Theory of everything and chemical bond theory

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenge of unifying quantum mechanics and relativity, primarily due to gravity. The original poster questions why there isn't a unified theory of chemical bonding, given that gravity isn't a factor in this context. Participants clarify that chemical bonds can be accurately described using quantum mechanics alone. It is confirmed that quantum mechanics allows for precise predictions of the behavior and properties of chemical substances. The conversation highlights the effectiveness of quantum theory in explaining chemical interactions without the need for gravitational considerations.
lyborko
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lyborko said:
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.
 
@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
 
lyborko said:
@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.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top