Sorry for the unnecessary distraction with mr. Bond. Today I'll talk about another kind of bond.
One of the distinguishing features of chemistry over physics is the chemical bond. Three of the most famous bonds are the covalent bond (within a molecule), the ionic bond (in a salt) and the metallic bond (obviously in metals). However, we chemists know there are more bonds, such as the hydrogen bond and even the halogen bond.
There are actually so many bond types that one could ask “do all atoms bond?” What I propose is that if there isn’t a more preferential bond available, all atoms can, and will, bond with each other. This is a direct consequence of the molecular orbital being string of dots (Planck spheres) moving at the speed of light. While the concepts of electronegativity and electropositivity are useful tools in sorting out what atom preferentially bonds with what atom, any bond is always preferential to no bond.
Before I start discussing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of bonds, it is good to first look at the nature of the chemical bond from the perspective of the supramolecular shell. The simplest of the chemical bonds is the hydrogen-hydrogen (or H-H) bond. I describe this in the post on the mathematics of a 3D double wave. Based on the concept of supramolecular shell, most H-H bonds remain intact however large or small the supramolecular shell becomes, as even the smallest shells have myriads of hydrogen atoms linked into a chain. For instance for a large orbital to split into four (22 as in the case of the spectral series of hydrogen), only eight (4x2) bonds need to break and reform.
But then what takes place with larger atoms? Helium forms an interconnected supramolecular shell, and lithium, as the first solid forms a 3D lattice. What about molecules, such as methane or ethanol? Here I have to handwave a bit about the complexity and strength of the covalent bond. Suffice it to say that carbon, with six protons, can for four ‘obvious’ bonds with other atoms. While I’m not 100 % yet, it appears that the two protons, that are traditionally considered form the first orbital are involved in the formation of the supramolecular shell. However, unlike helium, carbon has four ‘extra’ protons that are free to bond. These protons form covalent bonds. Rather unintuitively these more stable bonds are located outside of the surface of the supramolecular shell. For instance, in the case of methane, the supramolecular shell ‘must’ be formed from the (1s) protons/electron pair of carbon. Traditionally, what is bonding is said to be the electron, but based on the orbital string theory, the proton associated with the 1s orbital is physically linked to the electron. It might even be that what is bonding is a whole hydrogen orbital embedded within the carbon atom, but at the moment this is just a hunch. The remaining four proton/electron pairs of carbon are each. free to bond with hydrogen.
Except, if we look at the simple hydrogen model, the orbital appears to allow bonding from both sides. This would mean bonding with six hydrogen atoms instead of three. This in turn would appear to point to the neutron playing an important role preventing hydrogen bonding from the ‘wrong side’. This is still at a rather speculative stage, but based on the propensity of each proton to be paired with a neutron (not a 100 % prerequisite, but a very strong correlation), the fused orbital of proton and neutron (as seen below) doesn’t appear to bond.
This seems to indirectly back the hypothesis that only one side of the proton/neutron orbital fuses, while the other side remains unfused (as seen below).
While I cannot claim full correlation, this appears to be similar to the sp3 hybridization (seen below): the current quantum mechanical interpretation of the nature of chemical bonds.
But to be frank, I’m still very uncertain about the details and I can easily retract my suggestions if the data indicates the initial suggestion to be incorrect. The problem is that I have to begin with something that can be either verified or falsified: something that deals with actual strings comprised of dots moving at the speed of light.
For now, let’s assume I’m correct. In gaseous methane, there is a supramolecular shell of interconnected carbon atoms, each of which have four bonded hydrogen atoms. However, here comes the million-dollar question: is hydrogen atom the two spherical orbitals or just one half? It is becoming more probable that the orbital described in the counterevidence paper (and below) isn’t of a single hydrogen, but two hydrogen atoms.
The above interpretation would make the structure of molecules at least a bit more comprehensible, but also rather hard to imagine. This means that an atom is nothing like any of the models suggested before (see below). While the Schrödinger model is by far the least wrong, it assumes that to components of the atomic nucleus are not physically connected but kept in place by fundamental forces.
What this half-orbital model of the atom indicates is that in the rare case where a single hydrogen atom is cleaved from the supramolecular orbital, this hydrogen radical comprises of one half of the orbital: i.e. proton, and the other half: i.e. electron.
What this also means is that even though the two halves of an orbital appear much more linked, as strings of dot move along this orbital and not along the other strings of the neighboring orbital within the same atom. That is, each proton within an atom is more closely linked with the neighboring atom than with the protons in the same atom.
So, carbon is a shell comprised of six spherical half-orbitals of proton-neutron pairs. In methane, two of these interconnect to form a supramolecular orbital, whereas four of these bond with the spherical half-orbitals of hydrogen, making it look only distantly like the regular models of methane used in the textbooks (example of the density functional calculation of methane below).
I was about to talk about more complex molecules, such as ethanol, but realized there was enough to talk about methane. Perhaps my next post will deal with ethanol: one of the molecules I use the most in the lab.
As a final remark, this post is especially difficult to post, as I know there are e a lot of assumptions and probably quite a few errors here. The problem is, there are no better competing theories where the orbital is assumed to be dots moving at the speed of light. This means I have to make assumptions that are only partially backed by evidence and where I have to ignore things I know I shouldn't. But if I tried to prevent being wrong, I would just end up not writing anything at all. I will soon enough know whether the logical steps I've taken are fruitful or a dead end. So please have mercy on me.
Comments