sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Also, I corrected my misspelling of a Waser,Trueblood,Knobler quote of
theories from theoreis.

Also, this post belongs with my Atom Totality book more than it
belongs in Superconductivity book.

> I was hoping I had more chem textbooks than those three already
> mentioned and quoted. And I have a closet
> of books that were college library discards and to my good luck there
> was Chem One by Waser, Trueblood, Knobler
> 2nd ed. 1980. This textbook looks a cut above the other three as it
> looks like a text for freshman chem majors
> because there is alot more math.
>
> --- quoting Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, Chem One, page 368 ---
> The most widespread of the current theories of molecular structure are
> the valence bond and the molecular
> orbital theories. An essential feature of both is that chemical
> bonding arises as a direct consequence of the
> overlap of orbitals on nearby atoms.
> --- end quoting ---
>
> So unlike the previous three textbooks quoted this textbook defines
> "chemical bond" as quantum
> mechanical, using the Schrodinger wave equation. There is ample
> reference to L. Pauling and his
> book "The Nature of the Chemical Bond".
>
> Whether this definition of chemical bond as that of "overlap of
> orbitals" sheds new light on the
> ionic, covalent and metallic bond, different from the definition given
> by other chemistry textbook
> writers remains to be seen for me, as I have not read the Waser,
> Trueblood, Knobler discussion
> on ionic, covalent and metallic bond.
>
> But being the mathematician that I am, I can find already a
> shortcoming or misgiving about such a
> definition. Not because the Schrodinger Equation applications are
> impossible beyond a few atoms
> of hydrogen and lithium for precision, but because of a conceptual
> concern. That since every electron
> has electric potential out to infinity, one can say that every atom in
> the Cosmos is bonded to every
> other atom due to the fact that every electron overlaps every other
> electron via electric potential. Maybe
> a adjustment of the definition would use 90% of the probability
> density function.
>
> So I see that as a shortcoming of the definition above. I do not know
> whether the above definition of
> "chemical bond" is perhaps the best that chemistry has at this moment
> in history. Perhaps it is the
> best we have since it is based on Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Perhaps a better definition of Chemical Bond would rely only on "break
> apart energy" That if two atoms
> require positive energy to move them distance apart then they are
> bonded. So that we compute energy
> required to move atoms a specific distance. And thus we have no need
> for classification such as
> ionic, covalent, metallic. If a substance requires positive energy to
> move its atoms a distance apart then
> they are bonded.
>
> I have to read more of the above textbook.
>

This morning I awoke with the idea in mind that the definition of
Chemical Bond as given
by Waser, Trueblood, and Knobler above is a means of testing whether
the Big Bang theory
or Atom Totality theory is true or false.

The Big Bang would have a different chemical composition of the
Universe at large compared
to the Atom Totality. The very definition of BOND in chemistry would
be different in these
two Cosmologies.

Remember how the Big Bang starts as an explosion where soon after all
the elements are the
lightweight elements of hydrogen then hydrogen and some helium but
nothing of the heavy elements.
And so the Chemical Bond comes into existence sometime after the
explosion. So the question
becomes, can the present day Cosmos come from a Big Bang explosion? I
doubt it. The above
Waser, Trueblood, Knobler definition forces mathematicians to consider
cosmic molecules because
the electric potential of every electron goes to infinity and so we
would have to consider every
atom bonded to every other atom in the Cosmos.

The Atom Totality theory would have no problem with a Cosmic bonding
of every atom with every
other atom, so long as that cosmic bond ends up being a single atom
overall that is plutonium
element. The Atom Totality theory would then want a "practical
definition" for chemical bonding
and that is what I tried doing with the idea of a number value for a
bond that is its disassociation
energy or dissolution energy. So we end up with the idea of a chemical
bond as merely a
number connected to the amount of energy to make molecules into
constituent atoms.

But this question of Big Bang versus Atom Totality regards to Chemical
Bond is very interesting.
Because the question immediately comes to the fore, in that the
chemical composition of the world
and the nature of the chemical-bond agree more with the Atom Totality
theory than they ever agree
with the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang places their explosion at 12 to 14 billion years ago
where only hydrogen starts off.
That is not enough time to so to speak "eggbeat" the cosmos into its
present chemical composition.
And there would have been a moment in time in the Big Bang where a
covalent bond started to exist
and where a metallic and ionic bond started to exist. And the whole
mechanism of bonds has to
fit in with the evolution of the Big Bang. Does it? No.

The Atom Totality theory if we give a rate of existence for each
element from hydrogen to plutonium
as a time span of 10 billion years old then we have a cosmos that is
overall 94 x 10 billion years equal
to 940 billion years old Cosmos. That is plenty of time to "eggbeat"
the cosmos into its present diverse
and complex chemical compounds and molecules.

In my Atom Totality book, this post should fit in with the chapter on
the Chemical Composition of the
Universe at large, wherein the fact that the atoms from 1 to 94 are
universally UNIFORMILY distributed.
Uniform distribution fact alone should defeat the Big Bang theory as
irrational nonsense.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies