Here we would like to briefly summarize the results of our work conducted in 1980-1997 in chemistry and physics.

1. theory of chemical bonding,

2. theory of chemical structure,

3. theory of chemical reactions,

4) elucidation of the connection between the physical and chemical properties in substances, of the number of electrons in the outer electronic shells, of the atoms’ FIPs, and of the affinity to the atoms’ electrons out of which the chemical compounds are formed.

II The main points in physics which offered new results were:

1. explanation of the physical nature of chemical bonding,

2. explanation of the physical nature of chemical reactions,

3. explanation of electronic molecular spectra,

4. explanation of the anomalous deviations of experimental results and theory when defining the heat capacity of hydrogen at temperatures above 2,000 degrees,

5. unified interpretation of the physical nature of gravitational, inertial, electrostatic, electrodynamics, and strong inter-nuclear forces,

6. elucidation of the electrical nature of mass and its exclusion from the category of independent essences,

7. transition from mechanical interpretations to unified electro-thermodynamic interpretations of the physical nature of the world.

1. elaboration of new approaches (If only Newton knew!),

2. role of calculation and experiment in theory.

1. defining incorrect explanations in contemporary textbooks,

2. elaboration of the basics for new textbooks.

In the course of the work conducted during these years, answers were given to questions which gradually arose during the development of chemistry from alchemy to electronic chemistry. As far as electronic chemistry is concerned, back in the 1930s it was realized that the structures and transformations of chemical substances are defined by the change of the electrons’ energies in the outer layer of the elements’ atoms.

On the basis of the studies and conclusions made on chemical materials accumulated by Mendeleyev, Lewis, and Pauling, rules were formulated, allowing to explain and foretell the structure of chemical com-pounds and their physical and chemical properties. The Table of Elements, the Lewis Rules, the Resonance Rules, the VSEPR Rules allowed to foretell the chemical and spatial structure of chemical compounds.

The discovery of a great number of chemical reactions (especially in organic chemistry) has allowed, in many cases, to suggest the method of synthesis for chemical compounds.

In the beginning of the 19th century the scientific basis for chemistry was formed: the atom-molecular theory of substance structure and the theory of chemical transformation.

In the framework of the structure theory, it was found that chemical compounds (molecules) consist of atoms bonded with chemical bonds. As far as the theory of organic compound structure is concerned, rules were formulated (first of all, the four-valence carbon rule) which allowed to foretell the structure of organic compounds. The Lewis Rules and the Resonance Rules allowed to foretell the structure of both organic and inorganic compounds.

Immediate was the general question concerning the physical nature of chemical bonding. Besides this, immediate were the questions concerning the elucidation of the physical nature of the above mentioned rules (Periodic Law, Lewis Rules, Resonance Rules, etc.).

Questions concerning the structure theory were unclear: Why is it that two electrons (one from each atom) and not one or three take part in the formation of the bond? Why is it that atoms taking part in chemical bonding strive to build their shells to the level of those of the inert (noble) gas? Why is there an exception to this rule? Etc.

All these questions arose in the course of the development of traditional (classical) chemistry as a science. In the 1930s the traditional development of chemistry was exchanged for quantum chemistry which, in the 1980s, proved to be a false path in the development of science. At the beginning of the 1980s we continued the traditional path directed at deepening the understanding of the main chemical phenomena.

Improving the knowledge of the physical nature of chemical bonding included the transition from the conclusion that during chemical bond formation the system’s energy decreases to the explanation why the system’s energy decreases (the qualitative explanation of the enthalpy factor) and by how much the system’s energy actually decreases (quantitative evaluation of the enthalpy factor for homo- and hetero-atomic molecules).

We have managed to realize why more energy is required for breaking a chemical bond than is the difference in electronic energies of atoms and molecules (qualitative evaluation of the entropy factor). We have also managed to quantitatively evaluate the influence of the entropy factor on the chemical bond-breaking energy. The evaluation of the enthalpy and entropy factors has allowed us to compile a system of three algebra equations with three unknowns (which we will further refer to as a system of equations), on the basis of a model which presumes that covalent (homo- and hetero-atomic) bonding is formed via electrons which rotate in one circle whose plane is perpendicular to the axis connecting the nuclei. Upon deducing the system’s equations, it was supposed that electrons were particles with a definite mass, a charge, and an orbit speed.

The solution of the system of equations, with regard to a hydrogen molecule, has shown that the value of a hydrogen molecule’s electronic energy differs from that received via the experiment by less than 4% which proves the correctness of the model. This system of equations has helped to deepen the understanding of the main questions raised in the course of the development of the theory of chemical substance structure. The solution of this system of equations has allowed to realize the physical essence of chemical bonding and the main regularities observed when studying the latter, given in the form of the Lewis Rules and as additions to these rules which explained the exclusions concerning the Lewis Rules (connections with surplus electrons, the resonance rules, etc.) For example, the system of equations has allowed to calculate the optimal number of bonding electrons and the radius of the circle in which the bonding electrons rotate. This system has allowed to elucidate the functional dependence of bonding energy in dual-atom molecules on the first ionization potentials (FIP) of the bonding atoms and on the number of bonding electrons. It was found that when the FIPs of the bonding atoms are equal, the dependence of the bonding energy on the FIP is described by a parabola. If the FIPs of the atoms differ, the bonding energy increases proportionally to the difference of the atoms’ FIPs.

