Thanks David for referring me to Miles papers.  Here is a paragragh of his about Orbitons    by Miles Mathis In the May 3, 2012 volume of Nature (485, p. 82), Schlappa et al. present a claim of confirmation of the orbiton. I will analyze that claim here. The authors begin like this: When viewed as an elementary particle, the electron has spin and charge. When binding to the atomic nucleus, it also acquires an angular momentum quantum number corresponding to the quantized atomic orbital it occupies. As a reader, you should be concerned that they would start off this important paper with a falsehood. I remind you that according to current theory, the electron does not have real spin and real charge. As with angular momentum, it has spin and charge quantum numbers. But all these quantum numbers are physically unassigned. They are mathematical only. The top physicists and journals and books have been telling us for decades that the electron spin is not to be understood as an actual spin, because they can't make that work in their equations. The spin is either understood to be a virtual spin, or it is understood to be nothing more than a place-filler in the equations. We can say the same of charge, which has never been defined physically to this day. What does a charged particle have that an uncharged particle does not, beyond different math and a different sign? The current theory has no answer. Rather than charge and spin and orbit, we could call these quantum numbers red and blue and green, and nothing would change in the theory. 

In general he is correct in pointing out inconsistencies in physics which need to be cleared away. Look at this video clip about magnoflux spin effect and let quantum theorists try and explain what is happening in front of their eyes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_QqJraDxaA&t=30s

Thanks David for referring me to Miles papers.  Here is a paragragh of his about Orbitons    by Miles Mathis In the May 3, 2012 volume of Nature (485, p. 82), Schlappa et al. present a claim of confirmation of the orbiton. I will analyze that claim here. The authors begin like this: When viewed as an elementary particle, the electron has spin and charge. When binding to the atomic nucleus, it also acquires an angular momentum quantum number corresponding to the quantized atomic orbital it occupies. As a reader, you should be concerned that they would start off this important paper with a falsehood. I remind you that according to current theory, the electron does not have real spin and real charge. As with angular momentum, it has spin and charge quantum numbers. But all these quantum numbers are physically unassigned. They are mathematical only. The top physicists and journals and books have been telling us for decades that the electron spin is not to be understood as an actual spin, because they can't make that work in their equations. The spin is either understood to be a virtual spin, or it is understood to be nothing more than a place-filler in the equations. We can say the same of charge, which has never been defined physically to this day. What does a charged particle have that an uncharged particle does not, beyond different math and a different sign? The current theory has no answer. Rather than charge and spin and orbit, we could call these quantum numbers red and blue and green, and nothing would change in the theory. 

In general he is correct in pointing out inconsistencies in physics which need to be cleared away. Look at this video clip about magnoflux spin effect and let quantum theorists try and explain what is happening in front of their eyes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_QqJraDxaA&t=30s