This chapter will describe the origin, structure and behavior of MAGNETIC FIELDS in atomic orbits and molecules alike.
If you search for information about the origin of the so-called MAGNETIC FIELD this is what you (most probably) will find:
“Electrons and many nuclei also have intrinsic magnetic moments, an explanation of which requires a quantum mechanical treatment and relates to the intrinsic angular momentum of the particles…is these intrinsic magnetic moments that give rise to the macroscopic effects of magnetism, and other phenomena, such as nuclear magnetic resonance.” [Wikipedia 2007]
That statement is inaccurate according to my THEORY.
The so-called MAGNETIC FIELD observed in atomic shells finds it origin as a direct consequence of the presence of those “Orbital envelopes” discussed in the chapter titled “quantum orbital envelopes.”
The alleged “macroscopic effects” interpreted as MAGNETISM is always the result of a crystal wise orientation of “(quantum) orbital envelopes” alone.
If you look at any of my diagrams where I represented the “orbital momentum” in its 4 (four) “temporal frames” within one complete CYCLE, the highest values of the FIELD will always correspond to the highest values for the “Orbital C-Tremolo.” Those points, aligned with the “Y axes” in the particular case of my diagrams, will enjoy of a point-instantaneous “real time” status of “HANDEDLESS.” It is at these maximum values of the field that both the “Ying” and the “Yang” patterns of the “orbital momentum” will coincide in a 3 dimensional point in space.
A typical observation of this “pins” along the MAGNETIC FIELD has been confirmed in particular interactions between MAGNETS and SUPERCONDUCTING MATERIALS.
My theory demonstrates that those “pins” or ‘field-vectors’, representing the net MAGNETIC MOMENTUM of atomic “orbital envelopes”, CAN’T HAVE ANY SORT OF “CHYRALITY.”
The SYMMETRICAL ORBITAL PATTERN, on which my theory has been entirely built upon, cancels out all the “inherent harmonic magnetic momenta” [spins] along the “orbital momentum.” The only 2 (two) dimensional “points” ‘left untouched’ by the ORBITAL SYMMETRY are those located on the ‘Y” axes; the true source of the MAGNETIC FIELD.
Also derived from the actual TIMING during the sequential formation of “orbital envelopes,” we can conclude that, even though both “tremolos” (representing the inherent POLARITY of both “magnetic poles”) are identical in ENERGY and geometrically SYMMETRICAL, their existence is separated in TIME according to a sequential order of “FRAMES.”
Considering the “top quadrant” of the “Y axis” as the conventional location for “NORTH POLES” and the “bottom quadrant” the one for “SOUTH POLES” respectively:
a) We can easily learn that the “NORTH POLE” will be present at the conclusion of the 2nd frame, while the “SOUTH POLE” will follow by the conclusion of the 4th frame of one CYCLE.
b) Complete [Shell wise] NEUTRALITY will always be achieved at the end of the 4 (four) frames CYCLE.
a) Given the exact same (even) number of harmonics on both sides of the SHELL the NET MAGNETIC MOMENTUM of the orbit will result in ZERO value.
The conclusion described in [c] will refer ONLY to the specific case of ATOMIC NUCLEI containing an “EVEN NUMBER” of “nucleons” for one “Energy Level.”
WHY?
Because I’ve explained before that any atomic configuration, regardless the number of HARMONICS present in the orbit, will always be “projected” in 3 (three) dimensional space; Axes “x”, “y” and “z” respectively.
ONLY after a “SYMMETRICAL VECTOR CANCELLATION” of all 4 (four) ‘dimensional projections’ –frames of existence- of the total of vectors representing “ONE ENERGY LEVEL” the MAGNETIC MOMENTUM should be considered [“Atom wise”] NEUTRAL {zero].
A similar example was previously mentioned concerning the emission [scattering] of one “free electron” from MATTER after being exposed to high energy radiation [see “Photoelectric Effect” for references].
