Physical chemistry

The idea is not new and I have read several books at the university library on the physics of chemical bonding and I am not the only one who suspected that the description and application is poorly understood and badly implemented. Chemistry is a science that depends heavily on example and experimentation to identify process. No coherent theory of how bonds are made and broken has ever been devised which explains the overall action.

Theories describe the action in vague relationships that defy extrapolation. I have come to understand that underlying method of bonding. What takes places is obviously electrical in nature, but without an understanding of the nucleus, the nature of gravity and some understanding of higher dimensions it probably just looks like an amorphous complex of action without coherence. The idea that it can be completely characterized by probability mechanisms is absurd, but that it could be characterized without probabilistic elements is equally absurd.

For myself, I consider it no more complex than using a library function and understanding the interface well enough to apply that knowledge to achieve a specific result. For any specific application there are skills and information that need to be absorbed and understood. I have studied many things and the concept of n-Dimensional space as it applies to the understanding of electrical field action is certainly the most difficult to understand and apply. The mind is not well suited to grasp dimensional information beyond the 4 that it commonly manages.

Much like gravity, the bond between atoms and molecules is one of the ubiquitous elements of the universe and its understanding is key to any effective science. Certainly most if not all of chemistry is process based and this seems like an extension of alchemy as it originated. I kind of random application of experimentation until a specific condition produces a consistent usable result. Science in the gross aspects, much like melting metal and hoping the bonds form in the way you wish. The universe has no parallel to the construction of bonding by specific technique and this is because the condition which would allow this are not only improbable to occur naturally, but I assume virtually impossible. Like, on the order of 10^-billion that it would happen as a combination of events once for one single bond. It would require a random event that would rival the appearance of a 747 from thin air with a plane load of passengers.

As a random event it would be odd, as a mechanism it is quite simple. Okay, n-Space, electrical fields, probability relations, atomic scale observation, and nuclear physics, are probably not simple things to most, but I mean relatively simple if you grasp the basic concepts of the universe.

I did commercial chemistry when I was still in my teens and I can relate to not understanding what it all means. It is a confusing tangle of data that I saw as something like a Rubik's cube puzzle with 10 trillion faces and 100 dimensions of rotation. I can remember trying to understand it and sitting for days in a row studying the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and attempting to get even a glimpse of a pattern. I can remember being physically sick as it was so complex and failing to understand things seriously disturbs me.