The solution of the system of equations has made it possible to calculate the dependence of the following on the FIP of the bonding atoms: bond lengths, bond polarity, radius of the circle where the bonding electrons rotate, and the radius of the circle where nonbonding electrons rotate. All the calculated dependencies coincided with those received as a result of treating the available experimental data on the FIP of atoms, bonding energies, bonding lengths, and bond polarity.

According to the model whose correctness has been proven by comparing the calculated and experimental data when one atom is bonded to several atoms, covalent chemical bonds should have a definite direction. The corners between the bonds should be defined by the repulsion between the circles in which the bonding electrons rotate.

The calculation of the radius of the circle where the nonbonding electrons rotate has shown that this radius is greater than the radius of the bonding electrons’ circle. According to this model, the repulsion between the electronic pairs increases proportionally to the increase of the radius of the circle where the electrons rotate. That is, the inter-electronic repulsion should, according to the calculation, increase in the row: nonbonding pairs - nonbonding pairs > nonbonding pairs - bonding pairs > bonding pairs - bonding pairs. Such a sequence is observed in the experiment summarized by the rules of VSEPR.

On the background of a satisfactory coincidence in the calculated and experimental dependencies, for most of the elements there were great discrepancies between the calculated and experimental data for a number of elements which are called anomalous. The reason for these discrepancies is explained as follows.

The anomalously small bonding energy value, as compared to the model calculation, had dual-atomic covalent bonds in a number of noble gases and elements with two electrons on the atoms’ outer electronic shell. It was found that the anomalously small bonding energy in molecules formed out of anomalous elements is connected with the atom's anomalous properties of these elements which is obvious in the fact that unlike normal elements, the anomalous ones had negative values of affinity towards the electron.

As a result of solving the system of equations it was found that during the formation of a covalent bond, both bonding electrons enter the outer (previously existing) electronic shells of the bonding atoms. That is, in the process of covalent bond formation, the number of electrons in the outer shells of the bonding atoms increases by one unit. The coincidence of the rows of anomalous atoms (those with a negative affinity towards the electron) and the rows of atoms which offer an anomalously small covalent bonding energy in dual-atomic molecules formed of these atoms, has shown that the anomalously small bonding energy is due to the additional energy expenditure connected with the entrance of the bonding electron to the outer layer of the atom being bonded.

Then we managed to realize the cause of the anomalous behavior of atoms: inter-electronic repulsion in the outer electronic layer.

The mutual repulsion of electrons in one layer leads to the fact that the electrons in the atom are distributed in layers. The number of electrons on the inner layers is the same in all atoms; that is why when the nuclear charge increases, the number of electrons in the atom's outer layer changes periodically. According to electrostatics, the FIP of the atoms, and their affinity towards electrons also change periodically. The number of electrons in the atom’s outer layer, the atom’s FIP, and the atom’s affinity towards the electron, as shown, define the physical and chemical properties of elements: valence, bonding energy, and reaction possibilities.

That is, the elucidation of the physical nature of the anomalous behavior of elements help to under-stand: 1) the physical nature of valence, 2) the connection between the FIP, the affinity of atoms towards electrons, the number of electrons in the outer layer with the physical and chemical properties of elements, and the cause of their periodic change, 3) the physical nature of the periodic law. Consequently, we have managed to deepen the understanding of the Lewis Rules. Instead of phrases like: a molecule is composed of atoms that are bound together by sharing pairs of electrons using the atomic orbitals of the bound atoms and the most important requirement for the formation of a stable compound is that the atoms achieve noble gas electron con-figuration the following wording has been suggested:

The inter-electronic repulsion (between the outer-layer electrons) limits the number of electrons entering the outer layer of the atom when chemical bonding occurs. That is why the number of bonds that an atom can form with other atoms is limited. The number of electrons in the outer layer plus those added during bond formation cannot exceed 8 (as far as the first 20 elements in the Mendeleev Table of Elements are concerned).

The improvement of the Resonance Rules included the elucidation of the physical nature of the phenomena described by these rules. It became known that the effects, described by the Resonance Rules, are conditioned by electron-nuclear isomerization.

We have managed to answer some special questions like:

The main questions that were raised in the course of the development of the theory of chemical reactions were as follows:

1) Why don't all chemical reactions proceed if they are thermo-dynamically possible?

2) Why does the reaction speed increase along the exponent with the increase of temperature?

