- Metal bonds

- Covalent bonds (electron pair bonds)
- Methyl bonds (hydrophobic bonds)
- Ion bonds
- Dipole bonds (hydrogen bonds)
- van der Waals bonds

Is there anything besides the number of them which indicates that these type of bonds or chemical "forces" in their schoolbook formulations could correlate with a dimension chain?
   Any such unambiguous identification seems difficult to find (as when it regards the known 4 forces of physics). Yet, here some aspects in that direction:

All chemical bonds are said to be manifestations of the electromagnetic force of physics, perhaps while that is the only force scientists have the feeling they almost fully understand?
   According to the general postulates in our dimension model underlying levels are to interpret as binding forces on superposed ones as higher d-degrees in relation to lower ones. This implies that all forces of elementary physics should be involved as complex components on the chemical level even if only the electromagnetic one is mentioned.
   Any closer explanation of the hydrophobic bonds is not given in here used sources, and it's said that the covalent bonds are not "fully explained" either.

Concerning the nuclear force it was said some decades ago that it seemed to include both gravitational, inertial like components and electromagnetic potentials. The theories and views have changed since then, but still it's said for instance that the nuclear force may be totally analyzable in spin-spin- and pathway dependencies. From the viewpoint of our model this just means that "forces" as a concept for d-degree 4 are translated into lower d-degrees - into mass, charges and linear relations and in a general sense may be expected to appear in molecular interactions.
   Even Mass becomes a force with this view.

H⁺ and e^- as elementary particles on the underlying level, become forces - and very central ones - on the chemical level and should be identified and regarded as such, mediators as they are in most chemical bonds. They become counterparts to π-mesons and other quanta of forces which the physicists call "carriers of forces".

In physics the distinction is made between polar and non polar forces, between the electromagnetic force and the weak force as polar ones, gravitation and nuclear force as non polar The same contradiction appears among the chemical bonds:
   Hydrophobic bonds become of the type +/+ between CH3-groups for instance, where the "plus sides" of the H-atoms are turned towards each other: that's "methyl bonds".
   Covalent bonds are of the -/- type, electron pairing as essential feature. Hence, both these types are non polar from the viewpoint of charge.
   On the other hand ion, dipole and van der Waals bonds are all three polar, built upon the attraction between opposite charges.
   Here a first sketched suggestion of how to look at relations to the dimension chain:

Hydrophobic← →Covalent bonds (4a --- 4b):

It should be underscored that none of these bonds are fully understood which may imply that other forces than the electromagnetic one (EM) are involved. In the model here we have assumed the EM-force developing first in step 3→2 in a dimension chain of forces (see that file in Physics).

As (-/-)-bonds the covalent electron pairing bonds may be regarded as complementary to the the nuclear force between protons in the atomic nucleus, which translated to the superposed molecular level gets expressed in hydrophobic bonds, type (+/+).

Compare the covalent bonds, "explained" with the octet rule on one hand (more about this below) and on the other the number 8 in the nuclear force: according to older views on this strong force one could find three times 8-9 potentials in it. And the strength of that force is roughly said developed first at 8 Z (with about 7,6 MeV per nucleon.) Even if maximum is reached first at 26-28 Z.
   (Are there eventually virtual positrons in the electron pairing bonds, as one have speculated about virtual anti-protons in the depth of atomic nuclei? Virtual positrons out of the negative energy of empty space?

If so it would be in accordance with the here adopted general aspect: the stepwise building-in of the opposite pole, the 00-pole, on different levels.)

The relation between the two types of bonds becomes that between outward and inward directions, from 0-pole and 00-pole respectively: the covalent bonds outwards the surface, the electron shells, and the hydrophobic bonds inwards, analogous to protons inwards the atomic nuclei.
   (Hydrophobic bonds may also be regarded as consequence of the covalent ones, developed from them, as there is always an anticenter (~ a 00-pole) for a unit as 0-pole, in the same sense that the 00-pole represents the end of a haploid dimension chain in relation to the 0-pole as start, and represents lower d-degrees and levels in relation to higher ones.)

