"theory Of Bonding Harmonics"

[humanbydefault]

I'm working in my theory for the last months and that's the reason I haven't been able to log-in here for a while.

As some of you may realize, especially those who have honored me by reading and commenting about some of my posts in the past, some fundamnental principles have been kept in their original conceptual physical format. Others more -recently developed- have been represented in graphics and theoretical discussions along the page.

The mathematics are in progress thanks to a graduate student willing to help me in this effort as we speak...

The page is at:

www.theory-of-bonding-harmonics.com

I hope you find my theory worthy of your attention and consideration.

Your friend

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

HBD,welcome back,looks very interesting indeed,there will be more following no doubt.

regards michael.

[dleviwing]

It’s looking real good Miguel.
I detect some ToeQuester influence in your web page writings. I also see you have comprehended the dynamics of the wave mechanics as they relates to bonding.

Keep up the good work and I hope you succeed.

[humanbydefault]

Both of you are very welcome!

Yes, David, It has been a long way from the very first days I thought that science could be in some way "impossed" to others without evidences and arguments... It took me a long time to find the right conexion between "TIME" and "MATTER" in a way that physics could also help to explain what's missing in at the heart of chemistry.

To be honest with both of you.... It was just like a miracle.

I was afraid that people would start looking at the symbol of "Ying and Yang" and began to imagine: -"Here is another foul with more metaphysics..."
David, I found that is that ancient symbol what represents SYMMETRY and everything it stands for. I simply included [I believe for the very first time in a serious theory] their holistic meannings and their nature of equal symmetry on both sides to describe atomic and nuclear shells as well.

I've received once a very stimulant evaluation from a scientist whose name I prefer to keep in the anonimate for obvious reasons, This person is a chinese origin physicist who had been awarded many times in China and the U.S.A. for his work in different fileds.
I never thought that a person with those credentials would spend time in reading a theory without any equations to justify its arguments, but he did and his kind words were more than enough to me.

I'm very optimist that this time who knows... perhaps something good could come out of this... Time will say.

Thanks both of you. Mike you've always been so stimulant to everyone with a new idea no matter how impossible it may seems.... David, you've always been honest and straight forward in your evaluations. I admired you and I appreciate your comments very much.


HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

HBD I wish you well my friend,and thanks for you most kind words,I wholly embrace the
twin forces of Ying and Yang,to me they are the primal movers of all existence and manifestation,they are the primal vortexes of Positive and negative energy.



regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi HBD, great theoretical work. I read your entire ideas, and find them quite accurate. I have also been working with bonding ideas through chemistry, using the hydrazine molecule, and comparing the numbers of electrons, thus photonic bonds, in the elemental table, of other elements and atomic structures. I find almost exactly what you have so excellently stated. My findings show the bonds are strongest, as the ratio of electrons to nucleus goes up, especially when hydrogen is part of a molecular structure, such as hydrazine, with its electron/photon sharing abilities, due to the fact hydrogen is such a small atom, thus allowing the highest concentration of electron/photons in the same space. My model shows photonic bonding and repulsions of all substances, and precession also plays a large role. Hope you have luck with your ideas being accepted...

Lloyd

I'm working in my theory for the last months and that's the reason I haven't been able to log-in here for a while.

As some of you may realize, especially those who have honored me by reading and commenting about some of my posts in the past, some fundamnental principles have been kept in their original conceptual physical format. Others more -recently developed- have been represented in graphics and theoretical discussions along the page.

The mathematics are in progress thanks to a graduate student willing to help me in this effort as we speak...

The page is at:

www.theory-of-bonding-harmonics.com

I hope you find my theory worthy of your attention and consideration.

Your friend

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

You all guys have been my best source of inspiration, believe it or not.

I've accepted in the past your critics as well as your kind words with the same seriousness and weight. I believe that many of you also share in the bottom of your hearts the same hope:

That if there was a remote chance that physics could on day become the kind of science we've always dreamed it to be -"A real exact science"- no effort would ever be useless...
That has been my personal whish and the engine driving the best of my intentions.

I'm glad to know that you also have found commonalities between your work and mine. We must make the others to "see beyond our own human limitations."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are some of the questions I'd like [all of the present members of this marvelous forum] to ask themselves at least once:

-" If you my friend, haven't read my work yet, I believe there are a coupple of questions I'd like to ask you from the bottom of my heart:

1) In the beginnings of the mathematical fundament and theoretical building of "Quantum Mechanics" there was someone who introduced UNCERTAINTY and PROBABILITIES into the quantum world, as many of you must know, his name was Heisenberg (A Noble Prized laurate).

This is the question now:

If Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" was entirely based on experimentation using "light" ("c") as the fastest observational tool available at that time... couldn't he be missing a number of "hidden realities" [not just one] he was supposed to mathematically describe?

He wasn't mistaken in his observations, don't get me wrong (!) He stated the impossibility to determine the momentum and the position of a "particle" [like an electron for example] at the same time and from the results he could have obtained, he was perfectly right.
The problem has always been that he was counting with a "falsely assumed fact" that REALITY could only be the one we are able to observe and therefore able perhaps to describe, when in fact the universe was much more complex than the one we are able to imagine.

Eisntein thought that there had to exist a way enabling us to describe the physical reality with entire exactitude, but he was also counting with a simple and a single reality... He was also wrong from my own perspectives too.

It was never about a truth explainable under Bohr's comlimentary principle where the setting of the "apparatus" will always "predetermine" the outcome of what we considered to be "the final truth." There were more than just one reality "playing along" at a rate of speed we can't be even aware of it, and we were chosing one among all 4 (four) of them every time we determined the conditions of the laboratory observation.

