"Theory of Bonding Harmonics" -Part two-

Tesla TOE Member Quest Prime Numbers

Theory of Bonding Harmonics
By Miguel De ZAYAS

"YING AND YANG"

- II. TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT “BONDING HARMONICS.”

Before jumping to the theoretical part of my work, I’d like to make clear one aspect that I consider almost sacred: The law of conservation of energy.
In the entire civilized human history, this particular observation has been one of the greatest scientific acknowledgements of all times. Believe it or not, “Bonding Harmonics” was entirely designed to respect and baud by its principles. It’s however the greatest irony that present theories -quantum mechanics in particular- that many of us consider it to be among the greatest achievement of the twentieth century, were “trapped” by their own uncertainties. There was a man who dreamed of finding the royal way enabling him to actually “read the mind of God.” This man’s name was Albert Einstein, the “father of modern physics.”
He knew about the universal character of the law of conservation of energy but he was “blinded by the same light he always felt attracted to” (meaning that) he was “theoretically trapped” by the speed of his personal obsession -the speed of light (“c”).
If I had to express in one statement what I’ve discovered by the most amazing revelation was that “The Law of Conservation of Energy” was equal to the actual speed of REALITY. The same “SPEED” molecular bonds are formed [Matter], the same “SPEED” atomic shells provide us with the guarantee of looking at a 3 dimensional universe.
“Reality had to exist even faster than light since the last is just half of the same reality human kind in general have failed to acknowledge.” That particular thought was the most amazing thing that ever happened to me in my entire life. I know it seems weird at first glance, but I’ll prove it to you and that will remain a promise through out the readings of my work.
“YING AND YANG”

It wasn’t for pure amusing purposes or some implicit “metaphysical connections” what urged me to include the famous “Ying and Yang” symbolism in the main page of my site. It is the most accurate representation of the two forces that keep the universe spinning. Two interacting magnetic fields (with opposite “handedness”) inside a perfect symmetrical configuration.
“One that we can see… versus the other that we must believe.”
The one “see” {the Yang} –the same one represented by the white face and the black eye- will always appear in every spectroscopic analysis we perform on the spectrum of radiation. The “Ying” -the hidden dark side- is always jealously protected “from our sight” with the help of its “own nature.” They can’t exist in isolation without each other’s companionship without becoming “monopoles.” Symmetry follows them along the atomic shells and across the cosmos.
My theory will not violate the speed of light as one of the known universal constant. However, it will propose arguments to prove that all chemical bonds in all the 3 possible spatial dimensions -including electromagnetism- will appear to us as a “FASTER-THAN-LIGHT” process until you meet my MODEL for the atomic shells.
You might be asking yourselves by now – How come REALITY could be even faster than the universally recognized “speed limit” in the entire universe?
[i]The simpler answer is this: We have been using the speed of light in most of our most sophisticated instrumentation during the observation of our universe, from the depth of the atom to the far regions of the cosmos. Unfortunately, in some instances we have been confronted with situations where we had to decide whether to believe our senses even while facing the weirdest observations, or to “play safe” and look for more “rational” and convenient “exit-theories.” Some chose to compromise and play safe like it was the case of accepting metaphysical approaches to perfectly sound challenges (The concept of “Wave Function” was precisely created for that sole purpose). Einstein lost his last chance against “the other guys” right after the setback caused by the E.P.R. fiasco, but I intend to start mine here, right where he left it. He lost, not because he was wrong in his beliefs but because he “played by their rules.” He had the genius of a prophet and he knew in the bottom of his heart that there had to be a way to reach the truth.
The following is a hypothetical argument that could illustrate what’s wrong with our imperfect tolls for observation; pay close attention to this analogy:
Let’s assume that I decided to “sabotage” an old black and white family film you were planning to enjoy over dinner. Secretly, I grasp a pair of scissors and start “cutting” one frame every two frames of the cellulose, gluing them back together in such way that at the end I was successful in eliminating exactly half the movie. If you had no previous knowledge of my actions, you may even miss my reproachable behavior. You probably won’t miss a “thing” because your abilities to detect a “hole” at such high-definition speed of projection will simply pass unnoted. That is not the case with REALITY. We have been “warned” more than once since there were hundreds of examples confirming this particular statement of mine but still, we chose to ignore it and blame God for being maliciously “careless” including “uncertainty” and “probabilities” in our lives and what’s still more ironic: to our science.