3) Why is it that in reactions proceeding with bond-breaking, the activation (additional) energy, as a rule, is much smaller than the energy necessary to break the bond thermally?

Indeed, why is it that reactions proceed with the breaking of the chemical bond in normal conditions, while we need a temperature of more than 4,000° to break such bonds thermally? Examples of such reactions are interactions of radicals and ions with molecules, catalytic and photo-chemical reactions. Question #3 was never touched upon before the beginning of our work.

In the course of the studies we managed to find out that unlike the opinions accepted in 1980, the interactions between molecules take place not via the scheme:

AB + CD ® AC + BD

but mainly along the chain reaction scheme:

AB Û A + B

A + CD ® AC + D

D + AB ® DB + A

where A, B, and D are active species (radicals, ions, conences).

That is, unlike the ideology accepted in 1980, the active elements in chemical reactions (i.e., species which cause chemical transformations) are not at all particles or molecules with a high kinetic energy. The active elements are specific chemical species like radicals, ions, conences, etc.

It has been found that the interaction of these species with saturated molecules proceeds via three elementary stages:

association - electronic isomerization – dissociation.

Dissociation is the stage that usually limits the process. The given scheme for the procedure of the chemical reactions answered the main questions arisen during the development of chemical kinetics, mentioned above.

Active species are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the initial molecules. When the temperature decreases, the concentration of active species exponentially drops, causing an abrupt decrease in the speed (rate) of the chemical reactions. This dependence of the chemical reaction rate on the temperature explains why all the possible thermodynamic chemical reactions do not proceed at normal temperature (1st question) and why the reaction rate between the molecules exponentially depends on the temperature (2nd question).

The presence of the electron isomerization stage in the mechanism of the chemical reaction answers the 3rd question. The electronic isomerization speed is many orders or magnitude higher than that of the dissociation stage. That is why the kinetic parameters of the electronic isomerization stage, and first of all - the activation energy, do not effect the activation energy of the whole of the reaction which defines the energy consumption in the course of the reaction. That is, the energy necessary to break the chemical bond in the initial molecule is equal to the activation energy of the slowest stage (dissociation) in the reaction of an active particle with a saturated molecule.

As a result of electronic isomerization, the initial covalent bond which requires about 400 kJ/mol in order to break, transforms into a Van der Waals bond (VWB) which requires less than 20 kJ/mol for its rupture. Thus it becomes comprehensible why, in order to break a chemical bond in a molecule in the presence of an active species, we need an energy of one order of magnitude smaller than for the thermal rupture of the bond in this molecule (3rd question).

In the offered scheme, the driving forces of chemical reactions have become comprehensible, such notions as catalysis have become clear: A catalyst is a chemical compound which forms (produces) a greater number of active species in the system than initial molecules do at the same temperature.

The second method for accelerating the interaction of molecules is by increasing the concentration of the associates in the system in the presence of catalysts. Thus, for example, a catalyst substance unites other substances that react with each other along the scheme:

AB + K ® ABK

ABK + CD ® ABKCD

ABKCD ® AC + BD + K

where AB and CD are reacting substances.

The acceleration of the reaction (catalytic action of the substance) is explained thus: Due to the absence of the catalyst, the intermediate compound in the reaction is: AB - CD; while in the presence of the catalyst it is: AB - K - CD. The speed of the whole reaction in both cases is proportional to the concentration of the intermediate compound. In correlation with concentration AB - CD (without the catalyst) and AB - K - CD (with the catalyst), the concentration of these compounds in the system is defined by bonding energies AB - CD and AB - K - CD.

The bonding energies of both molecules with catalysts are much higher than the bonding energy between themselves, so the concentration of the intermediate compounds with catalysts is much greater, and correspondingly, much greater is the reaction speed.

As a result of elucidating the nature of chemical reactions and chemical bonding, the nature of chemical reaction capability has become comprehensible as well as the physical nature of chemical properties in substances. In the course of the studies were clarified the connections between the atoms' FIPs, out of which are formed the given substances, and their physical and chemical properties.

In the framework of the elaborated Theory of Elementary Inter-actions (TEI) an explanation was found about the main correlations discovered experimentally in the course of the studies concerning chemical kinetics. Among these studies were The Influence of Solvent, Linearity Rules Concerning Free Energy, The Greenberg Rules, The Resonance Rules, and some others that were imperial until the TEI came into being.

Now let’s summarize all the above. As a result of the performed work, we managed to realize the electronic structure of the molecule. We found that four main items of the covalent molecule’s electronic structure define the properties of the molecules.

1. The bonding electrons rotate in a circle whose plane is perpendicular to the axis connecting the nuclei.

This peculiarity of the electronic structure of molecules explains:

a) the dependence of bonding energy on the number of bonding electrons and on the FIP of the atoms being bonded,

b) the dependence of the bond’s length on the FIP of the atoms being bonded,

c) the dependence of the bond’s polarity on the FIP of the atoms being bonded,

d) the physical nature of the VSEPR Rules.

