Theory of Bonding Harmonics
By Miguel De ZAYAS



THE CHEMISTRY OF BONDS AND THE NATURE OF LIGHT Fig.17
When we look at any organic molecule like the one below, we believe that everything will be answered with dots and marks. We can’t imagine the complexity of mutual interactions influencing polarity, molecular angle, acidity and many important aspects of the molecule.
If we take a short look at the figure below, we will find a single structure, just like an old picture “frozen” in time. It doesn’t change; it’s alone like something “lost in a remote island” with no connections with the rest of the “world.” We don’t know whom it bonds to, how its bond may influence the compound afterwards, we just know that we had finally “linked the little dots.”
There is a total of 4 (four) related angles that each and every Carbon atoms of that big molecule is able to move to, but you can’t “see” it, because no theory shows the way to it. Hydrogen atoms also cover 4 quadrants around its axis and it will be done twice by the “time” just one photon were ready to be released from an atom. In quantum terms… almost an eternity (!).
A single bond between C and H is done in one harmonic with a value equal to the “allowed energy level” for those specific “bond-coordinates.” {See “allowed spectral lines” for references}.
A bond is the creation of a perfectly symmetrical spin pattern between two or more atoms, see “Fig. 10” for more details.
If you happen to take a closer look at the same “Fig. 10” I bet you will see an emerging “familiar pattern” as it was described by me earlier with “Quantum orbital envelopes” before. That’s right! Molecular bondings are “created on the same image-pattern” as “Quantum orbital envelopes” >>> “Standing Waves”<<<
They can be seen as small “bags” resulting from a miniature “standing wave pattern” between two atoms during their mutual coupling. The smallest axis (the “nodes”) will correspond to the energy-radius of each atom’s ½ spin vector while the bigger axis (the “anti-node”) will be represented by the sum of the two = 1 (one) electron {doubled intensity}. It is a fact that the spectrum of emission for previously absorbed energy being scattered by the “molecular bonding envelope” of Hydrogen will be the simplest or elemental “legitimate spectrum” or “backbone reference” for the rest of the spectrum observed in radiation emissions.
External energy will be “storage” first inside the “orbital envelope” to be released into those “tiny bags” I called “molecular bonding envelopes.” After a “loading cycle” inside those “molecular envelopes” energy will get sequentially released back to the vacuum according to the “spectral lines code” observed in the atoms of Hydrogen gas. What I called “legitimate spectrum” was the strict and defined set of allowed light frequencies (photon’s energy) observed in the vacuum.
Every single book about the subject known in physics as “matter and radiation interaction” speaks of “atomic spectral lines.”
I wonder if almost 2 (two) centuries ago, back in the “good old” XIX Century earlier physics experiments were done with “isolated atoms”…?
Just recently we learned that scientists were able to “handle” one atom at a time. So it is at least conceivable that those observed and properly measured spectral lines of the Hydrogen atom assumed to be coming from one single atom were instead the result of a rather “unknown orbital pattern.”
On the other hand, the “fine structure,” or red alpha lines observed in the “Zeeman effect,” was the result of the direct interaction of the magnetic flux along the (Hydrogen) “orbital envelopes” and a “modulation” caused by the presence of one “molecular bonding envelope” along the orbit.
A- “MOLECULAR BONDING ENVELOPE”
My theory “baptized” that particular pattern with the term “Molecular bonding envelope.” So far, we had an “(atomic) orbital envelope” responsible for the flow of “electric charges” and also the “storage of external incoming energy.” Now we deal with a second pattern –much smaller than the first- which is (also) “in charge” of the “making of spectral lines” and emission of radiation. My theory began to “make sense” when it could explain the true origin and nature of quanta. It is and has always been the formation of “standing waves patterns” what will eventually determine the “energy-size,” “color,” and “electric polarities” of every single emission of radiation.
“The vibrational energies of molecules, e.g., a diatomic molecule, are quantized and treated as quantum atomic oscillators. Quantum harmonic oscillators have equally spaced energy levels with separation DE = hu. So the oscillators can accept or lose energy only in discrete units of energy hu.” [Quoted from wikipedia/2007]
As you can see, what they call it “quantum atomic oscillators” are supposed to be “my molecular bonding envelopes” and the “spaced energy levels” will have a separation of DE = hu… The equation of the energy of just one photon (!)