It was only when the energy absorbed was equivalent to the ‘net energy capacity’ of all 4 (four) “molecular bonding envelopes” within one ‘ABSORPTION CYCLE’ that the “combined oscillation capacity” located in those molecular bonds will “produce” one “free electron” ready-to-go at the end of the ‘EMISSION CYCLE.’
Since most of the time we refer as MAGNETIC FIELDS we (intuitively) imply the same “macroscopic” pattern observed in MAGNETS, what we actually imply is a “vector average” of the net field and not a “frame-by-frame” sequence elapsing in individual “atomic envelopes.”
We know that ONE CYCLE will always elapse in equal TIME for all orbits [“c”].
We also know {derived from my MODEL} that the inclusion of harmonics will influence the “size” of the “Orbital envelope” and therefore the actual number of “energy levels” available for energy absorption. It shouldn’t be hard to see that in certain “Isotopes”, where the inclusion of neutrons will introduce a change in the “quantum harmonic number,” will also CAUSE a “substantial change” in the 3 (three) dimensional configuration in a complete analysis of the vectors representing the Cycle’s ORBITAL MAGNETIC MOMENTUM.
Do not mistake “net orbital momentum” with “shell’s neutrality” (!)
No matter the number of harmonics present in an orbit, the symmetrical configuration of the shells –discussed in “Ying and Yang” part- will always guarantee a “real time” neutrality to any atom regardless its “size.”
The term ‘MOLECULAR POLARITY’ refers to the 3 (three) dimensional VECTOR ANALYSIS of the shell’s NET magnetic momenta at the conclusion of the 4 (four) frames CYCLE.
One of the most spectacular applications of this phenomenon is the construction of instruments that enable us to determine the structure and configuration of molecules in a chemical medium.
So far, I’ve discussed the relationship between the flow of “electric charges” across conductive materials and its corresponding effect that could be translated into a “time-sequential” establishment of two opposite magnetic poles on both sides of the “Y” axes.
In that specific case of interaction above mentioned, the analysis always referred to a type of process that included (exclusively) a “transfer of charges” along a NET of “Orbital envelopes” [BAND] and its “frame-by-frame” vector analysis at the location where their highest values were concentrated; the “orbital C-tremolos.”
To understand the origin of the ATTRACTION commonly observed between a MAGNET and a conductive material or the similar case between two MAGNETS facing opposite magnetic poles, we must refer to a concept I mentioned 2 (two) years ago now in my book titled “Warning! Scientific Discretion Advised.” –My horrible book of fiction.
This is quoting what I said then:
“…Magnetic attraction occurs by the “trading of space for temporal symmetry…”
SYMMETRY is not just a “cosmetic shape in the configuration of two or more systems” but the true ORIGIN of what we understand as a FORCE.
If we take a look at my diagrams you’d realized that, if for some reason a perfect SYMMETRY can’t be reached at the conclusion of one complete CYCLE, the quantum process never occurs. The implications extends from the “modulation” of ‘electric charges’ during the scanning inside the “orbital momentum”, the ‘time-sequential’ formation of two opposite magnetic poles [north and south], the stability of molecular bonds in chemical compounds up to the symmetry of the emission of radiation from matter.
The closest SYMMETRY gets to the “IDEAL” configuration, the stronger its corresponding FORCE will projects itself upon other systems.
What would be (theoretically speaking of course) that “IDEAL” symmetrical configuration?
TEMPORAL SYMMETRY! The “real time” symmetry: “Ying and Yang.”
Let’s analyze the process of the formation of chemical bonds as seen from those “molecular bonding envelopes” and see how many times that ‘perfect’ symmetry was actually reached.
By looking at “Fig 10” we may conclude that even though we obtain complete symmetry of vector analysis at the end of one complete CYCLE, the mutual interaction of ½ spin vectors contributed by each coupling atom will “carry their own ‘chirality’ [“handedness”].
