We are already halfway through the third decade of the 21st century and we still have doubts about the physical mechanisms related to energy in the universe, especially regarding the forms in which it appears and propagates in nature. Despite some advances in this regard in recent decades, our concepts are practically the same as they were more than a century ago, which say that energy appears in nature as an electromagnetic wave. And, to define the energy associated with this wave, we establish some parameters such as frequency and length.
    Due to the impossibility of explain some phenomena in nature using this principle, that energy appears in the form of a wave, we have also come to accept that energy can appear in the form of particles, and we are currently accepting that energy in the universe appears sometimes as a wave, sometimes as a particle, depending on the circumstances or how the phenomenon is analyzed. Isaac Newton was the first to propose, back in the 17th century, the corpuscular nature of light, and at the beginning of the 19th century, wave theories gained strength with the experiments of Thomas Young and Augustin Fresnel on diffraction and interference, which led to the defense of the wave theory of light, which came to be accepted by a large part of the scientific community at the time.
    In 1900, due to the difficulties in explaining the results obtained with the radiation emitted by heated black bodies, Max Planck proposed that energy is presented in quantized form and that energy can only be absorbed or emitted by matter in the form of discrete packets and that these packets depend on the frequency of the radiation and a proportionality constant h, which today we call Planck's constant. Thus, the energy of a packet, as proposed by Planck, can be determined by multiplying this constant by the frequency (f) of the radiation, that is, E = hf. Thus was born quantum physics and, as a consequence, all quantum sciences related to chemistry and physics. However, Planck himself had doubts about his proposal for quantizing energy and did not explain the meaning of the constant h (Planck's constant). A search in the literature shows that the current understanding is that h is a fundamental constant.
    A few years after Planck proposed the quantization of energy, Einstein, in order to explain the photoelectric effect, proposed the concept of quantum, which would be energy propagating in packets, according to what was proposed by Planck. Later, the term photon was used to name these packets. I think that God does not build shacks and probably would not understand that the best way to use energy to build an extremely complex universe like the one we know would be in the form of waves, or even through packets, as described by Einstein and Planck. I do believe that energy propagates in the form of packets, but slightly different ones. Planck and Einstein's proposal that energy can only be absorbed in "hf" packets, with the frequency expressed in seconds, goes, in my humble opinion, against divine strategies. An hf packet is very large, it is a lot of energy in subatomic terms, since it considers the amount of energy of the "wave" in the period of one second. The frequency is established in Hertz, that is, the energy content of the packet carried by the "wave" in one second.
    One second in the reality of what happens in physical terms in the subatomic world is a long time. The shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy content that the "wave" carries in a single second. In other words, for infinitely small wavelengths, the energy content of the wave will be infinitely large in a single second, when compared to that necessary for an electronic transition, or to break a chemical bond, for example. Why would a second be the measure of time to establish the size of an energy packet? What is the meaning of this energy content in quantum terms? Would the entire energy content of one second of the “wave” be necessary to promote the electronic transition? How long does it take for the electron to absorb energy and for it to transition? Why should we measure the energy that electrons absorb or emit in seconds? The transfer of energy from radiation to matter necessarily occurs through electrons, and the speed of light, which is the speed at which energy “packets” travel, and the speed of electrons, of the order of millions of meters per second, do not allow us to work with time in terms of seconds to establish the unit of energy content of radiation transferred or absorbed by electrons.
    The formula established by Planck, E = hf, allows us to establish the energy content of radiation in a period of one second and, therefore, can be useful as a ruler for characterizing the different energies that radiations present, but it has little to do with the amounts of energy involved in the physicochemical processes to which we are subjected. According to this formula, X-ray, for example, have energies of the order of Kev, Mev, thousands or millions of times greater than those involved in chemical and biological reactions.