>>> But that is not accurate. <<<
The “energy pattern” of the “molecular envelope” is not a simple harmonic oscillator but another “standing wave” pattern instead. A single oscillator will produce the single emission of one wavelength of light, while a “standing wave pattern” –given the right amount of energy from “orbital envelopes”- will scatter an entire spectrum of lines as seen with Hydrogen before.
Let’s take those “thermal phonons” as an example. If you look at a group of atoms inside a crystal or any type of solids, you’ll find that as molecular bonding arrange themselves and eventually determine the final structural configuration of the material, “(quantum) orbital envelopes” will also adopt periodical patterns. If those “empty-bags” emerging from fluctuating “inter-atomic spacing” were to be “filled” with external thermal energy, it wouldn’t be too difficult to imagine the origin of those “phonons” we’ve observed in the past.
Now, let’s see in more details more evidence of the existence of “Molecular bonding envelopes” in my next quote:
“The lowest vibrational transitions of diatomic molecules approximate the quantum harmonic oscillator and can be used to imply the bond force constants for small oscillations.” [Wikipedia/2007].



“A diatomic molecule vibrates somewhat like two masses on a spring with a potential energy that depends upon the square of the displacement from equilibrium. But the energy levels are quantized at equally spaced values.”

“…This form of the frequency is the same as that for the classical simple harmonic oscillator. The most surprising difference for the quantum case is the so-called zero-point vibration" of the n=0 ground state. This implies that molecules are not completely at rest, even at absolute zero temperature…” [Wikipedia/2007]
Two interesting points: a) the square of the displacement from the axis of “equilibrium” and b) the fact that even at “zero temperature” molecules never rest.
The argument in (a) is not exactly the case for the solution of “standing waves,” That’s why their calculations are always just “an approximation.”
The argument in (b) on the other hand clearly states that molecules -even without thermal energy around- will keep their “vibrating resonance,” just as the string of a musical instrument would do near “absolute zero temperature.” This conclusion is very important (!)
It explains that “room temperature superconductors” can and will be manufactured since the needed “phased-electron-modulation” does not depend on the temperature but in the actual configuration of the “(quantum) orbital envelopes” inside the material.
But let’s continue with our quotes:
“The quantum harmonic oscillator has implications far beyond the simple diatomic molecule. It is the foundation for the understanding of complex modes of vibration in larger molecules, the motion of atoms in a solid lattice, the theory of heat capacity, etc. In real systems, energy spacings are equal only for the lowest levels where the potential is a good approximation of the "mass on a spring" type harmonic potential. The anharmonic terms -which appear in the potential for a diatomic molecule- are useful for mapping the detailed potential of such systems.” [Wikipedia/2007]
The sequential symmetry of the “molecular bonding envelope” will “cancel out” all the energy-vectors to accomplish stability {perfect neutrality} at the conclusion of the 4th frame just as seen in “Fig. 10.” It is however the “remnant” of “unmatched energy” in the case of different atoms with different energy what will determine the final polarity of the molecule.
The graphic and description below -taken from the Internet - will describe a “sinusoidal wave instead of a classical pattern of interference between two equally energetic waves “producing a standing wave.”
“A mass on a spring will trace out a sinusoidal pattern as a function of time, as will any object vibrating in simple harmonic motion. One way to visualize this pattern is to walk in a straight line at constant speed while carrying the vibrating mass. Then the mass will trace out a sinusoidal path in space as well as time.”
This one above is not the pattern describing with accuracy the wave configuration of “molecular bonding envelopes” according to my theory. That is a wrong application of a case of “classical mechanics” to a “quantum harmonic” process… No wonder the language used in the quote… let me repeat it again:
“…The lowest vibrational transitions of diatomic molecules approximate the quantum harmonic oscillator…”
Let’s continue now with the subject of chemical bonds in my next page.