Both types of bonds may be characterized as mutually counterdirected, cf. d-degree 4 as double direction, while bonds of the ion and dipole types gets rectified:

The electron pairs in the covalent bonds have opposite = counterdirected spin. Cf. double direction in d-degree 4 and increasing unidirection towards lower d-degrees according general views in our model.

Hence, in these both forces or bonds we find features of the "FA" and "FG"-forces from the physical level, FA as the outward acceleration force, FG as Gravitation.

General definitions in the dimension model say that the 0-pole represents first binding, integrating force, the 00-pole the primary polarizing one, but in d-degree 3 turned to circular geometry becomes an "aggregating" one. It's easy to state as a fact that covalent bonds are integrating, the outward opposite directions leading to bonds building bigger and bigger molecules and increasing order towards superposed levels. It's the foundation of life chemistry, the shared lack of completeness.
   How a hydrophobic "force" primarily may act as polarizing in a cell, is here left as an open question. (Maybe the methylation, marking inward direction, of positions in genes should be studied from this aspect?) Yet, like gravitation it appears as aggregating on a weaker, superposed level.

The results of these forces could be seen as expressed in next step, the poles of d-degree 3, proposed as radial versus circular in elementary geometrical terms: The covalent bonds may be regarded as radial in their main valences. The hydrophobic bonds are described by chemists as if they had "circular structure", that's with feature from the 00-pole, the anticentre pole. They are demarcating a "sphere" within which water is driven out; the non polar methyl groups repelling the polar water molecules. (One may after all ask why?)
   The hydrophobic bonds are also central for the building of cell membranes - a "circular" structure, shell creating, related to d-degree 2 of surfaces.
   Cell membranes could perhaps be regarded as expression for the nuclear force on this superposed level, (inverted to anticenter or expanded).

Mass ←→Space, the complementary concepts regarded as the poles in terms of physical entities in d-degree 3 in our model can also be one aspect on the relation between hydrophobic and covalent bonds: Mass is on the atomic level connected with the nuclei and protons (H) and may as an expression for gravitation appear in the hydrophobic aggregations which have got the name of "bonds".
   The covalent bond are built on electrons, most closely related to Vacant Space and outward acceleration, the complementary force to gravitation (see interpretations in Physics). The covalent bonds may be regarded as the essential space-building ones.

Covalent bonds - some more aspects:

Covalent bound molecules are more mobile than metals and salts. In outward direction the number of motion moments increases towards lower d-degrees and higher levels. And the level development - eventually through counterdirection from other units outside - gives increasing degrees of freedom (as for instance in the OH-groups of carbohydrates). Life as motion.
   The covalent bonds develop outwards toward lower d-degrees as in -4→3→ 2→1-steps in several ways:

- Molecules get ionized - that is polarized in charge, a kind of parallel to the ion bonds in what could be seen as a secondary developed d-degree chain within covalent bonds.

- The bonds get differentiated into main valences and side bonds, in ∑- and π-bonds, a structural relation of 180° to 90° between overlapping orbits which implies coordinate axes corresponding to a d-degree step 4 →3 in a dimension chain interpreted in terms of angle steps.

- The development from sp3 to sp2-hybridization (as in diamond in relation to graphite), from 4 bonds around a C-atom to 3 with delocalization of 1 electron, implies a step from 3-dimensional spherical structures to 2-dimensional plane ones: a step towards lower d-degrees which also implies more motion moments.

(The step from sp3- to sp2-hybridization has been regarded as a condition for life.)

The covalent bonds become increasingly unidirected - as through angle steps - towards lower valence numbers as in the atomic sequence C → N → O with valences 4 - 3 - 2. The molecules get more and more of a dipole character, a development which becomes a condition for the dipole bonds.

Ion, Dipole, van der Waals bonds:

These bonds are explained by the electromagnetic force between charges plus and minus but a condition for the ion bonds is the octet rule behind the covalent bonds which isn't explained by this electromagnetic force.