Except for the 2 (two) spatial points or highest “orbital C-tremolos” (where the bonding energy equals that of one “electron”) the rest of the interaction missed the state of “IDEAL SYMMETRY.”
Now… Let’s apply this “temporal symmetrical principle” to the particular case when a conductive material and a MAGNET get close enough to each other to “feel” an attractive FORCE.
Regardless which magnetic pole the MAGNET would approach the material, there will always be a ‘magnetic vector’ (magnetic potential projected from the MAGNET) present in “sequential frames.” As the aligned “orbital magnetic envelopes” [from the material] begin to establish a “phased interaction” with those ‘magnetic vectors’ in TIME, a “SINGLE FRAME SYMMETRY” or a half-ideal-symmetry will be timely produced. As I described earlier in the section concerning the nature of the MAGNETIC FIELD, North poles “use” 2 (two) frames of existence to materialize their existence, while their “mirrors” -south poles- will do the same concluding the complete CYCLE.
This means that for those (coincidentally) aligned “orbital envelopes” belonging to atoms of the material there always be 2 (two) “idle frames” [in time] where either magnetic momentum will exist. If that “emptiness” was to be replaced by the potential energy projected by the field of the MAGNET, an “ideal symmetry” would be reached in JUST 2 (two) frames (half cycle).
As the magnetic attraction gets bigger and the resulting FORCE increases proportionally to the square of the distance between them, more and more atoms are included into the process, increasing the FORCE exponentially with the increase of SYMMETRY.
The same process applies to the case where 2 (two) magnets interact while facing opposite magnetic poles. Understandably, the resulting FORCE must be higher due to the presence of a previous alignment inside the atomic structure of the MAGNETS.
If 2 (two) magnets faced each other with equal magnetic poles however, both “potential vectors” projected in space would coincide in TIME in a synchronized pattern of mutual interaction producing a FORCE with opposite effects: REPELLING FORCE.
ATTENTION!
Due to the ABSENCE OF CRIRALITY of opposite and equal energy vectors along the interaction, an eventual occupation of the SAME SPACE in the SAME TIME is forbidden. That’s why equal magnetic poles repel each other.
If –according to present theories- MAGNETIC FIELDS were the alleged “macroscopic projection” of the hypothetical alignment of “½ spin electrons” along atomic orbits, REALITY would have been precisely the exact OPPOSITE (!)
EQUAL magnetic poles would “feel” attracted to each other while OPPOSITE magnetic poles would REPEL each other with equal strength.
That’s NOT what we observe and I suppose you’d also agree with me on this.
A typical example of two equal and opposite handed vectors interacting in 3 dimensional space constitutes the “theoretical basis” of what we know as “STANDING WAVES.” Waves actually “melt” each other in one place during the INTERFERENCE, but the only reason that provides a guarantee for that process to occur is the fact that complete SYMMETRY is always reached at the end of the 4 (four) frames CYCLE.
The following are quoted fragments from the “Internet Encyclopedia” [Wikipedia]:
“Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a physical phenomenon based upon the quantum mechanical magnetic properties of an atom’s nucleus. All nuclei that contain odd numbers of protons or neutrons have an intrinsic magnetic momentum and angular momentum.The most commonly measured nuclei are hydrogen-1 (the most receptive isotope at natural abundance) and carbon-13, although nuclei from isotopes of many other elements can also be observed. NMR studies magnetic nuclei by aligning them with a very powerful external magnetic field and perturbing this alignment using an electromagnetic field. The resulting response to the external perturbing electromagnetic magnetic is the phenomenon that is exploited in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging.” [Wikipedia 2007]
There are a wide variety of different techniques of NMR that bare no particular interest as part of the theoretical scope of this work, however I’ll concentrate my attention in a single one, specifically relevant as a clear evidence in the understanding of my theory. A few others will be summarily mentioned.