One of the greatest unresolved and still pending question in physics to this day has to do with the origin, nature and configuration of “m” [mass]. Albert Einstein was the first physicist who actually “imagined” the hidden connection between “mass” and “time.” He “proposed” back on 1905 a term he called “relativistic mass,” although not quite yet understood by many of his contemporaneous, he was as close to the final understanding of the true concept of REALITY as no one else had ever been.
I plan to correct this mistake and this is the only purpose of my work.
Why did I choose this particular title for my theory? Because I wanted to include one of my “personal favorites” too: MUSIC.
Right before the very start I’d like to clarify some concepts that you are going to read pretty often, so I’d like to avoid any possible inconvenient distraction.

ELECTRONIC CONFIGURATION AS SEEN BY “BONDING HARMONICS”

A little history will validate the central idea of the model I’m presenting to explain the (magnetic) configuration of atomic orbits.
The first quantum mechanical model of the atomic orbits for electrons was proposed almost a century ago by one of the greatest physicists of our century: Neils Bohr.
He proposed a model based on a physical pattern called standing waves; an idea first examined by a French physicist named Luis De Broglie. That model was able to account for the lines of the “spectrum observed” in the atom of Hydrogen, but it failed to explain a wide range of other phenomena.
Bohr’s application of standing waves solved an earlier problem classical physics wasn’t able to; the question about the wavy nature in the ‘mechanics” of electrons, but it wasn’t good enough.
Not simply because it could only partially explained the spectral lines “observed” in Hydrogen while not the other’s, but because the concept behind the model was fatally incomplete.
There is a good reason that explains why Bohr’s model for the electronic orbital was only applicable to the atom of Hydrogen.
This theory is not just “another boring variation” of earlier proposals. What brings the most attractive nature to my theory is a radical change in orthodox definitions regarding the most basics (yet controversial) concepts of the physical reality.
Let’s begin with one of the most important one: the electron.
There is an inaccurate way while referring to “electrons” in general regardless any consideration to the context implicit in the analysis. Electrons [inside the atomic shells] are just “harmonic dipoles” along the angular momentum of the atomic orbit. They do not “jump” into other orbits much less “remain intact” along an orbital angular path. That is inaccurate and far from the truth.
a) “Those alleged “electrons” orbiting the shells are not “particles with intrinsic electric charge” but the precise location of a “vector along a given orbital” in a 3 dimensional space. Electrons [also called “valence electrons”] are the result of the spin-orbit interaction among the harmonic components of the atom on both sides of the orbits (Ying and Yang). Its “presence” will “materialize” at the point where co-related harmonics on both sides [Ying and Yang] reach 90 degrees angle between each other.
b) It is precisely at those “orbital points” where external energy –coming from “(quantum) orbital envelopes”- will interact throughout what I called the “molecular orbital envelopes”, “producing” spectral lines known to characterize every atom. (We’ll see this in details later on in the section dealing with molecular bonding).
My theory “dissects” the “speed of light” in (4) “frames” –an original new approach in “handling” the speed of light “c” during calculations of this nature.
We know that if we took the concept of standing waves and applied them in a model with a big number of electrons –just as Bohr did- we’ll get nothing but wrong results.
Somehow since I was just a kid I felt a strange affinity to physics. While physics was the subject earning my higher grades, math stayed well behind the normal expectations. I guess imagination had always a lot to do with it. Anyway the point is that a couple of years ago I slowly began to see some “sparks at the end of the tunnel.” If atomic shells would resemble a “vibrating string” like those found in musical instruments and they were made of an integer number of “harmonics” inside a “Ying-Yang” pattern of interaction … the rest would fall into one piece just as I expected. Let’s see it in more details with the help of my diagrams:
By looking at “Fig. 0”, we can see four different stages of interacting standing waves with respect to a photon of light. I draw along a symbolic “pendulum” allowing us to have a reference in time.