Ion bonds (3 -- 2):

There is a gradual changeover between covalent bonds and ion bonds according the Pauling's curve for the electronegativity of atoms, between bonds of dominant covalent character and those of dominant ion character. This curve has however an inflexion point which may be interpreted as a border, representing a structural change of dimensional character. (Cf. a sinus curve as projection of a rotating vector in a unity circle:

Ion bonds have traits of both the metal bonds and the covalent ones, both inward and outward directions. (Cf. poles 4a--4b of d-degree 3.)
   In typical ion bonds as salt crystals for instance the structure building extension is principally unlimited as in metals, in opposition to the "individual level" of covalent bound molecules and differentiation in structures. In this sense the ion bonds are characterized by continuum in relation to the feature of quantum jumps of covalent bonds - an opposition continuum - quantified which we have seen as one aspect on the poles 0 and 00 (part Physics).
  However, the ion bonds in opposition to metal bonds are quantified in steps +/-/+/-/+/-. polarized in charge. But the transition of electrons from metals to non metals, creating the charged ions, is totally dependant on the octet rule.

In which sense 3-2-dimensional? Ion bonds build 3-dimensional regular space structures, volumes as in salt crystals, and grows "spherically", with addition of layers (d-degree 2).

Polarizations of Charge:
With the model of a dimension chain through polarizations it becomes natural that also charge as property and physical quantity gets polarized further from units of +/-. On the atomic level the d-orbital for instance have been illustrated as with single electrons divided on the half axis around the origin in the coordinate system. With polarizations as the basis for distribution of charge this should principally be quantified and possible to express as a series of the type e →1/2 e →1/4 e… or e² →e → √e, with the electron as a wave function or the like and secondarily still more complex divisions on a molecular level. (See further files Chemical Elements.)
   "Activation" of molecules within biology may be assumed as more or less partial displacements of charge - as partial or "half steps" from border to interval or the inverse, also here regarded as the basis for the concept discontinuity.
   In ion bonds one can talk about whole charge transitions, in dipole bonds of half or partial ones as of the H-atoms in H-bridges. Hence, in a step from ion bonds to dipole bonds we have a polarization step outwards in the dimension chain.
   Chemists talk about "delta charges" in connection with dipole bonds.

Dipole and van der Waals bonds (2 → 1 → 0/00):

The dipole bonds may be regarded as developed from the covalent bonds when small molecules become more and more polar towards lower valence numbers of atoms as C, N, O (suggested to be read as d-degrees).
   While ion bonds create solid volumes of aggregation, the H-bridges are unidirectional and linear and bind molecular chains to one another, laterally as in the H-bridges of DNA and between protein chains, creating "ladder" structures and layers.
   Hence, they can be connected with d-degree step 2 - 1, also with regard to the structures they create.
   The dipole bonds between H2O-molecules in water render the water molecules the flat form - a reason to identify the phase of liquids as of d-degree 2.

Distance and Time
This pair of concepts may be applied to the dipole bonds in relation to the van der Waals bonds.

- Dipole bonds,
out of unsymmetrical distribution of charge in space,
linearly:
entity: Distance

- van der Waals bonds,
out of "unsymmetrical" distribution of charge in Time

In dimension steps:

van der Waals bonds:

These bonds depend on the rotation of the electrons, derive from "induced dipoles" or "temporary dipoles", represent time-dependant couplings.
   The poles 1a and 1b of d-degree 0/00 in our dimension model have been defined as "motions towards each other" and "motions from each other" respectively. Expressed in terms of charge that's attraction and repulsion. Both moments are included and alternate in van der Waals bonds.

The bond as a "line" between the atoms is polarized in these motions to and fro as in a dimension step 1 →1a/1b. Change of signs are also included in this type of bonds according to the chemists. Compare the description in our model: motions towards each other, derived ultimately from inward direction in d-degree 4, defines a new centre, a new 0-pole and therewith outward direction. While "motions from each other", ultimately derived from the 00-pole and outward direction in d-degree 4, defines a new anticentre and therewith new inward direction. This implies a sign exchange as direction change in terms of the dimension model.