“CHEMICAL BONDS”
Every single chemical bond is inherently able to fill a 3 dimensional space. This means that one single atom is able to form bonds to other 3 (three) atoms if needed and available. The reasons why “molecular formulas” disagree (in half value) with “empirical ones” are due to the fact that the same atom will “appear” twice as many times more than the number recent theories could physically explain {Reality is 3 dimensional and molecules linked together in the same fashion}. Let’s bring back the concept of “resonance” to our discussion for a brief moment:
The theory of “Quantum mechanics” regarding chemical structures is unable to accept the picture on top, since -from the angle of their (half) reality- the whole “thing” doesn’t make any sense (?).
Let’s see their side and what they have to say:
“Resonance in chemistry is a tool used (predominantly in organic chemistry) to represent certain types of molecular structures. Resonance is a key component of valence bond theory and arises when no single conventional model using only single, double or triple bonds can account for all the observed properties of the molecule.” [wikipedia/2007].
-As you can see this is used pretty often to make sense out of a reality that we just fail to understand anymore-
Take a look at the next quote:
“This form of resonance is simply a way of representing the structure graphically. It is only a notation and does not represent a real phenomenon. Nothing "resonates". The individual resonance structures do not exist in reality: the molecule does not inter-convert between them. Instead, the molecule exists in a single unchanging state, intermediate between the resonance structures and only partially described by any one of them…” (wikipedia/2007).
To understand why no one cares to pay attention to this “odd issue”, let’s take a closer look at the end of the quote:
“What this meant is simply that the molecule behaves differently from what we expect by looking at its structure because the structure we see does not represent the actual structure of molecule. From this viewpoint, the terminology treating resonance as something that 'happens' is perhaps unfortunate historical burden.”
“When a molecule can not be represented by the standard tools of valence bond theory … because no single structure predicted by VB can account for all the properties of the molecule, one invokes the concept of resonance.(wikipedia/2007).
This is ladies and gentlemen what this was all about.
Trying to find a compromising outcome out of a missing reality. That’s the same old “ghost” that brought uncertainty and “probabilistic outcomes” to ous science (!). That was the true disagreement between an unfortunately splitted scientific community right from the beginnings of a new atomic era. Albert Einstein was forced to capitulate in its efforts to bring a theory capable of offering an answer to what we just saw happening with one “Kekule’s ring” suffering from “a real crisis of identity.” Quantum Mechanics and its “followers” were trying to compromise with experimental facts sacrificing two of our most valuable gifts given to us by the Lord:
Logic and common sense.
The eerie faces of “Kekule’s rings” were both REAL and my THEORY clearly demonstrates its rights to exist in a sophisticated analysis that comprises 4 frames of existence sequentially elapsing inside a wavelength of light. [“Fig. 13” Illustrates a “Benzene ring” in their 4 (four) frames cycle]
By applying “Bonding Harmonics” into the molecular orbital analysis of Kekule’s ring we’ll finally understand that both so-called “resonant states” of the molecule are not just real and undisputably present in its complete reality but still incomplete. In that representation is also missing the connection between the “ring” and the rest of the other rings [molecules] around it. That explains the differences between the real number of physically existent molecules in our “molecular formulas” and the partial and two dimensional approach chemically represented by “empirical formulas.”
Let’s see an example of this:
The empirical formula of hexane is C3H7. The “mass spectrum” shows that the relative molecular mass of hexane is 86. The relative mass of the empirical formula is 43. So the molecular formula is twice the empirical formula, then the molecular formula of hexane is C6H14.
We are all aware of the marvelous work of the French chemist named Antoine lavoisier (1743-1794). He proved in 1774 the validity of the law of conservation of matter and later on with the help of other French colleagues he wrote “Elements of Chemistry” (1789), the first modern textbook of chemistry.
Obviously there is no contradiction in the FACT that the “total mass” observed in “ONE FRAME OF EXISTENCE” will QUANTITATIVELY “match” the exact same amount in the other 3 (three) other FRAMES of the CYCLE.
BUT… What about the QUALITATIVE aspect of the “mass” represented by those “molecular formulas”?
I wonder how all that mass could fit in a 3 dimensional space…?