As you can observe both processes started and ended in perfect time-synchronism since both elapsed at “c.”
There are some new or rather non-familiar concepts in my graphics that need to be introduced in order to understand their functions.
Let’s start with the first concept:
1) “Quantum orbital harmonic number.” As you can see, each “GROUP” has been presented in its 4 (four) frames. Each “GROUP” has been assigned with its own configuration pattern according to their location in the “Periodic Table of the Elements.” For example:
Helium (a Noble gas) belongs to “group 8th” in the figure. It means that its “Quantum orbital harmonic number” will be equal to 2 (two)* or 18 (eighteen) in the case of elements of the 8th group. As you can observe, each graphic will show the same number of harmonics in each “quadrant” (a fix number of harmonics on four quadrants).
* It is 2 (two) when we want to refer in “general terms” regarding energy-configuration. However it is 18 (eighteen harmonics in each side) when we try to graphically represent its electronic configuration. If we take a look to the spectral lines of emission in Helium we will obtain a range composed by the total of 18 different “colors” of light. [See spectroscopic emission for He].
If you take a look at the element’s arrangement inside the ‘Periodic Table’ you’ll see a total of 18 groups from Hydrogen to Helium. Since producing a 4 (four) phases “set” for each of those 18 (eighteen) groups would require a similar method as the one I did for 8 (eight), I decided not to include such amount of graphics in my WEB PAGE. Besides, all those graphics [except for “Fig. 9”] didn’t include the actual spin of each harmonic in phase with the “orbital momentum.”
The “Periodic Table of the elements” was designed according to the behavior of each element with regards to specific chemical affinities and bonding properties. If we look at the elements in “group 1” “along the column 1” we find that both hydrogen and lithium present a single “electron” in their (last) shell. Yet we also know that they are very different in the rest of their physical properties, but the “data” necessary to “learn” and “understand” the reason for those differences can’t be found in the “Table” either.
That’s why we must “adapt” my graphics to their real “energy values.” The needed “compatibility” could be done by establishing a real proportionality between the “length of the axes of coordinates (“x” and “y”) and their corresponding number of harmonics with the real values observed in the lines for the spectrum of Hydrogen.
I left the harmonic spin out of the graphics to be able to show you a complete vector analysis for the same angle of rotation; an ideal case with no bearings with reality inside the shells, just another useful empirical model.
Being said that, I definitely consider necessary the individual vector analysis of a given element after all its harmonics had been included in the pattern as shown in “Fig. 9” for group 4. To give you just one reason to follow this approach I’d like to mention the “mystery” behind the observed {inexplicable} behavior of “MOTT insulators.”
Molecules that were expected to behave like good conductors of “electric charges” have surprised researchers in the field of “Condensed Matter.” Rumor has it that there is an increasing number of “experimentalists” that began to question them selves the validity of the “Pauli exclusion principle.” (?)
2) The second concept entirely new to you will be that of the “Orbital tremolo effect.”
The term tremolo is used (in the field that studies sound) to indicate periodic changes in the amplitude or loudness of a tone. Just as Neils Bohr borrowed the term “standing waves” from sound, I took the liberty to “follow on his steps” and assign another concept from the same field into my model for the atomic orbital.
TREMOLO is a “sub-group” of a more generalized concept called “TIMBRE.” A second term known as “VIBRATO” depicts the changes of “pitch” [frequency] of the sound or musical note and it is also the principle behind the so-called “Doppler effect.”
Vibrato is not present in the orbits since the number and frequency of those harmonics -on both sides of the orbits- remain unchanged at all times.
However, TREMOLO is the effect caused by the “amplification” of the same harmonic by the increase of its INTENSITY ALONE [a version of a modulation of amplitude “AM”]. This amplification of intensity is due to the “Ying-Yang” orbital interaction during the constructive pattern of interference at the “anti-node”. (See standing waves pattern). The maximum value of the “constructive tremolo” [“orbital C-Tremolo”] will be found always at the “y” axes according to my graphics. The lowest values for “destructive tremolos” [“orbital D-Tremolo”] will be right on line with the “x” axes of coordinates.