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY

“The use of pulses of different shapes, frequencies and durations in specifically-designed patterns or pulse sequences allows the spectroscopist to extract many different types of information about the molecule.
Multi-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy is a kind of FT*-NMR in which there are at least two pulses and, as the experiment is repeated, the pulse sequence is varied. In multidimensional nuclear magnetic resonance there will be a sequence of pulses and, at least, one variable time period. In three dimensions, two time sequences will be varied. In four dimensions, three will be varied.”
*Fourrier Transform.
(Let’s “pause” on the quote for a moment)

Q/ In 4 (four) dimensions?

Q/ Why would be needed a “sequence of pulses” with (at least) one variable time period?

A/ BECAUSE that’s the only possible WAY to “LIGHT UP” those “dark zones” implied in my THEORY “hidden” inside each of the 4 (four) frames of existence. (See “Fig. 14” of my theory [“Bonding Harmonics”] for complete details).

If they had kept an equal time-period between pulses they would have “looked” at the same “FRAME OF EXISTENCE” over and over again every 2 (two) complete CYCLES.
When they referred to 4 (four) dimensions they weren’t referring to Einstein’s dimensional attibutes to (some sort of relativistic) TIME, but to a set of 4 (four) dimensional projections of molecular bonds in a 3 (three) dimensional space within ONE COMPLETE CYCLE. >>> The CORE of my MODEL<<< (!)

Let’s resume now the current quotation:

“…Interactions that can be detected are usually classified into two kinds. There are through-bond interactions and through-space interactions*. The latter usually being a consequence of the nuclear Overhauser effect. Experiments of the nuclear-Overhauser variety may establish distances between atoms.
Richard Ernst and Kurt Wüthrich—in addition to many others—developed 2-dimensional and multidimensional FT-NMR into a powerful technique for studying biochemistry, in particular for the determination of the structure of biopolymers such as proteins or even small nucleic acids.
This is used in protein nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry. Wüthrich shared the 2002 Nobel prize in chemistry for this work.” [Wikipedia 2007]

Congratulations gentlemen! An amazing achievement in spite of an inaccurate theoretical framework…
·Those interactions that the quote above referred as ones that “can be detected” are: “Inter atomic-spacing interactions” [through-space interactions] as the result of “overlapping” between 2 (two) atom’s “(quantum) orbital envelopes.”
·“Through-bond interactions,” concerning the actual interaction between ½ spin harmonics participants in the bond (“Molecular bonding envelopes”).
As you can obviously see, “multi-dimensional NMR” has provided us with the ‘magic recipe’ needed to “by-pass” those existent “speed limitations” suffered by light as an unreliable tool of observation.
BUT even with the help from a truly ‘state-of-the-art spectrometry,’ the molecule of BENZENE continues to defy every single THEORY used to describe its final representation. As I’ve previously interpreted from a quote, when “MOLECULAR RESONANCE” can’t be explained neither by “Valence Bond Theory” nor by “Molecular Orbital Theory” the term “RESONANCE” acquired the status of an irreplaceable “life saver” to those “seeking a true meaning” hidden in its controversial but obvious REALITY.

A BEAUTIFUL SCIENTIFIC PARADOX … “MAGNETIC RESONANCE” WARNED us about the “parallel realities” of ‘Kekule’s Rings’ (A “chemical resonance” happening to every single molecule in the universe besides the popular ring of BENZENE) and we chose to call it “…a burden in scientific literature…” affirming with equal authority that “… Nothing resonates…” Not before ending our conclusions by quietly admitting that “… when nothing else works, we must resort to RESONANCE for HELP…”
Have you realized yet why we could see the same molecule of BENZENE in 2 (two) different configurations while not the others?
