[RTCPhysics (OP)]

If we take a perpendicular ‘slice’ across a length of copper wire with a dimension that is an ’atom thick’, the copper atoms revealed in the slice, can be seen to exist in horizontal and vertical layers, each bonded to its neighbouring atoms by their outer ‘valence’ electrons.

There are three concepts that are used to explain atomic bonding, all based upon the principles of electrostatics and are referred to as: ionic, covalent and metallic. All three depend upon the process of ‘electron sharing’ between neighbouring atoms. Hence all the valence electrons of the atoms that go to make up the copper slice, are viewed as being ‘free to move’ from one atom to another, forming bonds between them.

But there are conflicting principles in this concept of ‘electron sharing’. The first involves one of the foundation axioms of electrostatics theory, which is that an atom is an ‘electrically neutral’ entity.

The concept of atoms being electrically neutral is used to explain why the earth and other planets do not have an ‘electric field’ that exists alongside their magnetic and gravitational fields.

But given this axiom, then a valence electron cannot be drawn away from the attraction of the protons in its own nucleus, by the protons in the nucleus of a neighbouring atom, as both atoms are electrically neutral entities.

A further axiomatic problem with the concept of electron sharing between atoms, arises from the counteracting force of ‘electrostatic repulsion’ between electrons. This force, as defined by Coulomb’s law, operates between the valence electrons and acts to force them apart, rather than ‘pair’ them together.

Without the ability of electrons to pair up together, it is unclear how any bonding of atoms by ‘electron sharing’ can ever occur. Simply exchanging electrons between adjoining atoms does not create a bond between them.
 
Taken to the extreme with the concept of ‘metallic bonding’, the negatively charged valence electrons are free to move away from their home atoms in any direction within the lattice. However, the same freedom of movement is now applicable to the positively charged atoms, called ‘cations’, which by moving apart, act to split the lattice structure of the copper atoms into a disjointed array.
 
A further problem with the theory of ‘electron bonding’, arises with the passage of a current of electrons along a wired circuit from a generating source.
 
There is an immediate conflict between the free movement of ‘valence electrons’ between neighbouring atoms in the copper lattice and the movement of electrons from the generator, traversing along the wired circuit, at or near the speed of light.

There is no route that the generator’s electrons can take through a mobile cloud of valence electrons drifting amongst the lattice of atoms, which would enable them to avoid the constant mutual electrostatic repulsion from blocking their flow along the wire and interfering with their ability to bond with neighbouring atoms.

However, we are aware that electrons do ‘pair-up’ within their nuclear orbits, but if ‘metallic’, ‘covalent’ or ‘ionic’ bonding’ are not an explanation, then the question arises as to what force is actually employed that binds the electrons into pairs and binds the atoms together?

The conclusion that emerges from this appraisal of ‘electron bonding’ and ‘electron current flow’, is that ‘electrostatic theory’ cannot explain the process of electron bonding between atoms, neither can it explain the flow of an electron current through a wire.
 
The search for another explanation for the bonding of atoms and the flow of an electron current, requires the ‘replacement’ of both the concept of ‘electron bonding’, as defined by valence theory and the concept of an ‘electric field’ operating between the generator’s terminals.

But an ‘electric field’ cannot be erased from electrostatic theory, without the removal of its ‘generating source’. This is provided by the presence of an ‘electric charge’, which is viewed as residing upon or around each electron in their orbital energy bands and upon the protons in the nucleus of the atom.

With the loss of its electric charge, the ‘magnetic field’ of an electron can no longer be thought of as being derived from the movement of an ‘electric charge’, driven by the spin and angular momentum of its electron particle.

To create a magnetic field, the concept of ‘charge’ has to be replaced by the presence of a ‘magnetic field ring’ around the electron, which transforms the electron into a tiny magnet. There is no other choice.

If the magnetic field ring of the electron rotates clockwise, then the electron is in a ‘spin up’ state and if the magnetic field ring rotates anticlockwise, then the electron is in a ‘spin down’ state.

These two magnetic states are an axiomatic property of magnets, as can be seen in the split magnetic field of a bar magnet, where half of the field lines rotate clockwise and the other half rotate anti-clockwise, holding the field together around their common magnetic axis.

If you pass an electron through a magnetic field, whose lines are perpendicular to its direction of travel, then it will deviate to the right or left according to its spin-up or spin-down state.