This must be pretty relevant to someone concerned with a true representation of reality… It meant a great deal to me though. It proves that what we see with the help of our own instruments [which by the way employ light or radiation energy] does not appear to fully account for what is “out there.”
No wonder this could sound a little bit puzzling to you, but taking the relatively “slow” nature of light as a “tool” of observation, I can assure you that we are completely missing a great deal of information besides a regrettable lose of “realities.”
If you take a look at “Fig 14” you’ll see my point.
We wrongly assume that those molecules stay in the same configuration we always “see” them. Remember the analogy I told you right at the beginning of this work about the film that I cut in half by the help of two scissors? No one could realize the missing frames of the movie because the speed our vision was able to “pick up” those small details was slower than the frequency those events took place.
Calculating a probabilistic and abstract “relativistic mass” won’t do any good if we leave out a vast data concerning “real time” interactions giving place to molecular angle, polarization and electrical properties.
“THE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH, THE QUANTITATIVE AND THE QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF ONE PARTICULAR REALITY COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH OF A HUMAN LIFE AS A RESULT OF IGNORED INTERACTIONS INSIDE A MEDICAL DRUG.”
It’s all connected! Allow just one inconsistency in a scientific theory and you began to undermine the rest of the theoretical fundament of human science.
One important aspect of the basic rules regarding molecular bondings is the one defining symmetry between magnetic fields. There can’t be bonds between two atoms without the achievement of a perfect magnetic symmetry at the end of the complete cycle. “MAGNETIC MONOPLES” are a flagrant violation of the “Law of Conservation of Energy.” My theory finds dangerously inaccurate the “unfortunate and popular” idea of the existence of “electrically charged particles” orbiting atomic shells. Such scenario would definetely conduct to the appearance of one magnetic field without its counterpart, “generating” -if it always moves in a single direction- either a “positive field” {right-handed} or a negative one {left-handed} but never both simulataneously in “real time.”
As you can verify in my MODEL for the atomic shells there is never a single instance where the observed neutrality of the orbits could be jeppedized by an asymmetry of any nature.
The concept of an “orbiting electron,” as it is found in most of present theories about shell configurations, violates the most sacred principle of all: “SYMMETRY.”
Remember that SYMMETRY in my theory did not “need to wait” for the conclusion of the 4 (four) frames of our analysis as it was the case with bonding, emision of radiation or “modulation of electric charges” inside “orbital envelopes.” “It was always present in “REAL TIME” and “accepted” no compromise of any kind that could endanger its existence… NONE.”
Let’s see a typical example of “science going wild.”
- DIAMONDS WITH SINGLE MOLECULAR BONDS? I DON’T THINK SO!
Have you ever heard someone saying? “Diamonds are forever.”
Not too fast “amigo.” According to either the molecular or the empirical formula of diamonds they should be as fragile as the point of your pencil made of graphite.
You see… The bond between all of the Carbon atoms inside the crystalline structure of the stone was conceived being strictly made by “single bonds;” just as the point of your pencil was. Can’t believe it? Check it out for yourselves inside chemistry literature.


The “logic” behind single bonds between carbons (covalent bond) in the expensive crystal comes from the limited availability of “electrons” able to form bonds with other atoms. I can’t say that I don’t see their point but their analysis is entirely based on a model that is all but accurate.
Who could say –without being tagged as a “dreamer”- that a single atom of C (carbon) could “double-bond” with 4 (four) other atoms of its kind without violating any rules? According to present orthodox theories (alleged) “electrons” don’t grow on trees.” Meaning that for a carbon atom four is the “limit” for a “molecular bond” any attempts to say otherwise would be like “pulling out” rabbits from a magician’s hat.”
I guess I do. I don’t have a “hat” since all you need is good theory to fundament your statement so here it goes:
By looking at “Fig. 9” corresponding to atoms of the group 4 in the “periodic table” you can see how “the magic act” will takes place.
As 4 (four) Carbon atoms form couplings at high-energy harmonic levels* on both sides [“Ying” and “Yang”] of a “backbone” or “reference carbon” a perfect symmetrical configuration will emerge.
