Book contents
- Quantum Worlds
- Quantum Worlds
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
- Part II Realism, Wave Function, and Primitive Ontology
- Part III Individuality, Distinguishability, and Locality
- Part IV Symmetries and Structure in Quantum Mechanics
- Part V The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
- 17 A Closed-System Approach to Decoherence
- 18 A Logical Approach to the Quantum-to-Classical Transition
- 19 Quantum Mechanics and Molecular Structure: The Case of Optical Isomers
- Index
- References
19 - Quantum Mechanics and Molecular Structure: The Case of Optical Isomers
from Part V - The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2019
Book contents
- Quantum Worlds
- Quantum Worlds
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
- Part II Realism, Wave Function, and Primitive Ontology
- Part III Individuality, Distinguishability, and Locality
- Part IV Symmetries and Structure in Quantum Mechanics
- Part V The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
- 17 A Closed-System Approach to Decoherence
- 18 A Logical Approach to the Quantum-to-Classical Transition
- 19 Quantum Mechanics and Molecular Structure: The Case of Optical Isomers
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Quantum WorldsPerspectives on the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 379 - 392Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Adler, S. (2003). “Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34: 135–142.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (1994). Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2010a). “The density in density functional theory,” Journal of Molecular Structure: TEOCHEM, 943: 2–18.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2010b). “Definition of molecular structure: By choice or by appeal to observation,” Journal Physical Chemistry A, 114: 7431–7444.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2011). “On the non-existence of parallel universes in chemistry,” Foundations of Chemistry, 13: 11–37.Google Scholar
Berlin, Y., Burin, A., and Goldanskii, V. (1996). “The Hund paradox and stabilization of molecular chiral states,” Zeitschrift für Physik D, 37: 333–339.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crull, E. (2015). “Less interpretation and more decoherence in quantum gravity and inflationary cosmology,” Foundations of Physics, 45: 1019–1045.Google Scholar
d’Espagnat, B. (1966). “An elementary note about mixtures,” pp. 185–191 in de-Shalit, A., Feshbach, H., and van Hove, L. (eds.), Preludes in Theoretical Physics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
d’Espagnat, B. (1976). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. (1929). “Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 123: 714–733.Google Scholar
Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2014). “Partial traces in decoherence and in interpretation: What do reduced states refer to?”, Foundations of Physics, 44: 426–446.Google Scholar
Gavroglu, K. and Simões, A. (2012). Neither Physics nor Chemistry: A History of Quantum Chemistry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R. and Stodolsky, L. (1981). “Time dependence of optical activity,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 74: 2145–2155.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2004). “The physicists, the chemists, and the pragmatics of explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 1048–1059.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2008). “Two conceptions of the chemical bond,” Philosophy of Science, 75: 909–920.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2010). “Ontological reduction and molecular structure,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 183–191.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2012). “The chemical bond,” pp. 293–308 in Woody, A., Hendry, R., and Needham, P. (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 6: Philosophy of Chemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hettema, H. (2009). “Explanation and theory foundation in quantum chemistry,” Foundations of Chemistry, 11: 145–174.Google Scholar
Hettema, H. (2012). Reducing Chemistry to Physics. Limits, Models, Consequences. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hund, F. (1927). “Zur Deutung der Molekelspektren. III,” Zeitschrift für Physik, 43: 805–826.Google Scholar
Labarca, M. and Lombardi, O. (2010). “Why orbitals do not exist?”, Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 149–157.Google Scholar
Leach, M. (2013). “Concerning electronegativity as a basic elemental property and why the periodic table is usually represented in its medium form,” Foundations of Chemistry, 15: 13–29.Google Scholar
Leggett, A. (1987). “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox,” pp. 85–104 in Hiley, B. and Peat, F. (eds.), Quantum Implications. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Llored, J. -P. (2010). “Mereology and quantum chemistry: The approximation of molecular orbital,” Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 203–221.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. (2014). “Linking chemistry with physics: Arguments and counterarguments,” Foundations of Chemistry, 16: 181–192.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Castagnino, M. (2008). “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39: 380–443.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Castagnino, M. (2010). “Matters are not so clear on the physical side,” Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 159–166.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Castagnino, M., and Ardenghi, J. S. (2010). “The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation and the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 93–103.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Fortin, S., and López, L. (2015). “Measurement, interpretation and information,” Entropy, 17: 7310–7330.Google Scholar
Quack, M. and Stohner, J. (2005). “Parity violation in chiral molecules,” International Journal for Chemistry, 59: 530–538.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. (2013). “Philosophy of chemistry: Where has it been and where is it going,” pp. 208–225 in Llored, J.-P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Chemistry: Practices, Methodologies, and Concepts. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Shao, J. and Hänggi, P. (1997). “Control of molecular chirality,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 107: 9935–9941.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, B. and Woolley, G. (2011). “A comment on Editorial 37,” Foundations of Chemistry, 13: 93–95.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, B. and Woolley, G. (2012). “Atoms and molecules in classical chemistry and quantum mechanics,” pp. 387–426 in Woody, A., Hendry, R., and Needham, P. (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 6: Philosophy of Chemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vassallo, A. and Esfeld, M. (2015). “On the importance of interpretation in quantum physics: A reply to Elise Crull,” Foundations of Physics, 45: 1533–1536.Google Scholar
Vemulapalli, K. (2008). “Theories of the chemical bond and its true nature,” Foundations of Chemistry, 10: 167–176.Google Scholar
Wolley, G. (1978). “Must a molecule have a shape?”, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 100: 1073–1078.Google Scholar
Wolley, G. (1982). “Natural optical activity and the molecular hypothesis,” Structure and Bonding, 52: 1–35.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1981). “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”, Physical Review D, 24: 1516–1525.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1993). “Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, 89: 281–312.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (2003). “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 75: 715–776.Google Scholar