Every time a pattern of standing waves is present (in sound, in nature or inside the atomic structure) we will find an exact increase of twice the intensity at the place called “anti-node.” In other words, the intensity of the emerging pattern will double the individual value of each interacting wave. According to my MODEL this process will be part of every single electronic configuration inside every single atom without exceptions, including the atom of Hydrogen too.
3) The “Quantum Orbital Envelope”.
This is nonetheless one of the most important among the new concepts introduced by my theory. We know that atoms have what’s called “anti-bonding zones.” In my graphics those “anti-bonding points” will coincide with the highest value for the “orbital C-Tremolo” and the lowest value for the “orbital D-Tremolo” respectively –“x” axis and “y” axis.”
By looking at “Fig. 0”, you’ll see how the “envelope” gets “built” along the entire cycle. That will be the “storage capacity” for absorption of external energy into the pattern (shell). As the “quantum harmonic number” increases with heavier atoms, the “(quantum) orbital envelope” gets bigger due to an increase of its “own wavelength.” It could be seen as points where the same energy that causes the shell to “vibrate” gets concentrated in the form of “potential poles” at both extremes of the “y” axes. I realized that a “sustained resonance” -like the one observed in electronic shells- could be the sole result of a two symmetrical and equally strength magnetic fields in a constant interaction.
That image –in my mind- changed everything…
As I said earlier, given the exact number of harmonics on both sides of the “Ying and Yang” pattern of the “orbital momentum” the “effects” from the “standing wave configuration” of the shell on each harmonic (individually) must be considered as a pure “modulation on their intensity.” Now! It comes the “tricky” question:
Since the “actual location” of each harmonic along the atomic shell also represents an inherently different “energy-level,” the final energy-structure of the “(quantum) orbital envelope” will also be “built in integer levels.” Those levels will not be representing changes in intensity anymore, but changes in frequency (energy) instead. To give you can idea of what I’m referring with those “energy levels” and their corresponding ‘capacity’ I’ll bring the example of the so-called “population inversion.” The “real mechanism” behind “L.A.S.E.R. emission” is an evidence of the existence of “orbital envelopes.” The higher the frequency [energy] of the “wave absorbed” inside the “envelope” the longer a ‘sequenced emission’ could be maintained.
Let’s have an analogy so I can make it clear and simple to understand:
Imagine that you had a revolver that needed “time” [I’d call it “one cycle”] to shot one bullet and another “cycle” to reload. If “radiation emission” were the act of “firing bullets” then we would have to design a handgun that could “reload” at the same time it makes the “shot.” Of course, that “automatic handgun” already exists and that’s called “L.A.S.E.R.”
Do you remember when I denied the argument about the “jumping of electrons” used to justify an inexplicable energy-absorption process commonly observed by atoms?
The “(Quantum) orbital envelope” -as its name indicates- “will fold inside it” any wave whose magnitude (frequency) fits exactly (an integer number of times) inside its wavelength. Once energy gets completely “absorbed” inside this “envelope” {a complete elapse of one cycle} it will begin the “unfolding process” around the entire shell and this process could be seen as a “continuos unloading” where each energy-level will “use” an entire “cycle” before the next level start its own.
How many times we’ve witnessed, without having a clue about why, how some atoms scatter the energy back in “no time” while others [“renegades”] will “take their time” to do it. We know that in some extreme cases up to entire “minutes” (!) (See phosphorescence].
One thing we know for sure though, they will “unload” the complete “stored energy” before they start absorbing it again.
I wonder… If energy were to be “stored” in integer energy levels of those assumed “electrons” orbiting the shells, why would there be any “delay” in releasing it back to the vacuum?
Let me put it in other way… If those “energy levels,” were the same ones observed in the Hydrogen spectrum and the ones keeping the ‘energy absorbed’… why would there be any “forbidden frequencies” at the moment of its emission?
You couldn’t find any logical answer just like there is no straight answer as to why “something” could be easily stored according to a strict “selectivity” imposed by those same ‘levels’ and it will find “forbidden states” at the moment of its release…
Logic and common sense dictates -in this case too- that the location where energy was going to be stored were other than the location where it eventually be released. If we assume those “orbital envelopes” the location for the energy-storage those questions will be properly answered one by one.
