new way of visualizing the Chemical Bond Chapt13.4007 finally solving the Strong Nuclear Force as a Chemical bond #708 New Physics #828 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now when I went to school and learned chemistry, we had the Lewis
diagram to perceive the chemical bond. And we learned the unfilled
orbitals attracted the bonding to fill up the
unfilled orbital. But new insights into Chemical Bonding in Chemistry
have not come along.
And likely we have had the same perception of chemical bonding as we
have had since 1930s with Quantum Mechanics. So I would think that by
2012 is a good time to start to
craft a new way of viewing the chemical bond. We know there are the
three major types of
ionic, covalent, and metallic, but all three are really in the final
analysis the arrangement of electrons versus protons with the Coulomb
force in multiple atoms coming together and bonding.

We need and are due a new vision of the chemical bond. Whether I can
deliver such a new vision is questionable for I have no such new
vision at the moment. But what I do have is
perhaps good enough to lead me to some sort of entrance into a new
vision of the Chemical bond.

What I have is the idea that the electron-dot-cloud is more than just
a mere interpretation of the probability of finding the electron at
that dot-position, but rather,
the dots have physical substance. That the electron-dot-cloud is the
shattering of an electron into a huge quantity of tiny pieces and
spread over the space of the electron cloud. Much like the galaxies
and stars and planets in the night sky are tiny fragments of one
electron of the cosmic-atom.

So if we imagine the electron-dot-cloud as the actual electron itself,
only shattered into
say 10^31 pieces and spread out into the space of the electron orbit,
then those tiny pieces should have some role in chemical bonding. In a
way, it is somewhat echoing the Lewis structure where you have two
dots : on the atom, prepared to bond to a missing two dots of
unoccupied orbital.

So that if the protons also had dot-clouds as well as electrons. Can
I, or we, draw together a new way of representing the Chemical Bond?

Let me sleep on it and maybe I can sharpen the picture even more.
Where I have two cases. The one case of the electron as a tiny ball
with all its charge on that ball and the other case where the electron
is this 10^31 fragmented pieces of the original electron all of which
are orbiting the nucleus. The strength of the chemical bond is so
strong, that it is unlikely the electron ball represents the orbital
electron, but rather the large dot-cloud.
But where would the charge lie in a electron-dot-cloud?

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

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In sci.physics.electromag Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now when I went to school and learned chemistry, we had the Lewis
> diagram to perceive the chemical bond. And we learned the unfilled
> orbitals attracted the bonding to fill up the
> unfilled orbital. But new insights into Chemical Bonding in Chemistry
> have not come along.

Molecular orbital theory. The dot model is a simplified
approximation that works often enough to be useful.

Often a simplification of molecular orbital theory, LCAO,
Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals is used.

There should be some references in books or on the web
that describe MO theory well enough.

-- glen