2. The bonding electrons simultaneously enter the outer layers of the atoms being bonded. This peculiarity of the electronic structure of molecules explains:

a) the saturation of covalent chemical bonds,

b) the Lewis Rules and their exceptions,

c) the physical nature of inertia in noble gases,

d) the small energy of covalent bonds in anomalous elements.

3. The electrons in the molecules and in the molecules’ associates exchange energy and change their positions among themselves. This peculiarity of the electronic structure of molecules explains:

a) the physical nature of equaling bond lengths and their bonding energies when one atom is bonded to others with various types of bonds,

( the phenomena described by the Resonance Rules),

b) why in the presence of radicals, ions, etc. chemical bonds, for whose thermal breakage we need a temperature of more than 4,000°, actually break at a temperature of 400°. In turn, the physical nature of the radical’s activity explains how the reaction proceeds between saturated molecules; it explains the mechanism (in the physical sense) of catalytic and photochemical reactions.

In general, the elucidation of the molecules' electronic structure (G Theory), the cause of the anomalous behavior of some elements (First Addition), and the physical nature of phenomena, described by the Resonance Rules (Second Addition), allows us to interpret the physical phenomena without using all the above mentioned rules and the Periodic Law.

4. The electrons in the molecules, unlike those in the atoms, change their energy when the molecules are given heat energy during excitation of the vibrational and rotational freedom stages.

During thermal excitation of the molecule at temperatures over 100º C, the rotational and vibrational freedom stages of the nuclei are excited. As a result of this there is an increase in the distance between the nuclei of the atoms bonded into molecules. As a result of the increase of the distance between the nuclei, the effective positive charge, which acts upon the bonding electrons, decreases. As a result of this, the energy of the electrons increases. This occurs at the expense of the energy on the rotational and vibrational freedom stages (this process proceeds adiabatically). It is along this mechanism that the electrons in molecules, unlike those in atoms, change their energy in portions commensurable with rotational and vibrational quantums during thermal excitation.

That is, the electrons in a molecule can directly absorb energy in large (luminous) quanta, and they can indirectly use energy in small (thermal) quanta at the expense of the rotational and vibrational energies of the nuclei. This peculiarity of the electronic structure explains:

a) why the energy, necessary to break a chemical bond, is about two times greater than the difference between the energies of the electrons in the divided atoms and those in the molecule,

b) the differences in electronic spectra of atoms and molecules.

Before these works came into being, the physical nature of chemical bonding was unknown. The calculation of a hydrogen molecule’s bonding energy with the help of the model which presumed that chemical bonding occurs via two electrons, offered a bonding energy two times smaller than did the experiment. In the course of the work on investigating this discrepancy, a supposition was made to the effect that this difference was caused because the model in use presumed that the electron possessed only the properties of a particle, but this was not so. In reality the electron particle also has wave properties. Therefore it was supposed that the hydrogen molecule’s bonding energy could be calculated via the Schroedinger equation. However, a system with two electrons could not be solved via this equation analytically without additional suppositions.

When additional suppositions were introduced, a result was received which differed from that of the experiment by less than 0.001%. However, this did not help to comprehend the physical nature of chemical bonding because there were other things that needed understanding: the physical nature of the wave-particle, the nature of the interaction of wave-particles, the cause of the additional gain in energy as a result of the interaction on the particles as presupposed in the electrostatic model of wave-particles. The newly introduced words like exchange and commutational interactions, produced false images of explanations and only complicated the question.

During our work in this respect, we have found that in the course of solving the Schroedinger equation in respect to a hydrogen molecule’s bonding energy, the results of the solution were simply adjusted to the experimental results by the authors of the calculation. It was also found that the discrepancy between a simple electrostatic bonding energy calculation conducted by Bohr and the experimental results of Langmuir was due to the fact that during the analysis of the experimental results it was considered that only the nuclear heat capacity changes during the breaking of the bond. It was supposed that the electronic heat capacity of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule and in divided hydrogen atoms are identical and equal to zero.

As a result of our work we have found that the electronic heat capacity in molecules greatly differs from that in atoms. Considering this difference in heat capacities, the result of the hydrogen molecule’s bonding energy differs from that of the experiment by less than 4% which explains the molecule structure and the cause of the discrepancy in the calculated and experimental results when defining the bonding energy in a hydrogen molecule, i.e., explains the physical nature of chemical bonding.

Additional confirmation of the correctness of this model which presumed only electrostatic interaction in molecules, was a coincidence of the main dependencies received from solving the above mentioned system of equations with dependencies received experimentally.

The coincidence in the calculation of the hydrogen molecule's energy and the above mentioned dependencies, on the basis of the model which presupposed only electrostatic interactions, has proven that the electrons’ supposed wave properties and the exchange or commutational interactions, in the case of molecules, are not evident. This had caused serious doubt about the existence of the new essences.

