 Dare to be naive is one of my favorite quotes from my mentor, Buckminster Fuller. I'm an architect and I'm presenting what I am simply because I consider nature, which I call God Design, as ultimate architecture. However advanced art and science and technology may be, the basic building block of our material universe, both animate and inanimate, is still very vaguely defined. It's defined only as an electron cloud hovering about the nucleus, no more, no less. But considering the fact that there is older structure in the macro world, even in chaos, there must be some kind of older structure in the atom which make up the macro world. So in 1996, I set out to explore what that older structure might be. I dare to be naive. As an architect, I approach the problem structurally. A square is a shape, but not a structure. Why? Because it can't keep its shape. A triangle, on the other hand, is a shape and a structure. Why? Because it can keep its shape. The tetrahedron made of four triangles is the simplest, self-stabilizing, three-dimensional structure in the universe. Catch. Please feel the difference between squares and triangles, and feel the structure. You might wonder, but aren't our buildings mostly square and cubic but standing? Well, if you should open one of the walls and look inside, you'd find a diagonal member called a brace which triangulates the buildings to make them stand. This cube is a structure because it is reinforced by two tetrahedra, one red and one black. And this basically is the reason behind the principle of the octet rule that you might remember from high school chemistry. The octet rule states that atoms with eight valence or outer shell electrons, or half that number, that is four, are stable. Why? It's precisely because of this tetrahedroning of the cube. Four electrons make one tetrahedron. Eight electrons make two tetrahedra. The nucleus is positively charged. The electrons are negatively charged. The nucleus attracts or pulls in the electrons inward, while the electrons repel or push each other apart. So in this model, the green lines piercing through the nucleus are all in tension, pulling the electrons inward, while all the rest of the members are in compression, the electrons pushing each other apart. Now let me show you how my model applies to atoms and molecules. Let's take, for example, carbon. Carbon has four electrons, and its configuration is tetrahedral. Simply because it is the simplest, most symmetrically balanced with the least repulsion amongst the four electrons. But carbon has four other vacant slots to accommodate electrons. So when carbon is surrounded by hydrogen atoms, the hydrogen electrons attach to those empty slots, like so. The same colored electrons are said to be paired and constitute what's called bonding pairs of molecules. But electrons are not stationary, they're always moving about in orbit. So in the next instance, they move onto the other side of the orbit, and now the hydrogen electrons are paired. And again, back to where carbon electrons are paired, and so forth. And this molecule, by the way, is methane, and you can understand why methane is tetrahedral. This is a model of C60 or carbon 60, which won three scientists the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996. The 60 black balls represent carbon atoms. But that's all the information there is. Here is my model of carbon 60, and this is made of 60 of these cubes. Each one representing one carbon atom showing the four electrons in either red or green. And as far as I know, this is the first in the world where all the electrons of all the atoms are shown in such detailed configuration. Here's the more accurate model of C60 built by a friend of mine, Dennis Dreher. And this is made of 60 of these cubes, the blue marble in the center representing the nucleus, the smaller marbles representing electrons. Personally, I can't imagine how such a beautiful model could be wrong or not true. This is a segment of carbon nanotube with very high tensile strength. My model predicts certain new forms of carbon molecules, amongst which is a new form of diamond that I call super diamond, which is twice as dense and enhanced twice as hard, perhaps, as ordinary diamond. And here's the model. The standard diamond only has the four white carbons around the black central one, whereas my model predicts four more in yellow around the same central one. Of course, I may be wrong. Present science, which is governed by quantum mechanics, which uses primarily math and non-visual language, considers my architectural three-dimensional visually comprehensible model as obsolete, passe, naïve. But if super diamond is discovered naturally in nature or produced artificially in the laboratory, it will prove the validity of my atom metrics model. If proven otherwise, I'd still be happy that I discovered the truth by having dared to be naïve. Thank you.