An atom receives some energy and the result is that atom becomes an ion. The atom loses an energetic ‘electron’, in the form of a small three dimensional space that is ejected from the atom. The atom is now an ion. It has less energy and it has the potential to increase the energy level (this potential shown in light blue). The process which is the opposite of ionization is recombination, when the three dimensional space of some ‘electron’ is added to the three dimensional space of the atom.

Now the question that I ask is why would it be the case that when an atom loses energy, it has the potential to regain the energy it lost? Why does an atom preserve this potential to gain energy? Why do atoms possess such persistence in both the space they occupy and the level of energy to be found within that space?

The only logical answer would be that an atom does not consist of a single unified three dimensional magnetic field which creates a single unified space. If this would true, when an atom lost energy and ‘lost space’ at the same time, an atom would be stable. It would become a stable, smaller three dimensional space with a stable lower energy level. This does not happen. When an atom loses energy it requires that energy and can receive that energy. As well an atom cannot become a larger three dimensional space containing a larger amount of energy, for when that happens, what appears to be a coherent space is ejected from an atom. So therefore an atom must consist of a collection of such coherent spaces which are ‘glued’ together to form one larger composite space which is then the total three dimensional space occupied by that atom.

Now the conventional explanation for this behavior is that an atom consists of ‘charged particles’. Some of the particles have a ‘negative charge’ and others have a ‘positive charge’ and it is this differences in ‘charges’ between these ‘elementary matter particles’ which then provides the glue which holds the various jig saw puzzle pieces together that make up an atom.

I reject this explanation, because I reject the notion that a mystical property known as ‘charge’ exists. The charge of an object is a relative property. If we speak of an ‘electron’ possessing a ‘negative’ charge this can only mean something if we have some other ‘charged object’ with which to compare this ‘charge’ possessed by the electron. The reasoning behind this assumption is that I am looking for a ‘unified field theory’ and so therefore I am looking for unity, and there is no point in looking for such unity while at the same time operating under the assumption that such unity does not exist. Therefore I consider the ‘charge’ to be a density function, and whether one object is positively or negatively ‘charged’ is a relative property (as compared to what?). I also consider the charge carrier to be ‘space’ (the surrounding three dimensional ‘spatial-energy field’ which is a creation of a three dimensional magnetic field, such that no real separation exists between energy and space since both are bound together). Therefore, since an atom creates a three dimensional space we must assume that the correct interpretation of the atom must include considerations of this space and that atoms must be bound by the same ‘laws’ that govern the universe, and that therefore the assumption common to the twentieth century, which stated that atoms obey their own laws and are a law unto themselves, must be false. At the same time I must keep in mind that the ‘laws of nature’ appear to exist only to be broken, and that the universe as we know it only exists because of the conflicts that exist between different laws, a lesson I have learned from my study of gravitation. (A magnetic field only exists to create a smooth and evenly distributed energy field, at which time the magnetic field would collapse at the same time that the flow of current sustaining the field ceased. Therefore we can see that magnetic fields are always on a suicide mission. Atoms prevent a magnetic field from achieving this unity by causing disruptions in the field that the magnetic field cannot eliminate and thus a gravitational field is created. Atoms possess an ‘atomic wave function’ and must rest only in that part of the energy field where the field density of the surrounding field matches the field density of the atom. Stars exist to blue-shift the atomic wave function of atoms, increasing the density of the atoms and resulting in a relativistic increase in temperature that then leads to fusion of atoms, another example of those interesting contradictions and violations of the ‘laws of nature’ which are so typical in this universe. With this thought in mind I must be on the lookout for such violations when studying the atom and I must not assume that there are these ‘laws of nature’ which when properly understood would describe a clock work universe where everything is law abiding and exists in perfect harmony. This obsolete notion from the 17th and 18th century is false. Nevertheless we must search for the ‘laws of nature’ so that we might understand how it is that the atom violates the law in order to become an atom.)