Molecular electronic spectra greatly differ from atomic ones. The former contained many more lines - more than two orders more! Indeed, the number of lines in the molecular spectra was such that they often merged into stripes. Traditionally the molecular spectra were known as striped spectra while atomic ones were known as linear spectra. In the framework of the theory accepted in the 1980s, it was supposed that the electrons in both the molecule and atom do not change their energy in portions smaller than 10 eV. This energy was much greater than the energy required to break up a molecule; that is why the great difference in the electronic spectra of atoms and molecules could not be explained without contradicting the accepted theory.

We have shown that when the molecules are thermally agitated, the distance between the nuclei is changed and therefore the nuclei’s effective charge changes as well. This fact was overlooked. The decrease of the nuclei’s effective charge leads to the increase of the electrons’ energies. This process occurs adiabatically at the expense of vibrational and rotational energies applied to the molecule in the course of thermal agitation.

Thus, for example, the electrons in molecular hydrogen heated to 2,000° , unlike those of atomic hydrogen, are in different energetic conditions, the difference being commensurable with the values of vibrational and rotational quanta.

Absorbing light quanta, the molecule’s electrons get energy equal to the sum of the energies of the light quanta and of the main condition. That is, the difference in the electronic spectra of atoms and molecules is conditioned by the fact that the electrons’ energies of the main condition in the atoms do not depend on the temperature (T < 5,000° ) while in molecules heated to more than 100° (defrosting of the rotational freedom stages) the electrons’ energies begin to increase in portions commensurable with the quantums of rotational and vibrational energies.

When calculating the theoretical curve, it was supposed that the electronic freedom stages do not defrost even at temperatures higher than 10,000° ; a hydrogen molecule actually dissociates completely at 5,000° . That is why the electronic heat capacity was not considered when making theoretical calculations of molecules’ heat capacities even at temperatures higher than 2,000° . As indicated in section 3, the electrons in the molecules begin to increase their energies at a temperature of over 100° . This explains the difference between the calculated and the experimentally defined values of hydrogen's heat capacity.

In the beginning of the 1980s is was generally accepted in physics that the interaction of forces between bodies depended on the size of the bodies and the distance between them. The interaction between cosmic bodies was defined by the gravitation forces. The interactions between atoms and interactions between electrons and the atom's nucleus were explained by electric forces.

The discrepancy between the calculation and experiment of the bonding energy in a hydrogen molecule in the frame-work of the model which considered only electric interactions and experiments, was explained qualitatively by the presence of wave properties in the electrons. That is, besides electric interactions, commutational or exchange electron interactions were supposed, the physical nature of which was unknown. The interaction between nucleons and quarks was defined by the strong inter-nuclear forces.

The main characteristics of these forces are:

1) gravitational forces are only attractive, proportional the mass;

2) electric forces are attractive to unidentical charges, repulsive to identical ones, proportional to the charge;

3) strong inter-nuclear forces are independent of the bonding particles' charges and mass; only attractive.

These attractive forces increase when the distance between the quarks (in the volume of the nucleus) increases.

Strong inter-nuclear forces are close-acting (in the volume of the nucleus) since they do not effect the interaction of the electrons and the nucleus. These forces are one order greater than the electrostatic ones. It was supposed, in chemistry textbooks, that the decrease in energy during the formation of the nucleon-nucleon bond occurs at the expense of decreasing the mass of the bonding nucleons. However, a mechanism for the transition of mass into energy was not proposed.

In books on physics, citing inter-nuclear forces, a few theories were discussed which explained these, while the point concerning the transition of mass into energy was usually not touched upon.

Besides forces, there were other initial essences on which these forces depended. These included mass, charges (positive and negative) and an essence active during inter-nuclear interactions known as color.

Each of these essences had a number of main properties which were actually independent essences. One mass attracted other masses. Mass possessed inertial properties. Mass transformed into energy and defined the wave length of the transiting material bodies. The mass of bodies increased with the increase of their speed. Mass was included in the equation for the calculation of the potential and kinetic energies of bodies. Mass distorted space, time depended on the speed of mass.

Judging by the number of essences which mass was supposed to possess in order to explain an experiment, mass has long surpassed the phlogiston. Mass was the main notion for the description of the world. Indeed, all the events of the world, according to the mechanical interpretation, could be foretold if we knew the meaning of the impulses and coordinates of all the bodies and particles.

Some life was added to the dull persistence of the mechanical interpretation when the Principle of Uncertainty was introduced by Heisenberg according to which it is impossible to simultaneously define the position and the impulse of a particle with perfect precision. Another additional essence of mass and a mechanical description of the world, according to this Principle, is the fact that we cannot imagine an exact picture of the future world, but only via the laws of possibility we can foretell the possibility of one or another event that might occur in the mechanical world.

