Theory of Bonding Harmonics
By Miguel De ZAYAS


“FERMIONS versus BOSONS” Fig.16

More than a century ago the best minds in the field of theoretical physics were confronted with a “PARADOX” that –even to these days- keep chasing us as the spectrum of a ghost: “To be a particle or to be a wave?” That’s the dilemma.
The nature of the controversy turned to be so complex and “obscure” that any attempt to describe it in words would overwhelm an excellent writer with the statue of William Shakespeare.
I firmly believe that my theory -“Bonding Harmonics”- finally brought some “light” into the shadows of a century old uncertainty.
Is it an “electron” a particle? If we consider a ‘particle’ a “geometrical figure” with a PERFECT SYMMETRICAL shape>>>> YES. As you could verify my statement in “Fig. 11” the “electron” {as it is the case for all “Fermions” too} presents a PERFECT SYMMETRICAL energy-configuration in “real time.”
What did I mean by “real time”? It is the “point-by-point” vector-analysis as we go from “frame one” to ‘frame two” and so on until “frame four.”
No mater which point in TIME you decided to “check out” for the status of the “electron’s symmetry” you’ll simply find a “state-of-the-art” SYMMETRY.
Does it “travel” throughout the vacuum or across solids as a “particle? NO.
As I’ve explained earlier, while moving –“traveling”- along solids or crystals the “prints of one electron” [“electric charge”] will be transported by a “carrier wave.”
For a case known as “free electron” {as being observed during the so-called “photoelectric effect”] we will need to combine the results of “Fig. 10” and “Fig. 11” if we want to understand the entire process.
We know (by means of experimentation) that the approximate energy level of “ionization” (for gases) or scattering (for a solid) will exceed the 4th orbital level. (See the diagram for the spectrum of energies in Hydrogen for references)
It’s only with the absorption of 4 (four) times the magnitude of energy needed to “fulfill” the “molecular bonding envelope” that a PERFECT and beautifully SYMMETRICAL quantum of energy will get released in the vacuum with a shape of one “electron.”
Q/ How about the concept, defining one electron spinning in its orbit around the shells?
I mentioned that those “specific spatial coordinates,” where bonds take place and the “spin-orbital” interaction (often) coincides with those energy levels observed in the spectrum of Hydrogen, were not “electrons.” (!)
The “electron,” as I’ve just explained above, will always present a PERFECT and SYMMETRICAL energy-shape configuration in “real time” and those “spatial coordinates” do not comply with those requirements since they are the “component pieces” of one “electron” ready to exist after the 4 (four) frames-cycle are completely over.
Allow me to give you a proof of how wrong and misleading that concept of “moving electrons from atomic orbits” could get. The following is an official description of an insulator:
“Electrical insulation is the absence of electrical conduction. Electronic band theory (a branch of physics) predicts that a charge will flow whenever there are states available into which the electrons in a material can be excited. This allows them to gain energy and thereby move through the conductor (usually a metal). If no such states are available, the material is an insulator.” Wikipedia/2007
The concept speaks of “bands” and “band-gaps” needed to “justify” the flow of “electric charges.”
As I meant to said in the very beginnings of the introduction to my theory:
“Reality was already “planned” and ready to be part of our existence, it only had to wait for light to finally be “seen.”
This is how ‘electric charges’ propagate across molecular bonds in solids. Every single atom in the “Periodic Table” will have its own “quantum orbital envelope.” The actual “size” of the envelope will depend on the “quantum harmonic number” found on both sides of the complex pattern I’ve called “Ying and Yang.” A simple ‘vector analysis’ will be sufficient to obtain the “net magnetic momentum” of the shell and its eventual effect on the “envelope.” For the case of complex molecular formulas the calculus would include the analysis of a “complex carrier structure” made by the total number of “quantum molecular envelopes” participating in the periodicity. Before I show you a quote from the Internet encyclopedia regarding some of the many “theories” involved in the “search for the truth” I’d like to discuss a point about the same subject.
Much has been already said about the properties of some metals that make them good electrical conductors. The case of Aluminum and Cooper are two among the group of good ones. Among those “physical properties” we’ve been told that having one “single electron” in the outermost shell of the atom makes them better conductors. On the other side we’ve also been told that molecular bonds between atoms are formed (no exceptions to the rule) among “electrons” orbiting the “outermost shell” -since we must assumed that lower shells have already been “occupied. -” So, the problem as I see it is the following:
Wires are made of millions of atoms of either Cooper or Aluminum, right? We must assume that those atoms had to form bonds between themselves to make out for a metal surface. Here’s my “dilemma.” If those single electrons orbiting the outermost shells of Cooper were already “involved” in the bond with other Cooper atoms… How could “they” possibly leave the molecular bond and begin flowing along the wire? They could be either inside the molecular bond or circulating across the wire, but not in two places at the same time. We have noticed that by applying a weak battery to a cooper wire we enable the metal to conduct a flow of “electric charges” [or “electrons”] in the circuit… Here’s my question:
Q/ Do you find theoretically acceptable that a voltage from a regular dry battery would have the capacity to “affect” the conditions of a chemical bond whose physical properties were so strong that forced us to call it a metal?
Q/ Would you really believe that such ridiculously weak source of energy of just few volts would be capable of “knocking off” one “electron” that had been bond to a neighboring atom without braking or showing the slightest effect on the structure of the molecular bond?
We know that the intensity of the current (amperes) will depend on the potential energy from the source (voltage), so are we implying that a “massive” exchange of “electrons” take place in every single molecular bond and we can’t detect a “thing” happening in the structure of the material?
As you can see my THEORY founds this kind of analysis extremely inaccurate.
I believe that it is the specific status of the “MOLECULAR BONDING” and the particular configuration of the “quantum orbital envelope” what defines the conditions for “electron-modulations” and an eventual “flow of electric charges” in the wire.
The following is a quote from wikipedia regarding a small number of present theories and their alleged “effectiveness”:


“Calculating band structures is an important topic in theoretical solid state physics. In addition to the models mentioned above, other models include the following:
  • <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; BACKGROUND: aqua; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">The “tight binding model” which assumes that each electron is usually associated with only one atom at a time, and treats the other atoms in the solid as perturbations. <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; BACKGROUND: aqua; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">The Kronig-penney model which depicts the atoms as barriers to electron motion, while the electrons are otherwise free and independent. While simple, it predicts many important phenomena, but is not quantitatively accurate. <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; BACKGROUND: aqua; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">Bands may also be viewed as the large-scale limit of molecular orbital theory. A solid creates a large number of closely spaced molecular orbitals, which appear as a band. <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; BACKGROUND: aqua; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt">Methods involving “Green’s function.” <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; BACKGROUND: aqua; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"> Hubbard Model [to “explain” the weird behavior of MOTT insulators].
  • Density functional theory
“The band structure has been generalized to wavevectors that are complex numbers resulting in what is called a complex band structure, which is of interest at surfaces and interfaces.
Each model describes some types of solids very well, and others poorly. The nearly-free electron model works well for metals, but poorly for non-metals. The tight binding model is extremely accurate for ionic insulators, such as metal halide salts (e.g. NaCl ).” [Wikipedia/2007]

Fig.16