Roald Hoffmann on Chemical Bonds

Roald Hoffman 1981 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in a 3 hour USP Nobel Lecture in 2022 with title All the ways to have a bond, summarised his view on the central concept of chemical bond as follows:  

• I think that any "rigorous" definition of a chemical bond is bound to be impoverishing, leaving one with the comfortable feeeling, "yes (no), I have (do not have) a bond", but little else. 
• And yet the concept of chemical bond, so essential to chemistry, and with a venerable history, has life, generating controversy and incredible interest. 
• Even if we can't reduce it to physics.
• My advice is: Push the concept to the limits. 
• Be aware of the different experimental and theoretical measures out there. Accept that (at the limits) a bond will be a bond by some criteria, maybe not others. 
• Respect chemical tradition, relax, and instead of wringing your hands about how terrible it is that this concept cannot be unambiguously defined, have fun with the fuzzy richness of the idea. 
• And all of its experimental and theoretical manifestations.
• Molecules are like human beings. I have given up complete understanding.
• Where are the theorems of chemistry?
• From time to time there comes up people from physics who thinks they can give us the answer...

We learn from a world leading authority that the real physics of chemical bonds is yet to be uncovered, explained and understood. Evidently Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM does not give an answer.

This is not so strange since a chemical bond can only be established through some real physics in 3d, and this is not what StdQM is about.

RealQM is an alternative to StdQM based on a new form of Schrödinger's equation expressing real physics in 3d, which seems to open new possibilities to explain chemical bonding, as displayed in this post about covalent bonding. Let's hope that it will generate controversy and incredible interest...

PS Hoffmann mentions many different theories out there. Many different explanations of the same phenomenon, indicates that they may all be wrong. If there is only one explanation, it may well be that it is correct.  Compare with Arthur C. Clarke: If someone says that something is impossible, it is a good chance that it is false. If someone says that something is possible, there is a good chance it is true.