    Another issue that is not well understood in the literature, in my opinion, is the physical meaning of a “wave”. What is it composed of? The literature describes electromagnetic radiation as being composed of two waves that oscillate perpendicularly; one wave is formed by an electric field and the other by a magnetic field. Would it be possible to break down a wave or a field into corpuscles, particles or fragments? Or would a wave be something continuous from its emitter to the absorbing agent? In this case, how can we explain the reduction in the frequency of a photon when its energy is partially absorbed by matter? I understand that the absorption of certain packets by the medium would justify the increase in wavelength and the greater the distance traveled by the “wave”, the greater the chance of “capturing” packets by the medium, thus increasing the distance between the packets, their wavelength. But for this premise to be true we would have to accept that a “wave” would actually be a discontinuous beam of energy, formed of packets, which can be removed from their sequence and thus the “wave” would transfer the energy through these packets to the medium, and, considering that the wavelength of radiation would be the distance between the packets, we would have an increase in the wavelength. But I am not talking about “hf” packets.      It is known that only certain radiations, with specific frequencies, can produce effective absorption, on a case-by-case basis, but certainly not all the “hf” energy would be necessary for this. I consider effective absorption to be the transfer of energy from the radiation to the electron in a quantity sufficient to promote an electronic transition, or sufficient to tear off the electron from its position in terms of potential energy. Radiations with specific frequencies are capable of transferring, in a timely manner, the quantity of energy necessary for effective absorption. The time required for this transfer and for effective absorption to occur is called effective time. It is a very short time, something instantaneous, therefore the radiation must have an appropriate frequency, otherwise the transfer will not be effective. The time required for the electron to be exposed to the beam of radiation, an intimate moment between light and matter, which is extremely short and only in this space of time will it, the electron, be able to absorb energy from the beam.
    Even today, the scientific community relies on Thomas Young's experiments to claim that energy propagates in the form of a "wave". The double-slit experiment contributed greatly to this. The formation of an image composed of fringes, dark and light lines, led the scientific community to believe that light propagates in the form of a wave. The dark lines would be formed due to the "waves" that reach the screen and the light lines would be the absence of light due to the destructive obstruction of the "wave", a typical wave behavior.
    One question that arises regarding this proposal is, how can this destructive obstruction be explained? How does energy become destroyed, disappear? On the other hand, recent experiments carried out with double-slits, replacing light with a beam of electrons or atoms, presented results identical to those of light, that is, matter presents behavior proposed for a "wave". The idea that light is of a corpuscular nature can be better discussed using Planck's equation. Using this formula, the “wave” frequency is multiplied by a constant that, expressed in J.s, is equal to 6.63 x 10⁻³⁴.
    Therefore, the real meaning of this constant would be a portion of energy that repeats itself a certain number of times in one second, thus forming the quantum or photon. I consider that the portion of energy represented by this constant, which is the same for all radiation in nature, is the smallest portion of energy in the universe, the quantum in fact, an energetic corpuscle whose rest mass, calculated by Einstein's equation (E = mc²), would be of the order of 7.37 x 10⁻⁵¹ kg, the basic, fundamental brick of the universe. This universal brick can associate in different quantities and form subatomic particles, from those with measurable masses such as electrons and other particles already described, to particles with non-measurable masses, smaller and with values multiples of 7.37 x 10⁻⁵¹ and give rise to everything we find in the universe.
    We can call it planckum, the universal brick, of infinitesimal mass, which has a certain cohesive capacity and, when associated in different quantities, can generate particles with specific characteristics in size and physical-chemical properties, such as electrons and anti-electrons. When not at rest, they travel at the speed of light and when emitted by the same source, they travel in single file, as if they formed a train of energy packets, with a constant spacing between the packets, which we understand to be the wavelength of the radiation, since they are emitted by the source at a constant frequency. The same source is capable of emitting this train of packets in all directions and senses.