By looking at my diagrams, you’ll easily see that the “absorption process” in not uniform among harmonics. Those harmonics closer to the “envelope” [the highest value of the “orbital C-Tremolo”] will “enjoy” both a higher level of “loudness” or “intensity” and also a higher portion of energy from the net energy previously “folded” inside the “envelope.”
The seemingly “random overlapping” of those different “lines” respond to a typical “angle precession” along the orbit. In fact, every “sharp” (“S”) –principal quantum number- could be seen as “aligned along the same axis”, just as every single “P” definition lines are all in the same axis as well. However, the “S” axis and the “P” axis are “precede” by an angle between each other due in part to different “orbital arrangement” {different number of harmonics}.
The basis for the argument mentioned above becomes clear when we take a close look at the orbits in my graphics. Those orbits are presented to you in a two-dimensional piece of paper although they really are 3 dimensional. If you take a closer look at the vector analysis presented in each group-case, you’ll find that the angle between vectors is always the same: 90° or 6/2.
The concept of “(quantum) orbital envelope” will finally answer the “secret connection” between magnetic fields and current in solids and it will bring some badly needed answers to the origin of both “thermal phonons” and “low frequency phonons.”
The presence of those “orbital envelopes” will unveil the physical source of “molecular vibration” and the truth behind the (oriented) structure of magnets in ferromagnetic materials. Magnets are not the spatial orientation of “electron spins” as it has been proposed by certain theories before. They are indeed the spatial orientation of energy vectors but those are no coming from the spin of those harmonics in the orbits, but from “picks values” of “orbital envelopes.” The way nature use to re-orient “quantum orbital envelopes” is –of course- conditioned by the configuration of the molecular bond inside ferromagnetic materials, so there is a “connection” between bonds and inherent magnetic fields observed in magnets.
Another evidence of what I was saying could be the observed “Meissner effect” in superconducting material. The reason the magnetic flux from a regular magnet can’t “penetrate” or interact with those superconductors is due to their particular “sequential spinning pattern” which will result in a “zero” net angular momentum and the highest “thermal capacity” after each (4 frames) “cycle.” We’ll see this in details later.
As we all know, the fundaments of the theory known as “Quantum Electrodynamics” was based on what’s called the “spin g-factor.” Dr. Lamb’s experiments resulted in the discovery of a certain “overlapping gap” between the “P” and the “S” sub-shells respectively. The work of Dr. Richard Feynman -just as his famous diagrams testified- led him to assume a possible “exchange of virtual* photons” taking place right across “the gap” and, in no less degree, thanks to a convenient overlap of energy levels observed between “P” and “S.”
My theory does not contradict the FACT that part of an earlier stored energy inside the “orbital envelope” will “go along” with the “net orbital momentum” (harmonic spin-orbit interaction) as it has clearly been represented in all my graphics.
During the complete “cycle” of my analysis, that energy “folded” in “orbital envelopes” will “see itself” altered by those particular “electron-coordinates” corresponding to “allowed energy levels.” The fundamental theoretical difference between my theory and “Quantum Electrodynamics” is in the subject regarding the source of the energy that will turn into “electric charges.” They suggested that energy is absorbed when electrons “jump” upwards to the next energy level, I agree on that the energy placed on those energy levels will be transformed into photons of light and emitted at those same points where bonds take place. On the other hand, what I propose with my model is to demonstrate that it is the “envelope” produced by the pattern of standing waves what serves as a “reservoir” for the absorption and transfer of “electric charges.”
It could be seen as two different “pathways” for each type of emission. Light [as photons] will be discussed later on with the subject of molecular bonding. “Electric charges” however will originate as the result of the interaction between the “orbital envelope” and an ODD pattern of bonding or an “open shell.”
“JUMPING ELECTRONS VERSUS “FRAME-BY-FRAME SYMMETRY”
Much has been said about “electromagnetic energy as being absorbed by matter” due to the alleged “jumping abilities” conveniently assigned to ‘electrons.’ So far, I haven’t found a single solid argument justifying the nature of the “driving force” behind such process… Have you?