The magnetic force operating between two neighbouring electrons located in the same orbital energy band around their nucleus, where one has a clockwise rotating magnetic ring and the other has an anticlockwise rotating magnetic ring, acts to bring their magnetic fields together in an attracting mode.

This explains the propensity of electrons to magnetically ‘pair together’ in spin-up and spin-down states within their orbital energy bands of the atom and gives a rational explanation for Pauli’s exclusion principle.

This ability of electrons to change state between spin-up and spin-down is important for the electron pairing process in the atom. The electron itself doesn’t spin, but it is the electron’s magnetic ring that flips over to bring about the electron’s change of spin state and it does so when confronted by the presence of another electron, whose magnetic field ring is in the 'same spin' state.

If you pinpoint any atom in the lattice of the copper wire, it always has 'six valence electrons' surrounding it, situated above and below, in front and behind and side to side, all in the opposite spin state.

Although the orbits of ‘valence electrons’ of neighbouring atoms can be in ‘any plane’ around their nuclei at any one time, the magnetic attraction acting between their spin-up and spin-down magnetic rings, enables them to meet up with each other in a synchronised manner at each of the six horizontal and vertical intersections that lie between their six neighbouring atoms in the lattice structure of copper.

This magnetic synchronisation of their electron orbits causes the magnetic rings of the valence electrons to ‘transiently’ bond themselves together as ‘paired electrons’, rather like we use the handshake.

This connection provides the strength of bonding required to maintain the three-dimensional structure of the lattice of atoms in the copper wire, without the physical movement of valence electrons away from their home atom.

But if the replacement of the electron’s electrostatic field by its magnetic field is the reality behind atomic bonding, then it does lead us into uncharted territory that needs new mapping.

[alancalverd]

Solid state physics is a lot more interesting, and a lot less complicated, than you make it out to be. Your model, for instance, does not predict the temperature coefficient of resistivity.

[Bored chemist]

There are three concepts that are used to explain atomic bonding, all based upon the principles of electrostatics and are referred to as: ionic, covalent and metallic

If that was exclusively true, you would boil.

[alancalverd]

Or shrink to a microscopic black hole. Heisenberg is what prevents everything from disappearing up its own backside. Now that's what I call quantum physics!

[evan_au]

the counteracting force of ‘electrostatic repulsion’ between electrons. This force, as defined by Coulomb’s law, operates between the valence electrons and acts to force them apart, rather than ‘pair’ them together.

Pauli's exclusion principle states that no two electrons can share the same quantum state.
One part of this quantum state is the spin direction: Spin "Up" or "Down".

Electrons act like little magnets - you could imagine an electric charge spinning around, which creates a magnetic field.
And if you put two magnets together, facing opposite directions, they attract.
- So covalent bonding relies on two electrons with opposite spins, one from each atom.
- The two electrons attract each other (a bit), like little magnets.
- The two negative electrons attract the two positive nuclei towards them.
- The two positive nuclei are attracted towards the cloud of negative electrons between them.

By these effects, atoms can form covalent bonds - it's what holds water and your proteins together.

There is no route that the generator’s electrons can take through a mobile cloud of valence electrons drifting amongst the lattice of atoms, which would enable them to avoid the constant mutual electrostatic repulsion from blocking their flow along the wire and interfering with their ability to bond with neighbouring atoms.

When you buy electricity from a power station (indirectly, via a power utility), you do not actually receive any electrons from the generator.
The generator may be 100km away, and the electrons from the generator move perhaps 0.1mm along the wire before the current reverses, and they move back where they started. These electrons do not even get out of the power station building!

Instead, what happens is that the electrons being pushed into the wire by the generator cause an electromagnetic wave to travel down the wire, pushing an equal number of electrons out the far end of the wire, perhaps 98km away (near your house). The same number of electrons leave the wire as the number that enter it, leaving the wire electrically neutral.

And when the current reverses, a few milliseconds later, the electromagnetic wave pulls a few electrons back into the wire at your end, and into the generator at the other end. The wire is still electrically neutral.

All electrons are interchangeable, so the electrons you get out your end of the wire are just as useful as those put into the wire by the power station. You are not buying electrons, but you are buying the volts (electromotive force, provided by the voltage wave) and current (flow of electrons), which together produce the power you consume.