"Bonding Harmonics" is not an "artificial-empiric compromise" to deal with inexisting realities out of a crazy guy's imagination, those have been there all the time "WARNING US" about their existence and preventing us from finding the "ideal description" of the physical reality as Einstein once dreamed.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If you "visit" CHEMISTRY these days you'll find a "duel" between two inaccurate theories and half-half succesful results-failure scenarios:

Valence Bond Theory [promoted by one of the greatest minds in the world of modern chemistry: Lignus Pauling] adopted 2 concepts that gave them some advantages in the organic field of carbon compunds: "Hybridization" and "Resonance."
The first is almost forgotten or ignored by most schools at the present time, but "Resonance" is still today the only possible plausible response to something human science is unable to answer, even as we speak.
I suggest you to visit wikipedia and go to chemistry and resonance, I know is not the most serious place to look for definitive answers but still the ideas presented in their pages ARE THE PRESENTLY OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED by the scientific community... and that was more than enough for me when I used them as reference, besides from the copyright limitations it was the least dangerous one. As long as you don't mention the names of those who send their citations, you don't have to face "copyright infringement charges" and that fit my requirements. You may check other sources but you'll still find "chemical resonance" a violation of logic and common sense right on the face of every single chemist.
First there was alternating double lines, later they draw a circle inside the ring... the point is that the strength of the bonds between carbons was finally determined to be 1.5 (!) Me, You, they and everyone in this world knows that to be an impossible and ridiculous solution [a compromising one] but the 'closest to the experimental results' we could get.

I say it is 1 (one) in two "frames of existence" and I say it is 2 (two) in the other 2 "frames of existence" and then I am the one NUTS...

I'll get back into other parts of my theory in future posting right here, But I really whish that every member of this friendly forum took a moment to meditate about these things no one seems too concern lately...

Your friend

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Today, I'd like to discuss another conclusion extracted from my theory. A highly controversial I may add but an important piece of physics to give you a different optical point about how present theories "see" the 'electron' and how "Bonding Harmonics' approaches the very same argument in a 360 degress angle:

The following was quoted from wikipedia:

"One consequence of the generalized uncertainty principle is that the spin projection operators (which measure the spin along a given direction like x, y, or z), cannot be measured simultaneously. Physically, this means that it is ill defined what axis a particle is spinning about. A measurement of the z-component of spin destroys any information about the x and y components that might previously have been obtained."

It was referred to the theoretical incompatibility that represents the presence of an 'orbiting charged particle' [electron] around atomic shells while having "half-spin" properties.

You are well aware that due to experimental observation [Zeeman Effect] It was undenieably observed, measured and proved the existence of a 1/2 spin phenomenon along the ORBITAL MOMENTUM. My theory abide by that observation too but in a different sense. For today's physicists that 1/2 spin feature is inherently part of the nature of an alleged particle [electron] said to orbit the shell.

In "Bonding Harmonics" (as you have access to read in our Forum's library archive) Those 1/2 spins are "vibrational patterns or harmonics" along the ORBITAL MOMENTUM [Ying and Yang].
The inaccurate 'spinning-electro-particle model' can not explain the obvious INSTANTANEOUS nature of chemical bonds between neighboring atoms in a time-sequential mechanism as seen in my theory.

In simpler words: Assuming 'electrons' did in fact orbit shells with a 1/2 spin magnetic momentum, how could they be in 4 (four) different places at the same time?

Yes.... at the same time. Our reality is 3 dimensional [unless you have a different version....] that's why it is highly CONVENIENT to blame to 'UNCERTAINTY' something that so far "they" don't have a good answer to justify.

According to history, Paul Dirac considered the 'electron' a "point-particle" from the geometrical point of view... I agree! If we could "see" [that we can't] a 'free electron' moving along the vaccum that's the closest representation to its shape. My theory proves it with diagrams. Not just a 'free electron' but also 'an electric charge' flowing across a wire [as electricity] present such 'symmetrically PERFECT configuration of a spin-zero particle'.

A different thing is the picture in atomic shells. 'Free electron' and 'electric charges' are a PRODUCT of enegy being TRANSFORMED into a perfect symmetrical 'particle' inside what I called "quantum envelopes."

There is [right now] an article in the very front page of this forum that announces some experiments done on atomic shells of Noble gases producing an 'ionization' and the scattering of 'free electrons'. All they have done is 'activate' the "Quantum Envelope" that exists in every atomic shell in a time-sequential manner facilitating the production or modulation of one 'free electron.'

I wonder if there is anyone in the forum interested in this subject or if you like to discuss further some of the aspects concerning this theoretical part....

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

I found an interesting note about the alleged 1/2 spin asigned to "orbiting electrons" around atomic shells...

"The electron spin magnetic moment is important in the spin-orbit interaction which splits atomic energy levels and gives rise to fine structure in the spectra of atoms. The electron spin magnetic moment is also a factor in the interaction of atoms with external magnetic fields (Zeeman effect).
The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size" of the electron down to a resolution of about 10-3 fermis, and at that size a preposterously high spin rate of some 1032 radian/s would be required to match the observed angular momentum." [end of quote].

How convenient right...?

It was easier to figure out a 1/2 spin-negatively charged particle orbiting a shell as the only possible explanation for the observed ZEEMAN EFFECT [no one denies by the way]. The magnetic momentum had to be coming from somewhere and this was the "out-of-logical-explanation" found to justify such reality. However, in my theory (Bonding Harmonics) I did explain those 1/2 spins as coming from the vibrational spin [resonance] of shells harmonics sequentially structured in every single atom in 4 frames time-cycle.

This way I get ride of the "needed charged particle" and I keep the Zeeman Effect EXPLAINED 100%. Further more I can explain the spin-less configuration of scattered 'free electrons' that no mater the resolution required or not to observe their size, it will always be symmetrically perfect= zero.

HBD