Theory of everything and chemical bond theory

[lyborko]

Hello,

Theoretical physicists assert that quantum mechanic and relativistic world use distinct mathematical models that can not united into one so far. The reason of it, which I do not understand, is the gravity. Once we encompass the gravity in the quantum world (or vice versa), we (maybe) will have one model of "everything". Please, be merciful with me, I am not a physicist and I know I use kitchen language.

But how is it possible, that we do not have for example "united theory of chemical bond" ? I presume, we do not need to count with gravity in this case. Instead of that we describe covalent, ionic bonds, "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding. Do we know the logic laying underneath?

thanx

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello,

Theoretical physicists assert that quantum mechanic and relativistic world use distinct mathematical models that can not united into one so far. The reason of it, which I do not understand, is the gravity. Once we encompass the gravity in the quantum world (or vice versa), we (maybe) will have one model of "everything". Please, be merciful with me, I am not a physicist and I know I use kitchen language.

But how is it possible, that we do not have for example "united theory of chemical bond" ? I presume, we do not need to count with gravity in this case. Instead of that we describe covalent, ionic bonds, "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding. Do we know the logic laying underneath?

thanx

Chemical bonds can be described via quantum mechanics ONLY. There is no reason to include gravity.

Zz.

 

[lyborko]

@ZapperZ

@ZapperZ

Yes, for sure there is not need to include gravity. But does it mean, we have theoretical model which describes the chemical bond universally, so we can precisely predict the behavior and properties of any existing chemical substance ?

Lyborko

 

[Drakkith]

@ZapperZ

Yes, for sure there is not need to include gravity. But does it mean, we have theoretical model which describes the chemical bond universally, so we can precisely predict the behavior and properties of any existing chemical substance ?

Lyborko

Yes, we can predict the behavior and properties extremely accurately using only Quantum Mechanics.

 

[pmacias]

Hello,

Thank you for your question. I can provide some insight into these theories.

The theory of everything is a theoretical framework that aims to explain all physical aspects of the universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies. It is a highly complex and ambitious goal, and as you mentioned, the inclusion of gravity is a major challenge. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces and behaves differently than the other three forces at a quantum level. This makes it difficult to reconcile with the other three forces in a single unified theory.

Regarding chemical bond theory, it is a well-established and widely accepted set of principles that explain how atoms bond together to form molecules. This theory is based on the principles of quantum mechanics and electrostatics, and it does not include gravity. Therefore, it is not necessary for a theory of everything to explain chemical bonds.

The different types of chemical bonds you mentioned (covalent, ionic, etc.) are all based on the behavior of electrons in atoms and molecules. The logic behind these bonds is well understood and can be explained through mathematical models and experiments.

In short, the reason we do not have a unified theory of everything is due to the complexity of the universe and the challenges in reconciling different fundamental forces. However, we do have a well-established theory of chemical bonds that explains the behavior of atoms and molecules. I hope this helps clarify the concepts for you. Thank you.