Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Chemistry
On the Quantum Theory of Molecules: Rigour, Idealization, and Uncertainty
arXiv
Authors: Nick Huggett, James Ladyman, Karim P. Y. Thébault
Year
2024
Paper ID
37283
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
98
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Philosophers have claimed that: (a) the Born-Oppenheimer approximation methods for solving molecular Schrödinger equations violate the Heisenberg uncertainty relations; therefore (b) so-called `quantum chemistry' is not fully quantum; and so (c) chemistry does not reduce to physics. This paper analyses the reasoning behind Born-Oppenheimer methods and shows that they are internally consistent and fully quantum mechanical, contrary to (a)-(c). Our analysis addresses important issues of mathematical rigour, physical idealisation, reduction, and classicality in the quantum theory of molecules, and we propose an agenda for the philosophy of quantum chemistry more solidly grounded in scientific practice.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Philosophers have claimed that: (a) the Born-Oppenheimer approximation methods for solving molecular Schrödinger equations violate the Heisenberg uncertainty relations...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.