicates that protons and neutrons are not pointlike, but have an internal structure..." Is the magnetic moment of the neutron really evidence for a substructure? Or is this assumption just a theoryladen measurement interpretation of the Standard Model? The interpretation of a neutronquark (sub)structure loses its meaning if one examines the situation numerically (independent of the thought model). The supposedly anomalous magnetic moments of electron and proton as well as of the neutron are finally a combination of the "semiclassical"  most simply calculated  "normal" magnetic moments and measurementinherent contributions, which originate from the magnetic field, which is used for the measurement. This qualitative statement can be concretized (in accordance with the measured values). See further the remarks on the neutron from the point of view of a massradiuscoupled model, with which both the mass and the magnetic moment of the neutron can be calculated from the neutronforming interaction of electron and proton in a phenomenologically understandable and exact way. The quarkparton model is an excellent teaching piece from the series of creeds (like once the epicycle or phlogiston theory). Experimental result interpretations led to some theoretical assumptions, which then quickly reach a substructured complexity by means of further interpretations with the help of new theory objects and postulated interactions, which finally eliminate any inappropriate experimental results by appropriate measures. First there were the postulated quarks. These required a fragmentation of the elementary electric charge. Then followed gluons, since quarks did not provide corresponding spin contributions of the nucleons. After that, socalled "sea quarks" were introduced as a supplement, since the postulated gluons also did not provide a corresponding spin contribution. Details of the "established" nucleon model see part 2 and part 3 (The QuarkPartonModel) ... The analysis of the believers ends then with the belief finale ... "The nucleon is therefore built up from valence quarks, sea quarks and gluons. But for the properties of the nucleon (and all hadrons) like charge, mass and spin only the composition of the valence quarks is responsible. Therefore one often speaks of constituent quarks and means the valence quarks plus the surrounding cloud of sea quarks and gluons. Sea quarks and gluons do not contribute to the (net) quantum numbers, but they do contribute to the mass of the hadron, since they carry energy and momentum. While the bare mass of the valence quarks is only a few MeV/c², the constituent quarks carry the respective fraction of the hadron mass, in the case of the nucleon thus about 300 MeV/c². This is thus predominantly contributed by the gluons and sea quarks. In other words, the vast majority of the hadron masses (and thus the visible mass in the universe) is not carried by the bare masses of the constituents, but is dynamically generated by the energy of the interaction!" Isn't that nice. There are clouds and naked and the Godanalogous indeterminate, which is about 99%, given the postulated masses of the "matterforming" quarks. But here the faith fairy tale is not really at an end. In a bigger picture (ΛCDMmodel) it is now postulated that the visible mass is again only a small part of the mass in the universe. For the most part, for today's Standard Model believers, the universe consists of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Dark stands here for not detectable. No miracle that the Vatican invites year after year highly delighted to the science prayer. That neither the preachers nor the people a light rises has Theodor Fontane so formulated: We are already deep in decadence. The sensational is valid and only one thing the crowd favours even more enthusiastically, the bare nonsense."
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.
You might consider the following notes about neutrinos… There is no single direct neutrino proof. They are always strongly theoryladen interpretations of experimental results. To generate the fermion masses by coupling the fermions to the Higgs field, the following conditions must be met: The masses of the righthanded and lefthanded fermions must be equal. The neutrino must remain massless. This basic condition is in blatant contradiction to neutrino oscillations (Nobel Prize 2015), which require neutrino masses. Consequence: Either we say goodbye to the Standard Model of particle physics (SM) or to neutrinos with mass. For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that ...since one does not want to part with the Standard Model, there is always the possibility of "somehow" incorporating neutrino masses within the framework of mathematical additions. However, this is only possible because the construct of the SM has no verifiable realphysics reference at all, i.e. all SMassociated alleged object proofs are indirect, strongly theoryladen experimental interpretations. Energetically, no binding process of the transformation of a dquark into a uquark exists. Independent of the SMconstructed lepton number, the following should be remembered: The neutrino was introduced historically because the energy spectrum of the (emitted) electrons does not show a discrete but a continuous distribution. But if the antielectron neutrino, with whatever lower mass limit, "kidnaps" the "missing" energy from the laboratory system and can only "act" (effectively*) through the Weak Interaction, then this simply means that a kinetic energy continuum of the postulated neutrino already had to exist during the process of the Weak Interaction. Because after this process, according to the postulate, there is no further possibility of interaction. But how is this to be explained phenomenologically? The terse statement of the SM that the betaminus decay of the neutron takes