Dear Richard,

Why do you call the alleged circulating object 'indside' the electron a "photon"?

If an alleged kinematical or dynamical process inside some physical system far below the scale of an atom which is related to a rate of change which equals the speed of a photon or which is even above, then this does not justify to use the word "photon", which had emerged in a quite different context.

Less confusion would be generated if you would use a different name, which expresses more precisely the alleged physical behavior of what might be going on 'inside' an electron in the context of the model you proposed. What about the "Gauthier circulator"?

Karl