Q. Are we dealing with another convenient “Exit Theory” this time as well?
A. “BONDING HARMONICS” has a physically legitimate reason for the existence of the so-called “Matter-Energy interactions.”
As the “(quantum) orbital envelope” begins to “rise” in all 4 meridians simultaneously, the corresponding “handedness” will define the spin pattern of those HARMONICS on both sides of the “Ying and Yang orbital momentum.”
As explained before, SYMMETRY will ALWAYS prevail at the end of one complete CYCLE of the “orbital momentum.”
Now…What would happen in case a “photon” of radiation (light) was nearby the “Envelope” during its early formation?
Logic dictates that energy will be absorbed to counteract for the “real-time asymmetry” brought about by the inherent “chirality” of the “shell’s orbital momentum.”
Magnetic attraction, emission of radiation and superconductivity are examples of an ‘inborn tendency’ of shells toward the achievement of a “real-time symmetry” on a “frame-by-frame basis” by allowing energy into the “Envelope.”
Molecular stability was never about the alleged thrive for a “lower state of energy” –as it can read on every single chemistry book- but an eternal struggle for a “perfect state of SYMMETRY.”
An example of a brief an temporary attempt in the reach of such “perfect symmetry” is found in the nature of the so-called “Van Der Waal’s forces” seen with “Noble gases.” Opposite handed HARMONICS between atoms of a gas will be responsible for the observed liquid state of some gases like Helium as they form transient bonds in short time-intervals.
“THE 4 (FOUR) MERIDIANS SYMMETRY” INSIDE THE NUCLEAR ORBITAL

Although I’m convinced that this particular part of my theory will turn out to be the most controversial view proposed by anyone so far, I believe it’s going to be also the most crucial step toward the understanding of a final and functioning model of the nucleus.
No serious theory, claiming to have answers for those questions I promised you to address at the very beginning of this work, would dare to stand in ‘one piece’ if it planned to leave “intact” today’s ‘picture’ of the atomic nucleus in it.
Let’s start with the actual composition of the nucleus as it is assumed by most physicists to be the “right one.”
According to “Quantum Mechanics,” electrically charged ‘protons’ and electrically neutral ‘neutrons’ will compose the nucleus of every atom except for the simplest atom of Hydrogen, as we all know.
‘Neutrons’ are said to bring some “stability” to the atomic nucleus by literally acting as a “referee” between repelling positively charged particles known as ‘protons.’ The ‘Standard Model’ was also designed to explain the composition and interactions of each nucleon by the inclusion of yet smaller particles named “quarks.”
‘Neutrons’ are believed (even as we speak) to behave like a neutral particle when it comes to ‘electric charges’ although it has been demonstrated that they’ve also shown some signs of having a magnetic momentum.
There are some very interesting experiments trying to prove “something” that NEUTRONS definitively HAVE in ways those experimentalists, definitively WON’T…
You bet! I’m referring to the latest attempts to “convince” NEUTRONS to show their “electric dipole momenta” while desperately trying to produce, freeze, store and manipulate them under a strong and timed-oscillating magnetic field (M-D NMR). [Actually, there are 2 (two) teams in Great Britain presently involved in the race).
From the earliest “Shell theory” passing through the “liquid drop model” up to the present “Standard Model” physics have failed to provide us with a MODEL that will stand reality with all its “faces” [FRAMES].
My theory, “Bonding Harmonics” will do that and more:
It will offer you a functional MODEL based on SYMMETRY (“Ying and Yang”) that will hopefully be supported by future experimental observations.
Allow me to redefine some erroneous and pretty inaccurate concepts about the nature, function and interactions of those ‘guests’ occupying the atomic nucleus.
The best analogy would be to ask you to slice an orange in 4 (four) halves. Let’s imagine that we just cut the fruit in four equal pieces by allowing an angle of 90) degrees between both cuts.
One of those “cuts” done to the orange will represent the path of the “orbital momentum” for PROTONS while their perpendicular counterpart will be same one for NEUTRONS. If you look at those diagrams I’ve been showing you under the “graphics” icon you’ll only see one half of the story; the one allowed to be seen by the “light.”
