Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:53:20.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do You Need to Believe in Orbitals to Use Them?: Realism and the Autonomy of Chemistry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Zack Jenkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eric Scerri and other authors have acknowledged that the reality of chemical orbitals is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Recently, however, Scerri and Sharon Crasnow have argued that if chemists cannot consider orbitals as real entities, then chemistry is in danger of being reduced to physics. I argue that the question of the existence of orbitals is best viewed as an issue of explanation, not metaphysics: In many chemically important cases orbitals do not make sufficiently accurate predictions, and must be replaced. Chemists and physicists can acknowledge this fact while maintaining the utility of orbitals and the autonomy of chemistry.

Type
Reduction and Structure of Theories
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1052 - 1062
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry, R. Stephen (1966), “Atomic Orbitals”, Atomic Orbitals 43:283–299.Google Scholar
Cohen, Irwin, and Bustard, Thomas (1966), “Atomic Orbitals: Limitations and Variations”, Atomic Orbitals: Limitations and Variations 43:187–193.Google Scholar
Crasnow, Sharon L. (2000), “How Natural Can Ontology Be?”, How Natural Can Ontology Be? 67:114–132.Google Scholar
Kohn, Walter, Becke, Axel D., and Parr, Robert G. (1996), “Density Functional Theory of Electronic Structure”, Density Functional Theory of Electronic Structure 100:12974–12980.Google Scholar
Levine, Ira L. (2000), Quantum Chemistry, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, John F. (1990), “The Nature of the Chemical Bond—1990: There Are No Such Things As Orbitals!”, The Nature of the Chemical Bond—1990: There Are No Such Things As Orbitals! 67:280–289.Google Scholar
Primas, Hans (1983), Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism, 2d ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (1998). Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scerri, Eric (1991), “The Electronic Configuration Model, Quantum Mechanics, and Reduction”, The Electronic Configuration Model, Quantum Mechanics, and Reduction 42:309–325.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eric (1994), “Has Chemistry Been at Least Approximately Reduced to Quantum Mechanics?”, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. (eds.), PSA 1994, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: 160–170.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eric (2000a), “Philosophy of Chemistry—A New Interdisciplinary Field?”, Philosophy of Chemistry—A New Interdisciplinary Field? 77:522–525.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eric (2000b), “The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist the Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education”, The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist the Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education 9:405–425.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eric (2000c), “Have Orbitals Really Been Observed?”, Have Orbitals Really Been Observed? 77:1492–1494.Google Scholar
Szabo, Attila, and Ostlund, Neil S. (1989), Modern Quantum Chemistry, revised ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Woody, Andrea I. (2000), “Putting Quantum Mechanics to Work in Chemistry: The Power of Diagrammatic Representation”, Putting Quantum Mechanics to Work in Chemistry: The Power of Diagrammatic Representation 67 (Proceedings): S612–S627.Google Scholar