My MODEL explains it very clearly. During the first “Half-Cycle” of the “orbital momentum” a carbon atom will form “one single and one double bonds” with one of the carbon atoms of “type A” of “ring configuration” through a “left-handed” ‘single bond’ and a “right-handed double bond respectively.” In the second “Half-Cycle” of the “orbital momentum” the same carbon atom will bond with another carbon atom of the configuration “type B” in exactly the opposite way, meaning with a “right-handed” ‘single bond’ and a “left-handed” ‘double bond.’
All 4 (four) interactions elapsing within one wavelength of light.
In most molecules, bonds are formed in the same energy level (polar or not) “passing inadvertently ” as one single type of molecular configuration. Either “single bonds”, “double bonds” or “triple bonds” but never a combination of them as it is in the particular case with carbon atoms inside the “RING.”
Many of you know the “details” regarding the “theoretical baggage” offered to provide with a “plausible explanation” to the marvelous results obtained in the field of experimental physics.
I’ve chosen [as it has become almost a routine] an illustrative paragraph from “Wikipedia” in which we “deal” with an orbiting and electrically charged “negative particles” going by the name of “electrons.”
“Theory of nuclear magnetic resonance”

Nuclear spin and magnets

“Electrons, neutrons and protons, the three particles which constitute an atom, have an intrinsic property called spin. This spin is defined by the fourth quantum number for any given wave function obtained by solving the relativistic form of the Schrödinger equation (SE). It represents a general property of particles which scientists often describe using the language of electron quantum mechanics. Electrons flowing around a coil generate a magnetic field in a given direction; this property is what makes electric motors work. In much the same way, atomic electrons circulate around the nucleus, generating a magnetic field. This generated field has an angular momentum associated with it, in addition to the angular momentum associated with electron particles themselves. This internal angular momentum is denoted 'spin' and gives rise to the spin quantum number, ms.
Spin angular momentum is quantized, and can take different integer or half-integer values for a given system. Single electrons can have spin values of +½ or -½. Since the Pauli principle states that no two fermions can have the same quantum number, only two electrons - with their spins aligned antiparallel - can appear in a single atomic orbital.
Similarly, protons and neutrons have a spin angular momentum, which can take values of + ½ and –½. In the atomic nucleus, protons can pair with other antiparallel protons much in the same way that electrons pair in a chemical bond. Neutrons do the same. Paired particles have a net spin of zero "0" but a nucleus with unpaired protons and neutrons will have a non-zero overall spin, with the number unpaired contributing ½ to the overall nuclear spin quantum number, I. When this is nonzero, a nucleus will have a spin angular momentum and an associated magnetic moment, dependent on the direction of the spin. It is this magnetic moment that we manipulate in modern NMR experiments.”
“It is worth noting here that nuclei can have more than one unpaired proton and one unpaired neutron, much in the same way that electronic structures in transition metals.” [Wikipedia 2007]
The reason I increased the size of the words in that particular statement is pretty obvious by now:
- It seems that the “logic” behind the presence of a magnetic field as a result of the flow of “electric charges” in wires [energy modulated by the “CARRIER” or “(Quantum) orbital envelopes” in my theory] had been “literally” applied to explain the orbital angular momentum in atomic shells. (I’ll get back to the true mechanism behind the interaction of magnetism-electricity later on).
- According to the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES in which my THEORY rests, “NO FRACTIONAL SPIN PARTICLE” IS ALLOWED TO EXIST OUTSIDE ATOMIC SHELLS. “Electric charges” and “scattered free electrons” from matter have both “SPIN ZERO.” Photons on the other hand, have SPIN 1 (ONE). The quote shown above speaks of “paired electrons” in shell’s orbits having “spin zero.” Neutrality inside the shells is never reached in that way. HARMONICS do present ½ spins and they keep it all the time. It is a SYMMETRICALLY structured pattern [“Ying and Yang”] what keeps those spins canceling in “real time” along the CYCLE.
- “MONOPOLES” are forbidden by the “Universal Law of Symmetry” and consequently by the “Law of Conservation of Energy.”
