In 1933, H. H. James and A. S. Coolidge performed a calculation of the hydrogen molecule which, unlike all previous calculations that used only functions of distance of the electron from the atomic nucleus, used functions that also explicitly added the distance between the two electrons.  With up to 13 adjustable parameters, they achieved a result very close to the experimental result for dissociation energy. Subsequent extensions consumed up to 54 parameters and gave excellent correspondence with the experiments. This calculation convinced the scientific community that quantum theory could agree with the experiment. But this approach has none of the physical images of valenzity binding and molecular orbital theories and is difficult to extend to larger molecules. Without constraints in the form of spin retention and angular pulses, dynamics would couple degenerate states and increase diffuseity and reduce kinetic energy, leading to un degenerate soil conditions for all atoms. Near-degenerates have a similar effect, but less important compared to the fission of energy. Thus, the stability of 1S be and mg 1S atoms, atoms with non-degenerate soil states, is not comparable to those of inactive gases, because the energy separation between the soil and the first stimulated state is small for the first (inside the same hull), but large for the latter (excited state in an upper shell). A chemical link is a permanent attraction between atoms, ions or molecules, which allows the formation of chemical compounds.
The bond may result from electrostatic attraction between oncoming charged ions, as in ion bonds, or by the common use of electrons as in covalent bonds. The intensity of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are “strong links” or “primary links” such as covalent, ionic and metallic links and “weak links” or “secondary links” such as dipol-dipoles interactions, London dispersal force and hydrogen bonding. As mentioned above, the quantum vision of the covalent bond is not unique. Nor is it at odds with the Hellmann-Ranenberg theory [40,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,58,59,83] or Virial`s theorem [34,35,36]. Instead, it offers a completely consistent alternative interpretation that sheds light on the covalent bond while avoiding, or in a more in-depth analysis helps to resolve the apparent contradiction between theory and phrase. The next section of this contribution deals with the main characteristics of the theory [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,57,57,57.57 58.59] theory and our contributions [68,69,72,75,77,78,78,80,81.83]. We think it is particularly useful for those who want to understand the covalent bond in terms of independent interpretations of time concepts such as electron density, delocation and energy. The quantum dynamic mechanism [68,75,78,79,80,81] is provided by the duality of the representations offered to us by quantum mechanics  so that we can choose to see the binding mechanism in terms of energy and dynamics.
We propose to use both representations, to show that this duality of the views of the bond is beneficial, because it specifies: (i) that the bond is a quantum phenomenon both energetic and dynamic, and (ii) as the rate of interatomic electron movement, i.e. delineation and its time scale, the key determinant of the bond, while the associated mechanisms of orbital contraction or correlation are important. , but are secondary.