Abstract
For more than the last two decades, protagonists have argued there is a problem with classical molecular structure. Woolley (1986, 204) claims “(w)e might expect a deductive account of the behavior and properties of molecules according to quantum theory in which the same notion of [classical] molecular structure is a derived concept. The ‘problem’ of molecular structure arises because quantum chemistry has not achieved this result.” Since shape is irreducible, it is only a “concept for solving chemical problems, not an object of belief” (Woolley 1985, 1083). According to Primas (1981, 250), “the EPR correlations predicted by pioneer quantum mechanics compellingly exclude any classical concept of molecular structure.” Woolley and Primas attribute the “problem” to philosophical doctrines held by scientists. “[T]he need to put molecular structure in by hand…. entails a conflict with certain a priori philosophical stances (classical realism, reductionism) which other [sic] may subscibe [sic] to” (Woolley 1986, 204). Primas (1981, 252) claims “many of the difficulties… are created by philosophical preconceptions [such as operationalism, logical monism and realism] which we are free to discard as inconvenient ideologies.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amman, A. (1993), “The Gestalt Problem in Quantum Theory: Generation of Molecular Shape by the Environment,” Synthese 97: 124–156.
Bell, J. S. (1987), “On Wave Packet Reduction in the Coleman-Hepp model,” in his Speakable and unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–51. Originally published in Helvetica Physica Acta 48 (1975): 93–98.
Berry, R. S. (1960), “Time-Dependent Measurements and Molecular Structure: Ozone,” Reviews of Modern Physics 32: 447–454.
Berry, R. S. (1980), “A Generalized Phenomenology for Small Clusters, However Floppy,” in R. G. Woolley (ed), Quantum Dynamics of Molecules: The New Experimental Challenge to Theorists. New York; Plenum Press.
Bohm, D. and B. Hiley (1993), The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. London: Routledge.
Brandon, R. (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brandon, R. (1996), Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Claverie and Diner (1980), “The Concept of Molecular Structure in Quantum Theory: Interpretation Problems,” Israel Journal of Chemistry 19: 54–81.
Churchland, P. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, P. (1981), “Time and Reality,” in R. Healey (ed), Reduction, Time and Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–78.
Davies, P. (1995), About Time. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dupre, J. (1993), The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Drago, R. (1977), Physical Methods in Chemistry. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Ezra, G. and R. S. Berry (1982), “Correlation of two particles on a sphere,” Physical Review A 25: 1513–1527.
Fine, A. (1982), “Hidden variables, joint probability and the Bell inequalities,” Physical Review Letters 48: 291–295.
Fine, A. (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Forrest, P. (1988), Quantum Metaphysics. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Groenewold, H. (1995), “Field or Print,” Synthese 102: 1–56.
Hesse, M. (1966), “The Explanatory Function of Metaphor,” in her Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 157–177.
Horgan, T. and J. Woodward (1985), “Folk Psychology is Here to Stay,” Philosophical Review 94: 197–226.
Hull, D. (1976), “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction,” in R. S. Cohen et. al. (eds.), PSA 1974. Dordrecht, pp. 653–670.
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hughes, R. I. G. (1993), “Theoretical Explanation,” in P. French, T. Uehling and H. Wettstein (eds), Midwest Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. XVIII: Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 132–153.
Jones, K. R. W. (1994), “Exclusion of intrinsically classical domains and the problem of quasiclassical emergence,” Physical Review A 50: 1062–1070.
Jones, R. (1991), “Realism about What?” Philosophy of Science 58: 185–202.
Leplin, J. (1984), “Introduction,” in J. Leplin (ed), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Löwdin, P-O. (1988), “The Mathematical Definition of a Molecule and Molecular Structure,” in J. Maruani (ed.), Molecules in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, vol. II. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–60.
Mermin, D. (1990), “Extreme Quantum Entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states,” Physical Review Letters 65: 1838–1840.
Nagel, E. (1979), The Structure of Science, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Patsakos, G. (1976), “Classical Particles in Quantum Mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 44: 158166.