The notion of mass and the first two essences attributed to it (gravitation and inertia) were introduced in the 17th century by Newton. This notion at that time did not even need an explanation and was accepted with ease just as the initial essence of matter which was actually mass. In the course of the development of science, the physical nature of mass was becoming more and more incomprehensible.

Besides a mechanical world, there existed an electrodynamic world where charged bodies and particles were on the move. The main essences in this world were charges (positive and negative) and the pro-perties of these charges at rest and in motion. Identical charges were repulsive, unidentical ones were attractive; charges had inertial properties, in motion they produced magnetic fields; vibrating charges produced electromagnetic radiation.

In the middle of the 19th century, in order to explain the inter-nuclear forces, quarks were introduced which possessed both mass and charge. But the attraction between them was defined additionally via such properties which only the quarks possessed. This property was condition-ally called color.

Before Plank’s introduction of the constant h in the equation describing the radiation of an absolutely black body, before Einstein explained the photo-effect, and before Bohr explained the hydrogen atom spectrum, it was thought that electromagnetic radiation was actually an endless wave.

After the three above mentioned discoveries, an explanation was offered to the effect that electromagnetic radiation is actually a stream of particles with neither mass nor charge, and known as photons. These particles, according to the theory, possessed wave properties which were observed in the experiment to the effect that the movement of these particles had a characteristic wave length and amplitude, and to the effect that the stream of these particles offered a diffractive picture which was characteristic for waves.

Analogously, De Broglie suggested that particles possessed wave properties. He said that the wave length was defined by the particle’s mass and speed. Nothing was said in regard to the amplitude of the wave.

Since the physical nature of the mentioned essences (on the basis of which were explained the mechanical, electrical, and inter-nuclear color world) had no logic, some so-called philosophical explanations were widely distributed. These included: the end of physics as a science; the incapability of human beings to understand the newly discovered physical essences; proof of the correctness of incredible ideas; etc. As a matter of fact, the new ideas could even have been divided into categories of incredibility. Thus, for example, the wave-particle is much better understood and is more presentable than the particle-wave. Many of the notions were never explained at all, for example, the influence of wave properties in particles on the system’s energy which is comprised of these particles. It was incomprehensible why the attractive forces, defined by color (inter-quark) increased when the distance between the quarks increased, while a decrease of the distance to a certain limit (» 10^-15 cm) caused a shift to repulsive forces. Why is the energy, which is discharged during nucleon-nucleon bond formation, smaller by one order of magnitude as compared to the energy required for bonding the breakage?

In general, as far as incredibility and inaccessibility are concerned, the condition of fundamental physics was close to the idealism given in the above mentioned mottoes.

How did we manage to untangle the explanations to questions like those mentioned above?

After clarifying the physical nature of chemical bonding, it became obvious that during chemical bond formation two positive charges (atoms’ nuclei) are bonded via negatively charged electrons.

It was found that the most important contributions to bonding energy are the concentration of the positive charge and the entropy factor. In general the forces bonding the charges are known as FAS (force and entropy). [In thermodynamics force is indicated by F and entropy - by S.] Identical charges are bonded by these forces. Charges with opposite signs act as glue in these systems. The energy in such systems is minimal at a definite distance between identical charges. This method of bonding charges with identical signs helped to explain the physical nature of both the gravitational and the inter-nuclear forces.

In the framework of the suggested explanation, nature, as a gravitational, intermolecular (chemical), and inter-nuclear force is actually electrical. Its main forces are the FAS which are distinguished by the correlation of the entropy and enthalpy contributions. The correlation of these contributions in row: gravitational - intermolecular – inter-nuclear comprises 0 - 1 - 10 respectively.

The interpretation of gravitational, intermolecular, inter-atomic, inter-nuclear, and inter-quark (inter-nucleon) forces with the help of FAS and the model describing inter-molecular interactions (chemical bonding), allows us to speak about the unified electric physical nature of the above mentioned forces.

One of the main reasons why this problem had not been solved before the 1980s is that the question concerning the physical nature of gravitation had never been discussed since Newton introduced this notion.

When the unified field theory was being worked out, the main efforts were directed at finding the outer parameter which united, it was supposed, the gravitational, electrodynamic, and strong inter-nuclear forces. Besides finding the general physical nature of the above mentioned forces, we have managed to make progress in the comprehension of the physical essence of mass.

Mass is invariably connected with a charge which has analogous properties (like attraction and inertia). That is, mass, as an essence, from the viewpoint of the history of science, is an intermediate essence which was introduced to science at a definite period of the development of science. This period in the development of physics can rightfully be called the period of mechanical interpretation of the world.