The van der Waals force is generally prevalent between atoms and molecules close to each other. Hence, in this force an aggregating multidirectional force seems to turn up again and it would perhaps be possible to identify a gravitational component of inward direction in this force. Primary poles of d-degree 4 "meet again" in d-degree 0/00, which makes it reasonable that the force of d-degree 4a (inward direction and the pole of manyfoldness) reappears at the end of the chain of charge polarizations.
   Like the gravitational force in microcosm, the van der Waals force is also very weak.

With the assumption that all forces on the physical level should reappear in some form on the biochemical one, the question may arise how the weak interaction could manifest itself in biochemistry? May it be found somewhere in the development of the covalent bonds towards biological levels, perhaps as interaction between levels? Or as a factor in the spiralling of nucleotides and proteins? Or just as one cause for the curious fact that proteins are broken down and have to be built up again all the time? (This some vague speculations.)

The octet rule:

Covalent bonds depend on what is called the "octet rule" and are usually explained as the "endeavour" of the atoms to reach filled s- and p-orbitals towards the environment, 8 electrons as the border for a whole shell.
   This octet rule goes beyond what is explained by the electromagnetic force which implies balance between protons in the nucleus of an atom and number of electrons in the shell.
   With a more general aspect we could imagine the atom alternate between two roles, as an entirety in itself, a relative 5-dimensional whole, in proton-electron-balance, and its other role as part in the entirety, a 0-pole in relation to its surroundings. This in the same way as human beings alternate between states of sleep, closed in themselves as entireties, and states of being awake, the role of being parts in relation to the surrounding world.

Number 8 - some interpretations from the viewpoint of our dimension model:

- In the 2x²-series behind the periodic system from which whole shells and orbitals can be derived, we have number 8 in d-degree 2.

D-degree 2 represent surfaces, the demarcation of a unit from the surrounding, a shell.

- In the 2^x-series, which hypothetically has been assumed valid in direction inwards, we have after 3 polarizations (from 0/00) number 8 at d-degree 3
- In a 3-dimensional coordinate system there are 8 space quadrants: The number 8 could be traced back to the 3rd d-degree of space.
   (The coordinate system is also defined through 6 outer poles, and with the polarity "origin versus anticentre", represented by the s-orbital, added it gives number 8.)

- In angle steps 360°→180° → 90° → 45°, a circle is divided in 8 parts.

- Another aspect: In our model we have assumed that Charge as such is a property (the physical quantity) defined in d-degree 2 in relation to mass analysed as 3-dimensional. Here at d-degree 2 this property of Charge would possibly appear as still unpolarized. In this sense "complete".

- In a dimension chain the outer poles of d-degree 2 is 3a and 3b. Compare perhaps what becomes the 6 electrons divided in 3 + 3 with opposite spin in the p-orbital.

- Outer poles of d-degree 3 is 4a 4b, representing the opposite vectors of d-degree 4 on an underlying level. Sum of poles = 8. In this way we can trace the octet rule back to d-degree step 4→ 3 according to our suggested views on covalent bonds above.

- The "loop version" of our dimension model implies that orbitals in steps
0/00-1 and 1-2 (s and p orbitals) are regarded as debranched from higher steps outwards, and the opposite directions in the chain meeting in step 3--2:

We have s- and p-orbitals as debranched from inner shells and remember that H belongs to the K-shell, C, N and O belong to the L-shell, P and S to the M-shell.
   (More about the octet rule in files Chemical Elements.)

Metal bonds - in inorganic chemistry:

How interpret the inorganic metal bonds in this suggested scheme?

a. They may be regarded as the collective correspondence to an individual atom with protons assembled in the centre, electrons "displaced" to a shell. Delocalized electrons described as uniting "clouds" around the positively charged metal ions.
    The polarity individual - collective has the feature of 0- and 00-poles, defining d-degree 4.
   Generally the 00-pole represent manyfoldness and anticentre in relation to centre.
It's the source for inward direction. This vector aspect could be one factor in the metal bonds where the atoms get closer to one another: the ionizations and delocalization of outer electrons as a means or a result.
    The common cloud of electrons is said to act "uniting" on a collective atomic level, but such an explanation is hardly convincing. Why do the electrons get delocalized - and in which sense do they appear as clouds? Is there really reason to interpret the metal bonds as purely an expression of the electromagnetic force?