The configuration of the nucleus is exactly the same as the one I proposed to explain the electronic structure of atomic shells. In fact, what we called NEUTRONS and PROTONS -allegedly orbiting nuclear shells with their typical ½ spin “costumes” of “HADRONS”- were nothing more than “vibrating harmonics” [resonating strings] inside 4 (four) frames of one complete CYCLE.
Close your eyes and picture 2 (two) “virtual mirrors” built into a “CROSS CONFIGURATION.”
Imagine that we’re hypothetically ‘facing’ (right now) one of those two mirrors.
Q. What do we “see” -on “the other side” of our reality- as a normal reflection of ourselves?
A. “ANTIPROTONS” t Our own ANTIMATTER.
Q. What do we “see” if we were able to face the other MIRROR turn in a 90) degrees angle to our RIGHT or to our LEFT?
A. We (should) “see” an equal set of vibrating HARMONICS [just like us] but the fact is that we simply CAN’T “SEE” THEM AT ALL. (!)
To persuade ourselves of their existence we had to rely on “scattering experiments” for what it was decided that “they” [NEUTRONS] were somewhat DIFFERENT than us [PROTONS].
Q. What would those “evasive occupants” of the 90) degrees quadrant would “see” if they looked themselves at their own “MIRROR”?
A. ANTINEUTRONS t Their own ANTIMATTER.
Q. Are they [neutrons] part of a LEGITIMATE reality?
A. Yes, they are. In fact, they are as capable as we are (protons) to form BONDS, absorb energy and produce the emission of radiation just like we are.
They also have polarity, magnetic fields (north and south) and “electric producing capabilities” like the one explained in this work regarding “orbital envelopes” [true carriers of ‘electric charges’].
OH! But there is a “cash” involved here (!) Just as we can’t violate “Pauli’s`Principle” in our own “backyard”, we are not to allowed to “trespass” from one REALITY into the next without first having a “leap of faith.” Meaning that what we know by the abbreviations CPT (charge-parity-time) are A SET OF UNIQUE symmetrical quantum states for each one standing in any of those 4 (four) “quadrants” around the “CROSS MIRRORS.”
Understanding the quantum nature of CHARGE, PARITY and TIME (the last as the sequential elapsing of all 4 (four) meridian “orbital momenta” in ONE complete CYCLE) will offer us the REASONS to WHY we can’t measure the ‘electric dipole moment’ (EDM) of “FREE NEUTRONS.” We are forbidden to “see” it due to a 90) degrees precession with respect to the “CROSS MIRRORS.”
The MODEL represented in my THEORY is entirely based on the inviolability of those principles stated in the CHARGE-PARITY-TIME THEOREM and they are the “pillar foundation” of the physical REALITY.
Time will prove that those claimed “SYMMETRY VIOLATIONS,” being “thoroughly observed” inside “Particle Accelerators” so many times before, will turn out to be the confirmation of its inherent SUPREMACY. It’s my belief that human nature has reached the LIMITS in the observation of REALITY and that it is time to welcome back LOGIC and COMMON SENSE once again in our science.
If you were successful in picturing the complex analogy I’ve asked you to a moment ago, you’ll see why NEUTROS presented a magnetic field momentum as it has been detected in earlier experiments. By looking at the configuration for nuclear orbital shown in my MODEL, there is a common point (interception) on the “y” axes or maximum values for the “Orbital C-tremolos” for both ‘dimensional realities.’
In other words, all 4 (four) possible “materialization” of CPT symmetry in their own “realities” COINCIDE, having the same ORIGIN and the same END for their own “(nuclear) orbital envelopes.” (See my diagrams for cross-references).
Q. Does it mean that (hypothetically speaking of course) CPT symmetry could manifest itself in an INFINITE number of configurations according to the infinite number of points in a circle?
A. In THEORY that is correct. However BONDS form every single structure in the universe [nuclear, atomic, molecular or crystal] limiting the actual number of those CPT symmetries reducing the number of ‘dimensional realities’ actually present in “real time.”