This interpretation was initiated by Newton in the 17th century and was based upon such an essence as mass (massive matter) and its main properties: gravitation and inertia. Such a description of the world was based on the then available experimental material. Newton offered his mechanical description of the world about 100 years before the discoveries of the principle laws of electric interactions by Coulomb, Faraday, and Maxwell, and 250 years before the discovery of the electron by J.J.Thomson and atom structure by E. Rutherford.

In the accepted mechanical description of the world all the material bodies were regarded as neutral (without any charge). The question regarding the physical essence of mass and its properties was never even raised. It was clear without any explanations that mass is neutral matter with the properties of gravitation and inertia. Thus, in the 17th century the mechanical description of the physical picture of the world was conditioned by objective circumstances.

Nowadays, in the 20th century, thanks to the discovery of the main electrodynamic laws, the discovery of atom and molecule structure, the discovery of micro-particles and the study of their properties, Newton's mechanical interpretation of the physical picture of the world is regarded as something intermediate, conditioned by a definite historic period, and retained up till now only because of the inertia of the human mind and the belief in and respect for authorities. After all, it has been said that a correct explanation is the daughter of time but not of authority.

The elucidation of the physical essence of mass and of the gravitational, chemical, inter-nuclear forces has shown that the initial essences are the charges and their relative transitions. This allowed to offer an electrodynamic physical picture of the world. The picture is presented as follows: In absolute space and time (offered by Newton) there are charged macro-bodies (cosmic and common) and micro-bodies moving uniformly, with acceleration, and with vibration. As a rule, the macro-bodies are charged positively while the micro-bodies (particles) are charged positively and negatively.

The bonding between bodies and micro-particles in free and tied (vibrational) systems can be accomplished via the simple electrostatic principle or via FAS (like chemical bonding).

Available experimental data give us to understand that the bonding of micro-particles including quarks, nucleons, atoms, and molecules is accomplished by FAS. A common electrostatic bond is preferable when bonding the electrons’ nuclei in an atom. Bonding via FAS is more readily explained. In the general case the Coulomb interaction is a rare case of interaction conditioned by FAS which corresponds to the strong polar chemical bonding.

The electric explanation of the world includes the interpretation of electromagnetic phenomena which are characteristic of the vibrational system of charges. In these systems the energy exchange occurs like the energy between vibrational systems. The direction of energy transition from one system to the another is defined by the vibration phases.

Now we working at the physical nature of electro-magnetic radiation and the mechanism for the transition of the charge energy (electron’s energy in an atom) to electromagnetic radiation energy. We are studying two explanations about the nature of electro-magnetic radiation. The first is traditional, the Maxwell explanation: An alternating electric field causes the appearance of an alternating magnetic field, etc.

The second explanation is built analogously to the appearance of waves in liquid and gas media (like sound). In the framework of this explanation, the physical carrier of electromagnetic waves is ether consisting of positively and negatively charged micro-particles (electrons, positively and negatively charged ions, polarized neutrinos, etc.)

In the framework of this explanation of the physical nature of electromagnetic radiation, it is not difficult to explain the transition of the particles’ energy into electromagnetic radiation energy which is wavy by nature. The atom absorbs part of this radiation which corresponds to the vibrational or rotational frequency of the electrons in the given atom. The energy of the corresponding electron increases, it shifts to the next level of the lower layers. As a result of these transitions, the outer electron is knocked out of the atom and gets into the ether causing waves in the latter which are registered as electromagnetic waves.

Experimental confirmation of this supposition are the results of the experiments conducted by Davisson and Germer (in our interpretation) where the result of the interaction of the electronic waves with a substance is identical to that of the electromagnetic waves.

Now let’s briefly stop at our interpretation of the Davisson-Germer experiments.

The D-G experiments did not consider the fact that the stream of electrons is accompanied by an electromagnetic radiation where the electrons vibrate.

The stream of electrons in this experiment was accompanied by electromagnetic radiation which turned this stream into a wave. That is, our interpretation supposes that the micro-particles themselves, do not possess any wave properties. Therefore, De-Broglie’s supposition concerning wave properties of particles was a mistake.

Confirmation of the correctness of our explanation is proven by the following facts, given in detail in the book.

1. The coincidence of the dependence of the wave length of the micro-particles on their masses and rates which coincides with De Broglie’s equation.
2. The coincidence of the analytical calculation of the energy of single and dual electronic atoms and molecule of hydrogen with the experiment without considering any wave properties of the electrons.
3. The discovery, in classical experiments, of Rutherford’s a - particles which jumped in the opposite direction. If these particles had wave properties, they would, according to the conditions of the experiment, go around the atoms’ nuclei.

Additional experimental confirmation of the fact that cosmic bodies are charged positively, is the expansion of the universe conditioned by the framework of the offered electrodynamic explanation via the Coulomb laws. Just as in other cases, no additional supposition (like Bing-Bang) is required to explain the expansion of the universe. Also no additional supposition is required (like repulsion forces of unknown nature between cosmic bodies) besides gravitation. This supposition was introduced to explain the speed (greater than that of the Bing-Bang theory) at which the cosmic bodies recede from each other in the outskirts of the observed universe. [A discovery of 1998.]