place according to the conversion of a dquark into a uquark by means of a negatively charged Wboson says nothing about the concrete process of how, from where and why the antielectron neutrino now absorbs different amounts of energy during the weak interaction in order to compensate for the "missing" energy in the electron spectrum. On closer inspection, the situation is far more complex, since both postulated quarkbased neutron and quarkbased proton consist of ~ 99% of undefined binding energy and thus the weak interaction (energetically) affects only ~ 1% of the decay process. The postulated mass of the d quark is 4.8 (+0.5 /  0.3) MeV/c², the mass of the u quark is 2.3 (+0.7 /  0.5) MeV/c² quark masses : http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/tables/rpp2013sumquarks.pdf This means that the mass difference is between 1.5 and 3.5 MeV/c². The electron antineutrino with a mass (lower limit) of ≤ 2.2 eV/c² can absorb a maximum of ~ 0.78 MeV. According to the electron energy spectrum, however, the average energy is much smaller than 0.78 MeV, which is "abducted from the laboratory system" by the neutrino. What happened to the missing weak interaction energy? "Gluonic binding energy" it could not have become, since gluons do not participate in the postulated transformation of a dquark into a Uquark. Nor can the virtual magic of the ~ 80.4 GeV/c² W boson absorb anything in realenergy terms. Here, it is more true than ever for the prevailing physics: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."... So in the picture of the SM we have initially 1 uquark and 2 dquarks, in the meantime a Wboson and ~ 99% binding energy (whatever that should be phenomenologically) and after the transformation 2 uquarks, 1dquark, 99% binding energy, 1 antielectron neutrino, 1 electron and additionally ~ 0.78 MeV energy. No matter how the energy distribution possibilities of the ~ 0.78 MeV to proton (2 uquarks, 1dquark, 99% binding energy), electron and antielectron neutrino look like, the process of the weak interaction would already have to be such that these distribution possibilities are guaranteed, since after the weak interaction no more energy transfer of the neutrino to the proton and electron is possible. This means, however, that there can be no discrete transformation process of a d quark into a u quark. Nondiscrete means here in particular: Energetically, there is no binding process of the transformation of a dquark into a uquark. From a neutronu quark, energetically different electronantineutrinos are created by the weak interaction, since after the creation, other interaction possibilities apart from the weak interaction are excluded. Thus, there is no energetically unambiguous transformation of a u quark into a d quark. Detached from this problem, it should also be remembered for the sake of completeness that experimentally we are not dealing with single objects but with manyparticle objects (more than 1 neutron) and accelerated charges radiate energy. It is probably not to be assumed that the protons and electrons created "suddenly" exist with a constant speed. "Where" is the associated photon spectrum of betaminus decay? What does it look like?
According to SM, neutrino research "means", for example: ...One measures the currents of the kaons and pions and indirectly determines the flux of the neutrinos... However, pions (π π π+) and even more so kaons (K+, K, K0, K0) are highly constructed entities (for initial understanding see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion ) of the Standard Model. Means: The number of existence postulates, such as mass, charge, spin, flavour(s), lifetimes and quark composition is already "considerable". The possible transformations result in "manifold alternationinteractionfantasy scenarios”. Furthermore: The neutral kaon is not its own "antiparticle", this leads (more generally) to the construction of the particleantiparticle oscillation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_particle_oscillation ) and the neutral kaon is said to exist in two forms, a longlived and a shortlived form. To conclude from this that there are properties of "flavoroscillating" neutrinos increases the arbitrariness even more. To understand all this (reproducibly), one needs absolute faith in axiomatic creations. As a reward, however, there is then the carte blanche that any experimental result becomes "explainable" ...that until then  in connection with the "experimental side"  we have to make, roughly estimated, several dozen further resultoriented assumptions, ... does not matter to SMbelievers. To quote Egbert Scheunemann: "They first shoot an arrow at a barn door, then paint concentric circles around the bullet and cheer about their "bull's eye". Without question, ad hoc hypotheses and thought experiments were and are fundamental concepts. It is just that "physical" theses must sooner or later be substantiated by stringent, consistent “models of thought” using simple mathematical means, if they are to have any epistemological value. The bad habit of iteratively glossing over missing knowledge and missing phenomenology within the framework of parametric creeds etc. means arbitrariness and knowledge standstill. Renormalisation, variable coupling constants, free parameters, endless substructuring, perturbation theory with an affinity to Taylor series just correct the "physical crap" that one has primarily brought upon oneself over decades through a lack of insight. By the way…At a conference in Rome in 1931, Niels Bohr expressed the view that understanding beta decay did not require new particles, but rather a similar serious overthrow of existing ideas as in quantum mechanics. He doubted the theorem of the conservation of energy, but without having developed a concrete counterproposal…

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, ...