Q. What would happen if the “IMAGE” (antineutrons) decided to “trade their place” with the “OBJECT” (neutrons)?
A. We would be the witnesses of a change in CP symmetry inside the same NUCLEUS.
In other words… If the CHIRALITY of those “invisible protons” [NEUTRONS] or resonant strings along their perpendicular nuclear orbit (HARMONICS) were the exact opposite, we were facing an entirely different atomic configuration and therefore an entirely different ELEMENT (!)
IF as the result of the so-called “weak nuclear force”, energy were to be released from the nucleus of an atom, its final (quantum) configuration would have to correspond to the internal configuration of the “nuclear bond” were they were actually scattered.
The following figure will be self-explanatory:
YING YANG YING YANG
(1) YANG+YING (2) YANG+YING (3) YING+YANG (4) YING+YANG
YANG YING YANG YING
*Assuming “Yang” as a “clockwise chirality” and “Ying” a “counter clockwise chirality” respectively.
As you have probably realized by now, there can only exist 4 (four) possible configurations for CPT symmetry inside ONE COMPLETE CYCLE of NUCLEAR SHELLS.
*The sign (+) represents the maximum and minimum values of the MAGNETIC FIELDS (on the “y” axes) or what’s the same the “Orbital C-tremolos” for all 4 (four) ‘dimensional realities’ embedded inside the structure of the atomic nucleus of every single atom, with the obvious exception of single proton-Hydrogen atoms.
I came up (fortunately) with a “primitive” representation of nuclear configurations for those HARMONICS while trying at the same time to “accommodate” in a unique and simple manner the data we know from the “Periodic Table” of the elements. We all know that the configuration for nuclear orbital is 3 dimensional and my graphics below are not exactly so, but the intention was to present you with a simple “empirical model” to represent the “4 (four) Meridian Symmetry.”The point is that in FRAME 1 (one), the common “orbital momentum” for all 4 (four) HARMONICS MERIDIANS will start the process of RESONANCE as the individual “Nuclear Envelopes” corresponding to 2 (two) perpendicular ‘dimensional realities’ start “moving up” toward the top of the “y” axis.”
At this point, all 4 (four) meridians will intercept in one common point that will correspond to the “North Pole” of the Orbital. As FRAME 2 (two) begins, a decreasing pattern of the “Envelope” will be followed by a corresponding process on the individual “Orbital C-tremolos” of both CPT planes.
With the conclusion of FRAME 2, the “orbital D-tremolos of both DOMINIUMS will reach their highest values (along the “x” axes) displaying a perfect symmetry on both sides. Remember that due to the 3 dimensionality of my model the “x” axis of one DOMINIUM will coincide with the “z” axis of its CROSS-DOMINIUM. In other words, the “x” axis for PROTONS will become the “z” axis for NEUTRONS. It is at this point that the crossing “Standing wave patterns” begin to change the POLARITY of the ENVELOPE with a sequence of rotations keeping always the same “chirality” along the axis of interference.
FRAMES 3 and 4 will resume with the completion of one complete CYCLE where 2 (two) perpendicular REALITIES had emerged. Both “protected” by the universal principle of SYMMETRY that precisely defines the nature of quanta:
Each reality is equally LEGITIMATE inside its own DOMINIUM. Understanding a DOMINIUM as the set of 3 (three) conditions CHARGE, PARITY and TIME.
That’s the reason why the scientific community has been reluctant to accept Pauling’s version of a “chemical resonance.”
The concept of a 3 (three) dimensional universe would be meaningless without the needed understanding of its true origin. Our LIMITATIONS trying to “bypass” the obstacles presented by the universality of CPT symmetry must be overcome by the application of pure LOGIC and COMMON SENSE.
The secret lies in this:
“It is precisely the 4 (four) meridian symmetry of nuclear and atomic shells the sole guarantee to a synchronized time-sequential configuration for SYMMETRY inside atoms. TIME is indeed INVARIANT under the CPT symmetry of each atomic shell.
As I’ll explain later in the chapter discussing the “roadmap” that we’ll guiding us to find the “holly grail of theoretical physics” (“Room Temperature Superconductivity”)… “Sometimes seeing is not enough, believing is also required.”