- A “hypothetical charged particle” orbiting a shell –as an “electron”, a “proton” or a “neutron- would create –hypothetically speaking of course- a “single handed magnetic field” in space (known as a “monopole”) also forbidden by SYMMETRY.
- The concept, behind ½ spins energy vectors, refer to the actual “rotational pattern” observed by HARMONICS on both sides of the “Ying and Yang” type of “Orbital Momentum,” elapsing in a 4 (four) frame CYCLE and responsible for the formation of “molecular bonding.”
- “Particles” [in general] DO NOT ‘spin’ in orbits around atomic shells, molecular bonds are formed at specific “spatial coordinates” determined by the angle and energy content of coupling HARMONICS involved in the bond.
Another fragment I found relevant in offering what I consider to be a “distorted” picture of our REALITY can be found below:
“In Chemistry, polarity, or bond polarity, is caused by two different atoms in a molecule having different electronegativities. As a result, the electrons in the bond are not shared equally by the two atoms. Molecular covalent bonds can be described as polar or nonpolar. Entire molecules can also be described as polar…” [Wikipedia 2007].
The quote specify the concept of bonds as the “sharing” of ‘electrons’ or what’s the same “electrically negative charged particles” between two atoms in a molecule.
What we saw during the so-called “Zeeman Effect” was the same process (this time) applied to the atomic nuclei. When an external magnetic field is placed upon each atom’s “(quantum) orbital envelope” it will prevent (external) ENERGY from “folding” inside the ‘energy-levels’ determined by the number of HARMONICS integrating both sides of the orbit [“Orbital envelopes”]
The further application of an “electromagnetic field” upon the atoms of the molecule will actually “replace” the [otherwise] naturally occurring “unfolding” process of (external) ENERGY into “molecular bonding envelopes” >>>molecular bonds<<<
“Bypassing” the previous “supply of energy” from “Nucleon’s orbital envelopes” into “Nuclear bonding envelopes” employing potent magnets will provide spectroscopists with a needed “window of opportunity” to study the spectrum produced by the absorption of electromagnetic pulses inside “neutronic- and/or protonic bonding envelopes.”
The presence of strong magnetic fields acting upon molecules will “deactivate” the atom’s overall NEUTRALITY imposed by the SYMMETRY found on “Ying and Yang” orbital patterns. If an “active isotope” presenting an ODD pattern of “nucleon harmonics” on both sides of the orbit, would be exposed to a pulse ‘compatible’ with the known “level’s degeneracy of one ‘energy level’ built inside the “envelope,” a detectable magnetic momentum will arise from the actual bond.
The following quote will give us a clear definition of the process:
“If the symmetry is broken by a perturbation, such as applying an external electric field, this can change the energies of the states, causing energy level splitting.”[Wikipedia 2007]

That’s exactly what had happened. The application of a magnetic field will prevent energy from “folding” inside the ‘Nucleon’s orbital envelopes’ allowing ODD patterns found in “isotopes” to repeat the same process explained during the discussion in “the modulation of electric charges” inside ‘CARRIERS’ [See “True carriers of “electrical charges”].
My theory considers “electronic shells” as SPATIAL PROJECTIONS of a similar and repetitive PATTERN of “interacting vibrations” across a multi-layer atomic structure. If we accepted that assumption as a fact, it would explain why a “current” could be induced as a result of a “perturbation” produced by pulses absorbed and later scattered from “nuclear bonding envelopes” as in the case of FT NMR.
“…FT-NMR works by irradiating the sample, held in a static external magnetic field, with a short square pulse of radiofrequency energy containing all the frequencies in the range of interest because the fourier decomposition of an approximate square wave contains contributions from all the frequencies in the neighborhood of the principle frequency.
When exposed to this radiofrequency energy the polarized nuclear magnets of the nuclei begin to precess together, creating an oscillation of the surrounding magnetic field that is observable because it will induce current in a nearby coil of conductive material. However, when the radiofrequency energy is removed, the precessions decay to the equilibrium state in the magnet of having a net polarization vector that aligns with the field…” [Wikipedia 2007]
Crystal clear! Let’s asign each component of the process above mentioned with their right “designations.”