*A high energy level will correspond in this particular case to the “P” energy level of the Hydrogen spectrum. [“L”= 1].
Needless to say that due to the angle between both “double-bonds” formed between “our backbone” and other four carbons we’ll guarantee the 3 dimensional nature of the stone at the conclusion of all 4 frames.
The picture below was shown to represent an alleged geometrical shape assigned to justify the amazing strength of the diamond crystal.
Remember that in every single case of “molecular bonding” both atoms will couple always with opposite “chirality.” (!) [See “Fig- 14” for chiral references].
But… What is the difference between a “single bond,” a “double bond” or a triple bond after all?
In my MODEL, a “BOND” is a “molecular bonding” between the (2) two ½ spins (vectors) of each atom participant in a bond, coupling themselves at the “bond coordinates.”
A “double bond” will correspond to a coupling between 2 (two) high-energy harmonics x l = 1 or “P level” [“principal”] –like the ones observed between two carbon atoms.
A “single bond”- or a low-energy harmonic >>> l=0 “S” level –usually occurs between one carbon and one hydrogen, just to provide you with a very common example in organic chemistry.
Are 2 (two) atoms capable of (simultaneously) forming “paired bonds” between “P” and “S” vectors? IMPOSSIBLE!
I’ve said earlier that, due to an “spatial precession angle” between those two energy levels in atomic shells, each axis will “own” a particular “alignment” excluding one another by ways of symmetry. Besides, in order to establish a “standing waves type configuration” between two vectors, an “axial alignment of converging waves” will always be a required condition. If [according to my MODEL] “S” and “P” axes were in fact localized in different axial angles, the present definition of “double bonds” would end up being in essence inaccurate.
So, next time you plan to buy a diamond ring make sure it had a “double bond” instead a “single one” between carbons…
“Diamonds –indeed- are forever.”
“HUND’S RULES VIOLATION”
The figure below (extracted from the “Internet Encyclopedia”) is probably not the first but the most popular recognized case of a serious violation regarding a set of rules presently accepted and theoretically fundamented by “Quantum Mechanics.”
5-Dehydro-m-xylylene


“Known as 5-dehydro-1,3-quinodimethane or DMX, is an organic aromatic triradical and the first known organic molecule to violate Hund’s Rule. Its electronic ground state is an " open shell doublet" rather than a quartet; that is, it contains three low-spin coupled unpaired electrons in three singly occupied molecular orbitals”. (wikipedia/2007)
Just as the case with “Kekule’s rings” before, we find a similar case of “resonance” with an interesting conclusion. The molecule is entirely “legitimate” according to my THEORY and I found not a single contradiction concerning its “incomprehensible” configuration.
The solution for the “enigma” lies in the fact that what it is considered to be “one electron” is nothing more than a “point of coordinates” conditioned by the (harmonic) spin and (Ying and Yang pattern) orbital interaction. A vector solution of the corresponding energies in 4 (four) frames will provide us with the answers we seek. Don’t forget to “cancel out” those vectors of equal value projected in the same “spatial axes” since the analysis must include the whole molecule. (!)
“Besides bond polarity, the other factor that decides if a molecule is polar is the molecule's symmetry. Even if a compound contains only polar bonds, it may be non-polar overall as the direction of the polarities cancel each other out, giving the molecule a net polarity of zero. This occurs in boron trifluoride, which contains three identical polar bonds all canceling each other out due to their symmetrical arrangement.trigonal planar, tetrahedral and linear bonding arrangements often lead to symmetrical, non-polar molecules which contain polar bonds. On the other hand, even if a compound contains only non-polar bonds, it may be polar overall if it is a non-symmetric shape; for example, all the bonds in ozone are non-polar (between atoms of the same element), but the ozone molecule is nevertheless polar, because of its bent shape and the resulting asymmetry in electron distribution.” (wikipedia/2007)
Without a comprehensive 4 (four) frames vector analysis of the symmetry observed in my MODEL for the electronic configuration of the atomic shells this and many more “puzzling mysteries” will remain hidden in the “DARK” along with many other “open questions” found today in theoretical physics.

Fig.14

Fig.17