Pines, D. (1987), “The Collective Description of Particle Interactions,” in B. Hiley and F. Peat (eds), Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm. London, pp. 65–84.
Primas, H. (1981), Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Primas, H. (1982), “Chemistry and Complementarily,” Chimia 36: 293–300.
Primas, H. (1985), “Kann Chemie auf Physik reduziert werden?” Chemie in unserer Zeit 19: 109–119, 160–166.
Primas, H. (1990), “Mathematical and Philosophical Questions in the theory of Open and Macroscopic Quantum Systems,” in A. Miller (ed.), Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 233–257.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ramsey, J. (1996), “Molecular Shape, Explanation, Reduction and Approximate Concepts,” forthcoming in Synthese
Redhead, M. (1980), “Models in Physics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 145–163.
Rohrlich, F. (1988), “Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the PHysical Sciences,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 295–312.
Scerri, E. (1989), “Transition Metal Configurations and Limitations of the Orbital Approximation,” Journal of Chemical Education 66: 481–483.
Scerri, E. (1994), “Has Quantum Chemistry Been At Least Approximately Reduced to Quantum Mechanics?” in D. Hull, M. Forbes, and R. Burian (eds), PSA 1994, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 160–170.
Shimony, A. (1993), Search for a Naturalistic World View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sklar, L. (1989), “Ultimate Explanations: Comments on Tipler,” in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds), PSA 1988, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 47–55.
Sober, E. (1984a), The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sober, E. (ed) (1984b), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stamp, P. (1995), “Time, Decoherence, and ‘Reversible’ Measurements,” in S. Savitt (ed.), Time’s Arrows Today: Recent Physical and Philosophical Work on the Direction of Time. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–154.
Sullivan, A. S. (1976), The Complete Plays of Gilbert and Sullivan. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Sutcliffe, B. (1992), “The Chemical Bond and Molecular Structure,” Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem) 259: 29–58.
Weininger, S. (1984), “The Molecular Structure Conundrum: Can Classical Chemistry be Reduced to Quantum Chemistry?” Journal of Chemical Education 61: 939–944.
Wheeler, J. (1973), “From Relativity to Mutability,” in J. Mehra (ed), The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. Boston: D. Reidel.
Wimsatt, W. (1995), “The Ontology of Complex Systems: Levels of Organization, Perspective, and Causal Thickets” in M. Matthen and R. X. Ware (eds), Biology and Society (Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary volume 20), pp. 207–274.
Woolley, R. (1976), “Quantum Theory and Molecular Structure,” Advances in Physics 25: 27–52.
Woolley, R. (1978a), “Further remarks on Molecular Structure in Quantum Theory,” Chemical Physics Letters 55: 443.
Woolley, R. (1978b), “Must a Molecule Have a Shape?” Journal of the American Chemical Society 100:1073–1078.
Woolley, R. (1980), “Quantum Mechanical Aspects of the Molecular Structure Hypothesis,” Israel Journal of Chemistry 19: 30–46.
Woolley, R. (1982), “Natural Optical Activity and the Molecular Hypothesis,” Structure and Bonding 52: 1–35
Woolley, R. (1985), “The Molecular Structure Conundrum,” Journal of Chemical Education 62: 1082–1084
Woolley, R. (1986), “Molecular Shapes and Molecular Structures,” Chemical Physics Letters 125: 200–205.
Woolley, R. (1988a), “Quantum Theory and the Molecular Hypothesis,” in J. Maruani (ed.), Molecules in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, vol.. 1. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 45–89.
Woolley, R. (1988b), “Must a Molecule Have Shape?” New Scientist 120 (Oct. 22, 1988), 53–58
Woolley, R. (1991), “Quantum Chemistry beyond the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation,” Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem) 230:17–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ramsey, J.L. (1997). A Philosopher’s Perspective on the “Problem” of Molecular Shape. In: Calais, JL., Kryachko, E. (eds) Conceptual Perspectives in Quantum Chemistry. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5572-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5572-4_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6348-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5572-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive