Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 159–166 | Cite as

Matters are not so clear on the physical side

Article

Abstract

According to ontological reductionism, molecular chemistry refers, at last, to the quantum ontology; therefore, the ontological commitments of chemistry turn out to be finally grounded on quantum mechanics. The main problem of this position is that nobody really knows what quantum ontology is. The purpose of this work is to argue that the confidence in the existence of the physical entities described by quantum mechanics does not take into account the interpretative problems of the theory: in the discussions about the relationship between chemistry and physics, difficulties are seen only on the side of chemistry, whereas matters highly controversial on the side of physics are taken for granted. For instance, it is usually supposed that the infinite mass limit in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation leads by itself to the concept of molecular framework used in molecular chemistry. We will argue that this assumption is implicitly based on an interpretative postulate for quantum mechanics, which, in turn, runs into difficulties when applied to the explanation of the simplest model of the hydrogen atom.

Keywords

Molecular chemistry Quantum mechanics Born-Oppenheimer approximation Quantum ontology 

References

  1. Amann, A.: Must a molecule have a shape? S. Afr. J. Chem. 45, 29–38 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. Ardenghi, J.S., Castagnino, M., Lombardi, O.: Quantum mechanics: modal interpretation and Galilean transformations. Found. Phys. 39, 1023–1045 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballentine, L.: Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. World Scientific, Singapore (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Born, M., Oppenheimer, J.R.: On the quantum theory of molecules. Annalen der Physik 84, 457–484 (1927)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bub, J.: Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Castagnino, M., Lombardi, O.: The role of the Hamiltonian in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Phys. Conf. Ser 28, 012014 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes, R.I.G.: The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (1989)Google Scholar
  8. Kochen, S., Specker, E.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967)Google Scholar
  9. Lombardi, O., Castagnino, M.: A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 39, 380–443 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Primas, H.: Hierarchic quantum descriptions and their associated ontologies. In: Laurikainen, K.V., Montonen, C., Sunnarborg, K. (eds.) Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1994. Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-Yvette (1994)Google Scholar
  11. Primas, H. Emergence in exact natural sciences. In: Farre, G., Oksala, T. (eds.) Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica 91, 83–98 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. Scerri, E.R.: Have orbitals really been observed? J. Chem. Educ. 77, 1492–1494 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scerri, E.R.: The recently claimed observation of atomic orbitals and some related philosophical issues. Philos. Sci. 68, S76–S88 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Woolley, R.G.: Natural optical activity and the molecular hypothesis. Struct. Bonding 52, 1–35 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICET, Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.CONICET, IAFE, IFIR, Universidad de Buenos Aires Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations