Advertisement

Foundations of Chemistry

, 8:37 | Cite as

The Role of Observables and Non-observables in Chemistry: A Critique of Chemical Language

  • Shant Shahbazian
  • Mansour ZahediEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Atomic Charge Hermitian Operator Tetrahedral Geometry Chemical Concept Pyramidal Geometry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bader R.F.W. (1990). Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader R.F.W. (1991). A Quantum Theory of Molecular Structure and Its Applications. Chemical Reviews 91: 893–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bader R.F.W. (1999). Can There be More than a Single Definition of an Atom in a Molecule. Canadian Journal of Chemistry 77: 86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bader R.F.W. (2003). Letter to the Editor: Quantum Mechanics, or Orbitals?. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 94: 173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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: 620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edmiston C. (1992). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-Once More. Journal of Chemical Education 69: 600Google Scholar
  7. Frenking C. (2003). Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 42: 143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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: 923–925Google Scholar
  9. Gillespie R.J. (2001). Electron Densities, Atomic Charges and Ionic, Covalent, and Polar Bonds. Journal of Chemical Education 78: 1688–1691Google Scholar
  10. Gillespie R.J. and Popelier P.L.A. (2001). Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillespie R.J. and Robinson E.A. (1996). Electron Domains and the VSEPR Model of Molecular Geometry. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English 35: 495–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 1076–1080Google Scholar
  13. Hehre W.J., Radom L., Schleyer P.V.R., Pople J.A. (1986) Ab Initio Molecular Orbital Theory, John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann R. (1998). Qualitative Thinking in the Age of Modern Computational Chemistry-or What Lionel Salem Knows. Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem) 424: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys C.J. (1999). Electrons Seen in Orbit. Nature 401: 21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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: 11939–11950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. I.N. Levine. Quantum Chemistry. Prentice Hall, 2000Google Scholar
  18. Matta C.F. and Gillsepie R.J. (2002). Understanding and Interpreting Molecular Electron Density Distributions. Journal of Chemical Education 79: 1141–1152Google Scholar
  19. Mulliken R.S. (1962). Electronic Population Analysis on LCAO-MO Molecular Wave Functions. Journal of chemical physics 36: 1833–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogilvie J.F. (1990). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-1990. Journal of Chemical Education 67: 280–289Google Scholar
  21. A. Pais. George Uhlenbeck and the Discovery of Electron Spin. Physics Today December: 34–43, 1989Google Scholar
  22. Pauling L.C. (1992). The Nature of the Chemical Bond-1992. Journal of Chemical Education 69: 519–521Google Scholar
  23. P. Popelier. Atoms in Molecules: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, 2000Google Scholar
  24. J.J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, 1985Google Scholar
  25. Scerri E.R. (2000). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 77: 1492–1494Google Scholar
  26. Scerri E.R. (2002). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 79: 310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simons J. (1991). There are no Such Things as Orbitals-Act Two!. Journal of Chemical Education 68: 131–132Google Scholar
  28. Spence J.C.H, O’Keeffe M. and Zuo J.M (2001). Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?. Journal of Chemical Education 78: 877Google Scholar
  29. Sutcliffe B.T. (1996). The Development of the Idea of a Chemical Bond. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 58: 645–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 1757–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiberg K.B. and Rablen P.R. (1993). Comparison of Atomic Charges Derived via Different Procedures. Journal of Computational Chemistry 14: 1504–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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: 49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of SciencesShahid Beheshti UniversityEvin, TehranIran

Personalised recommendations