First of all let’s talk about TIME. Our “source” (in this case) a “radiofrequency energy wave” will always have a “gap” corresponding to one complete CYCLE due to the already discussed lapse during the regular process of emission and absorption of light.
That “radiofrequency energy” exposed on atomic nuclei was the “external energy” allowed to “fold into” one specific HARMONIC inside “orbital envelopes.” In this particular case working with “isotopes” (showing an ODD number of HARMONICS in their orbits) the SYMMETRY present in the “orbital momentum” [“Ying and Yang” pattern] will keep an strict overall NEUTRALITY among “EVEN NUMBER OF HARMONICS.” However, due to the different “dimensional alignement” of the ODD HARMONIC found in the orbits of “active isotopes,” “radiofrequency energy” manages to “fold” inside it to begin its “energy transfer” on the next CYCLE: into the “(molecular) bonding envelopes.”
Once “nuclear bonding envelopes” have been activated by the “rich frequency spectrum” of “our pulses,” flactuations of the resulting magnetic field, produced inside their “standing waves” patterns, will induce current in a nearby coil.
“Continuous wave (CW) spectroscopy”
“Throughout its first few decades, nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers utilized a technique known as continuous-wave (CW) spectroscopy. This technique may be implemented in two different manners: either the magnetic field is kept constant and the oscillating electromagnetic field is swept in frequency to chart the resonant frequencies of the nuclei present or, more frequently, the oscillating field is held at a fixed frequency and the magnetic field swept through the frequency range to be measured.
CW spectroscopy is limited in that it probes each frequency individually, in succession. This has unfortunate consequences as the underlying magnetic resonance phenomenon is intrinsically insensitive and therefore the observed spectra suffer from a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Fortunately the observed signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) can be improved by signal averaging. Signal averaging is a method where the signals from many successive spectra are added together. The noise, which is random in character, tends to cancel itself out while the actual signal is constant and additive as described by the central limit theorem. Signal averaging increases S/N by the square-root of the number of spectra measured.” [Wikipedia 2007].
A continuous wave (CW) would be facing disadvantages with respect to a REALITY that elapses 4 (four) times FASTER than the actual oscillation trusted to “measure it.” Adding together “many successive spectra” would take care of the “inconsistencies” caused by an unfortunate ‘delay’ improving the alleged S/N ratio too.
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MAGNETIC FIELD AND THE FLOW OF “ELECTRIC CHARGES” IN CONDUCTIVE MATERIALS.
When an “electric charge,” previously “produced” inside a modulation process inside “(quantum) orbital envelopes” [CARRIERS] moves along wires or any type of conducting solids, it will “use” one complete CYCLE to “fold” into the next atom’s “orbital envelope” activating the next CARRIER in line.
It is precisely DURING THIS ABSORPTION CYCLE that the “hosting atom’s orbit” will REFLECT -in surrounding space- a “field” that will correspond (exactly) with the input energy of the “flowing electric charge.” We already know that those bond coordinates were a direct result of the SHELL’S INTRINSIC VIBRATION or RESONANCE [“orbital tremolo”].
Therefore MAGNETIC FIELDS are nothing but a “synchronized process of absorption” of one “electric charge” inside an atom’s “orbital envelope” having an ODD number of HARMONICS.”
Since we know that electrical conduction will always depend on a symmetrical bonding pattern between two neighboring atoms having an ODD number of HARMONICS, the incoming “electric charge” will “sequentially fold” its energy (“one electron”) accordingly.
An ODD number of HARMONICS will guarantee a resulting MAGNETIC MOMENTUM along a specific “dimensional axis,” as it allowed external energy to sequentially occupy the energy-capacity existent in those ODD HARMONICS as the 4 (four) frames CYCLE elapses.
The inverse process is obvious. The application of a changing MAGNETIC FIELD on atom’s orbital envelopes (with an ODD number of HARMONICS in their orbits) will produce a MAGNETIC ASYMMETRY that it will be PROPORTIONAL to the WORK employed changing the strength of the applied field.
By moving a magnet along a conducting material (wire), new atoms in the number of millions will “project” a net ASYMMETRY inside their “orbital envelopes” that will eventually result in the “modulation” of “electric charges” in a direct proportional magnitude to the work applied to change the field.
As you may see, my MODEL does not include any references regarding alleged “valence electrons” practically “jumping” from their lower orbits into “conduction bands” assumed to be on higher levels. Also there is NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between those “spatial coordinates” reserved for molecular bonds and “electrical charges” moving across crystal or solids. We’ve seen how doped atoms, inside silicon wafers [Gallium, aluminum or Arsenic among many others] -having formed no bonds with other atoms in the crystal- will enable those atom’s “orbital envelopes” to produce (read modulate) one “electric charge.” A properly designed configuration of a NET of CARRIERS [BAND] will establish a steady density flow of energy as the “orbital momentum” resumes its ‘scanning’ along an ODD number of HARMONICS.
As for the “Ying and Yang” symmetry enough to say that, without its roll in the orbits, formation of bonds between atoms would be literally IMPOSSIBLE.
The specific angle, strength and spin of the coupling-vectors representing chemical bonds -in all 4 dimensional projections- are conditioned by the “orbital tremolo effect”, the number of harmonics in the orbit, and the formation of the “orbital envelope.”
NON OF THOSE mentioned above would actually existed without the unconditional presence of SYMMETRY brought to “life” by the “YING and YANG” pattern.

ONE LAST WORD FROM THE AUTHOR
“… Just how real were those holes moving across the lattices of semiconducting materials, how true the orthodox model of the atom stands reality, how absurd the assumption of an empty vacuum could be, or even virtual the “wave function” may seems, is all inside an innocent child story. Needless to say that, any coincidence with real persons or present events are the results of pure coincidence.
Rumor has it, there once lived an emperor, who cared more for beautiful clothes that his own people, allegedly spending great amount of time changing them on front of a mirror.
One day a weaver with a “hidden agenda” promised his majesty to make a beautiful magic cloth, only visible to the really smart. What’s the point? Well, those subjects incapable of admiring his new cloth were nothing more than dumb and not welcome to stay in his kingdom. The perspective of being able to judge how people stand according to his new possession presented itself very appealing to the emperor, so he accepted the challenge. The so-called magic cloth turned out to be a myth hard to overcome even to the Ruler himself; the marvelous cloth wasn’t even real. The day of the procession arrived and with it, the chance of trying a garment as solid as his own motives. The villagers, aware of the test at hand, were not willing to admit that they couldn’t see anything on the king, since it would have been the same as being considered stupid and intellectually impaired. Then, among the crowd stunt by the impact of almost a miracle, a little boy dared shouting the following words: -“But he doesn’t have anything on!”
Silence swept throughout the presents. Immediately after, the kid’s father concord with the child’s remarks on the emperor’s distasteful display of royal nudism without any sort of consideration for his subjects, which was followed by an increased rejection by the angry crowd.
-“He has nothing on him! Cried everyone on both sides of the procession lines. Upon the realization that what the crowd was claiming was based on strict common sense, the truth and nothing but the truth, he felt deeply embarrassed by his own acts… but he was the emperor and it was too late to undo the damage to his crown.
He held his head high and kept with the ceremony as if nothing had happened at all. The royal servants followed him, while still holding the train that never actually existed and blindly showing fidelity to something, not even they, were able to see.” (Quoted from the book “Warning! Scientific Discretion Advised” page 139, author Miguel A De Zayas)


Miguel A De Zayas
Author of the theory of “BONDING HARMONICS”