    Plancka are capable of becoming cohesive with matter (electrons) when they collide, thus increasing the energy content of the matter they collide with. The amount of energy absorbed by the matter will depend on the number of plancka that collide, which does not necessarily have to do with the number of plancka in a second. The speed of the electron is very high, as we have already mentioned, and the time it is exposed to a beam of a certain radiation and the frequency of the radiation will certainly determine the amount of energy absorbed from this radiation by the electron, which can be determined by the formula E = nh, where n is the number of plancka absorbed by the electron and h is Planck's constant, which is expressed in J (not J.s) and is equal to 6.63 x 10⁻³⁴, the amount of energy of each planckum. Thus, for each physical-chemical process in nature, we will have a specific package that fits in terms of energy to that process.
    Considering that the speed of the electron and the energy of the packet are constant, the distance between the plancka (wavelength of the radiation) defines the amount of energy that will be absorbed and whether or not this will be sufficient for effective absorption to occur, which could produce an increase in the electron's potential energy, sufficient for a jump or definitive transition, removing this electron from its orbit or trajectory. And this amount of energy required for effective absorption is specific to the electron's momentum and its position in terms of potential energy.
    An electron is capable of constantly emitting plancka and, at the same time, must be subjected to collisions with plancka from all directions and senses, since they are abundant in nature, coming from various sources, and, if, in a timely manner, it receives a sufficient amount of energy from the packets, effective absorption can occur.
    All matter is capable of emitting such packets and at the same time absorbing them in dynamic equilibrium. The main contribution, in energy terms, to effective absorption appears when the electron is exposed to a specific radiation, which has a packet frequency capable of transferring energy immediately so that effective absorption occurs. All matter in nature is exposed to plancka particles that travel through the environment in which it is found.
    When these packets collide with the retina of our eyes, they appear as light, and the darker the environment, the fewer the number of packets traveling through this environment and capable of producing the stimulus of vision. The sensations of color or heat result from different numbers of packets that are transferred to the receptor electrons in our body. The environment may present plancka particles from different points, which when added together are capable of producing a sensation of heat, and give us information about the enthalpy of the environment.
    There is, however, a balance between the number of packets that the electron emits and absorbs, depending on the enthalpy of the environment. Therefore, like all matter, electrons are formed by the association of plancka particles. How many plancka particles make up an electron? We can calculate the number of packets forming an electron in two ways:
    1) considering the electron's rest energy, 0.511 MeV, which corresponds, in joules, to 8.18622 x 10⁻¹⁴, or
    2) through the electron mass, 9.11 x 10⁻³¹ kg. Considering that a packet has energy equal to Planck's constant, that is, 6.6261 x 10⁻³⁴ J, the rest energy of an electron can fit 1.235 x 10²⁰ packets of energy. Would the electron be formed by the association of this plancka number? According to proposal 2, using the mass of the electron, we must also consider the rest mass of the energy packet, already discussed previously, which is 7.37 x 10⁻⁵¹ kg.
    Therefore, the mass of the electron can hold exactly 1.235 x 10²⁰ energy packets. If we consider that in an annihilation process the entire mass of the electron is transformed into radiant energy, that is, energy packets, this will be the number of packets that make up the electron. If we assume that the energy packets that travel in an environment are responsible for the enthalpy of that environment, the absolute zero temperature means that there are no packets traveling in that environment, or that we have an undetectable quantity, since almost all of them are accommodated in electrons and the electrons accommodated in the nucleus of the atom conferring neutrality to the matter.
    Would present this condition greater ease for nuclear fusions?

References
1. An Experiment on Electron Interference American Journal of Physics 41, 639 (1973); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1987321.

2. On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena American Journal of Physics 44, 306 (1976); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.10184.

3. Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern American Journal of Physics 57, 117 (1989); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16104.

4. Quantum interference experiments with large molecules American Journal of Physics 71, 319 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1531580.

5. Young’s double-slit interference experiment with electrons American Journal of Physics 75, 1053 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2757621.

6. Two and three slit electron interference and diffraction experiments American Journal of Physics 79, 615 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3560429.