When the universe expands (because of the repulsion of the positively charged hard cosmic bodies), the concentration of electrons in cosmic space should decrease and therefore the repulsion speed of the bodies should increase.

The elaboration of the new approach (If only Newton knew!) is actually the development and utilization of the precept that truth is the child of time but not of authority which was first uttered by Francis Bacon but practically never previously used in science to introduce new ideas, nor was it used to prove the correctness of ideas that came to one’s mind incidentally.

We have found this method to be quite reasonable for both the formulation of questions and answers and for the proof of the correctness of these answers.

The Role of Calculations, Hypotheses, and Experiments in Theory

At present the main method of scientific cognition, offered in school textbooks, is as follows. In the course of experimental and practical activity, man is confronted with questions concerning the cause-effect relations between phenomena. He puts forth a hypothesis which explains this phenomenon. On the basis of this he makes a theoretical forecast of the results of a possible experiment.

The coincidence of the experimental results and the theoretical forecast is a confirmation of the correctness of the hypothesis which is turned into a theory. We have shown that such a scheme for science structure is idealistic and its non-critical acceptance leads to an incorrect understanding of the role of the experiment, of the ideas and the theoretical calculations in scientific work.

In reality a scientific work is a work directed at elucidating and explaining the phenomena observed in nature and in such activity as experimentation. Explanation includes interpretation on the basis of old essences. Deepening of the explanation presupposes the reduction of the initial essences (the decrease of the basis and/or the increase of the number of phenomena to be explained).

This is actually the work of those who have proper scientific capabilities and are classified by ranks. Those in the highest of the ranks are capable of approaching the problem in a new way; they are capable of finding connections between independent phenomena; they can see the main points in the question under study; etc. Those in the lowest ranks are capable of offering ideas independent of their quality.

Experiments and abstract (theoretical) reasoning are the main points of such work, and their relation to each other cannot be evaluated, or at least, should not be evaluated generally speaking. Evaluation is possible only as a result of a scientist’s work in deepening the understanding of natural phenomena, and not his method (abstract logic and/or experimental work).

The role of the experiment changes in the course of the

development of science. For example, when structuring phenomenological theories, science is a complex of rules which are the product of theoretical works, the results of the works of scientists who are searching for the general regularities and rules on the basis of the existing experimental material.

In the phenomenological stage of the development of chemistry, chemical bonding and transformation, the Periodic Law, the Lewis Rules, and VSEPR were discovered. The next stage for deepening the under-standing was to explain chemical phenomena and chemical regulations on the basis of physical essences. On this stage the role of the experiment is changed.

Thus, when elucidating the physical essence of chemical bonding on a hydrogen molecule, where no additional suppositions are made and which have an analytical solution, the coincidence of the calculation and the experimental results are proof of the correctness of the understanding of molecule structure and the essence of chemical bonding.

The bonding energy in molecules composed of atoms with more than one electron cannot be calculated without additional suppositions, i.e., can be evaluated only qualitatively. In this case the experiment is the only way of getting quantitative information.

1) Defining incorrect explanations in contemporary textbooks

2) Elaboration of the basics for new textbooks

In the course of the conducted work, it became known that some explanations of chemical phenomena, which are included in textbooks, are incorrect. These explanations include:

a) Quantum mechanical explanations of chemical phenomena: atomic orbitals’ linear combinations theory; theory of valence bonds; resonance rules;

b) theory of ionic bonding;

c) theory of chemical kinetics (TAC and TST).

d) The main shortcoming in the teaching of chemistry is the fact that when the teacher speaks about the most fundamental chemical phenomena (chemical bonding and the transformation of chemical substances) which science has not yet answered - he/she pretends that these phenomena had long been solved.

Methodically this was gained by explaining materials based on the knowledge of mathematics which neither the students nor the teacher could boast of.

In most cases the intermediate stages in the development of sciences were regarded as final. For example, the defined correlations and rules (Periodic Law, Lewis Rules, resonance rules, VSEPR) were given as chemical laws but not as generalized experimental regularities awaiting their physical comprehension.

All this together constitutes an incorrect idea about the development and condition of modern science. All the main scientific questions are presented as solved.

According to the spirit in which modern textbooks are written, in particular, those of chemistry, the answer to these questions was received not experimentally but mathematically.

In the course of deepening the understanding of the physical nature of chemical phenomena, the explanations for the physical nature of chemical phenomena were simplified. The elaborated complete and correct explanations of the main chemical phenomena are based on the educational level of physics and mathematics that correspond to the 10th grade of the American High School. The basics have already been worked out for a new General Chemistry Textbook in which the explanations of chemical phenomena are based on the students’ present knowledge of physics and mathematics. Various schemes of lesson layouts for text-books are given on page 195.