Abstract
In this paper, aspects of observable and non-observable based models are discussed. A survey of recent literature was done to show how using non-observable-based language carelessly may cause disagreement, even in professional research programs and incorrect assertions, even in prestigious journals. The relation between physical measurements and observables is discussed and it is shown that, in contrast to general belief, this relation may be complicated and not always straightforward. The decomposition of the system into basic subsystems (physical or conceptual) is traced as the origin of non-observable-based languages. The possibility of defining new quantum mechanical observables for open quantum subsystems and of replacing them with non-observable-based concepts has been mentioned and the AIM theory is explained as an example. An account of some current non-observable-based models for molecular geometry is discussed and it is shown that not all non-observable-based languages possess the same effectiveness. In the end, the need to develop a clear chemical language is stressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bader R.F.W. (1990). Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bader R.F.W. (1991). A Quantum Theory of Molecular Structure and Its Applications. Chemical Reviews 91: 893–928
Bader R.F.W. (1999). Can There be More than a Single Definition of an Atom in a Molecule. Canadian Journal of Chemistry 77: 86–93
Bader R.F.W. (2003). Letter to the Editor: Quantum Mechanics, or Orbitals?. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 94: 173–177
Bader R.F.W., Popelier P.L.A. and Keith T.A. (1994). Theoretical Definition of a Functional Group and the Moleuclar Orbital Paradigm. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 33: 620–631
Edmiston C. (1992). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-Once More. Journal of Chemical Education 69: 600
Frenking C. (2003). Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 42: 143–147
Gillespie R.J. (1998). Covalent and Ionic Moleucles: Why are BeF2 and AlF3 High Melting Point Solids whereas BF3 and SiF4 are Gases?. Journal of Chemical Education 75: 923–925
Gillespie R.J. (2001). Electron Densities, Atomic Charges and Ionic, Covalent, and Polar Bonds. Journal of Chemical Education 78: 1688–1691
Gillespie R.J. and Popelier P.L.A. (2001). Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gillespie R.J. and Robinson E.A. (1996). Electron Domains and the VSEPR Model of Molecular Geometry. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 35: 495–514
Haaland A., Helgaker T.U., Ruud K. and Shorokhov D.J. (2000). Should Gaseous BF3 and SiF4 Be Described as Ionic Compounds?. Journal of Chemical Education 77: 1076–1080
Hehre W.J., Radom L., Schleyer P.V.R., Pople J.A. (1986) Ab Initio Molecular Orbital Theory, John Wiley and Sons
Hoffmann R. (1998). Qualitative Thinking in the Age of Modern Computational Chemistry-or What Lionel Salem Knows. Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem) 424: 1–6
Humphreys C.J. (1999). Electrons Seen in Orbit. Nature 401: 21–22
Kaupp M., Franke R., Schmitz F. and Kutzelnigg W. (1996). The Structure of XeF6 and of Compounds Isoelectronic with It. A Challenge to Computational Chemistry and to the Qualitative Theory of the Chemical Bond. Journal of American Chemical Society 118: 11939–11950
I.N. Levine. Quantum Chemistry. Prentice Hall, 2000
Matta C.F. and Gillsepie R.J. (2002). Understanding and Interpreting Molecular Electron Density Distributions. Journal of Chemical Education 79: 1141–1152
Mulliken R.S. (1962). Electronic Population Analysis on LCAO-MO Molecular Wave Functions. Journal of chemical physics 36: 1833–1846
Ogilvie J.F. (1990). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-1990. Journal of Chemical Education 67: 280–289
A. Pais. George Uhlenbeck and the Discovery of Electron Spin. Physics Today December: 34–43, 1989
Pauling L.C. (1992). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-1992. Journal of Chemical Education 69: 519–521
P. Popelier. Atoms in Molecules: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, 2000
J.J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, 1985
Scerri E.R. (2000). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 77: 1492–1494
Scerri E.R. (2002). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 79: 310
Simons J. (1991). There are no Such Things as Orbitals-Act Two!. Journal of Chemical Education 68: 131–132
Spence J.C.H, O’Keeffe M. and Zuo J.M (2001). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 78: 877
Sutcliffe B.T. (1996). The Development of the Idea of a Chemical Bond. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 58: 645–655
Wang S.G. and Schwarz W.H.E. (2000). On Closed-Shell Interactions, Polar Covalences, d Shell Holes and Direct Images of Orbitals: The Case of Cuprite. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 39: 1757–1762
Wiberg K.B. and Rablen P.R. (1993). Comparison of Atomic Charges Derived via Different Procedures. Journal of Computational Chemistry 14: 1504–1518
Zuo J.M., Kim M., O’Keeffe M. and Spence J.C.H. (1999). Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu–Cu bonding in Cu2O. Nature 401: 49–52
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shahbazian, S., Zahedi, M. The Role of Observables and Non-observables in Chemistry: A Critique of Chemical Language. Found Chem 8, 37–52 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-005-8247-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-005-8247-4