This question already has an answer here:
I am reading an introductory semiconductor physics textbook. The textbook states the following:
Several types of atomic bonding have been identified, including ionic, covalent, van der Waals, hydrogen, and metallic. Whatever the name given to the type of bonding, in all cases it is the electrostatic force acting between charged particles that is responsible for all the forms of bonding.
My concern is with the validity of the latter sentence; that is, that all cases of bonding are electrostatic forces acting between charged particles.
Wikipedia says the following:
A chemical bond is a lasting attraction between atoms, ions or molecules that enables the formation of chemical compounds. The bond may result from the electrostatic force of attraction between oppositely charged ions as in ionic bonds or through the sharing of electrons as in covalent bonds.
If electrostatic forces act between charged particles (ions), and atoms are, by definition, neutral particles, then, since atoms do bond, how can it make sense to say that all bonding is electrostatic forces acting between charged particles?
And my interpretation of the Wikipedia article is that the electrostatic force of attraction is responsible for bonding between oppositely charged ions, as in ionic bonding, whereas it is not responsible for bonding through the sharing of electrons, as in covalent bonding.
So is the textbook's claim that all types of bonding are electrostatic forces acting between charged particles false?
I would appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify this.