b. Metals dominate more and more toward heavier elements and all elements in higher orbitals as d and f . In atoms Mass is concentrated to the nuclei and Mass is connected with gravitation, the FG-force; electrons in the shell are closest to Vacant Space, connected with the FA-force. We could in this respect connect the metal bonds with the gravitational force. The growing number of neutrons in heavier elements emphasizes also the Mass property of nuclei. Hence, in metal bonds one factor could be an example of Mass as binding force in relation to lower d-degrees as Charge, interpreted as of d-degree 2, a factor which should be part of the interpretation.

c. Metal bonds have similarities with other bonds as if they represented the collective complementary poles to bonds developed from individual atoms:

- With hydrophobic bonds, in its non polar type, its aggregation of similar atoms with a relative surplus of electrons and in the gathering of plus-charges and "driving out" of electrons, as hydrophobic bonds drive out water. But the hydrophobic bonds develop from covalent bonds on an individual level.

- With ion bonds in building solid structures and in the aggregating type, characterized by continuum like ion bonds in salts but in opposition to these not quantified with respect to charge. Here the ion bond has the individualized crystal structure of +/-variations, possible to regard as radial in relation to metallic bonds with their "spherical" (?) clouds. (Poles of d-degree 3.)

- With dipole bonds in the character of layers which the delocalized electrons give metals, surface layers that may glide over one another. A corresponding form in the development of individual covalent bonds is what is explained through the term sp²-hybridizations, with "delocalized" common electrons giving plane molecular structures.
    Again we remind of the coupling between d-degree step 4→3 and the step 2 → 1 in the loop version of a dimension chain in our model.

- Finally, there are a certain relationship with the plasma phase in the mobility of the delocalized electrons. With the plasma phase as the ultimate separation of protons and electrons interpreted as the phase in d-degree 0/00, we get the connection between the outer poles of d-degree 4, 0 and 00, combined in last d-degree" 0/00" of motions.   

In the "haploid" version of a dimension chain the pole 0 represent 5 and pole 00 the d-degree 0/00.
   Hence, we could in a certain sense regard the development of phases and types of chemical bonds as occurring between the individual and covalent type outwards and the metal bonds inwards.
   Some kind or kinds of metals should be an essential factor in the development of life structures - as they surely are!.

Connections between bond types and phases:

Above has been pointed to the connection between bond types and phases: Ion bonds in salts the solid phase, dipole bonds with the liquid phase of water. The van der Waals bonds could be connected with a gas phase if "induced dipoles" or its time-dependant combination of attraction and repulsion is translated into the more mechanical collisions (to and fro) between atoms or molecules of gases.

Some more general annotations about chemical bonds:

From the viewpoint of an atom, the bond to other atoms can be described as a centre displacement 0 → 00 (becoming a new centre 0'), from centre of the atom to the centre of the bond on its circumference - a virtual place for insertions from outside.
Overlapping orbitals (counter directed = of the same sign) define a new centre.

However, the bonds may be imagined as derivations from a field level underlying the atomic level of chemical elements:
a) fragmentation - polarizations,
b) bonds "the other way around". (Most elements exist in nature as molecules at lower temperatures.)
   From this aspect orbital centra could be regarded as the basic structures which orientate the atoms. Compare the precipitation of amino acids from mixtures of smaller molecules.
   Release of energy at creation of bonds could be interpreted as (partial) depolarizations - a return to a higher d-degree.

[The molecule or the chemical compound could be compared to a linguistic phrase: The development of an underlying unit, in languages = the "sense", regarded as stepwise polarizations into directions, words for directions, verbs for actions or processes, nouns and qualities…]

Assuming a development from fields to mass to particles representing charge etc. through polarizations, inversions, angle steps, then one branch of the fields may be thought of as expressed in the coordinate axes of the atom, as drawings in the surroundings, in the negative energy of "vacant space". The other branch, that from the 00-pole, imagined as meeting "the other way around", from outside, as potential counterdirections ...

...
[The reactive rope ends of molecules are called radicals, a word which originates from the word "root".]