Subject: orbitals and reality

From: Eric Scerri <scerri [a] chem.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:14:34 -0800

On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 12:46  AM, konrad.hinsen [a] laposte.net  
wrote:

> On 25.01.2005, at 11:24, Valentina VETERE wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, there is still something not clear in my mind. My point  
>> is that since my first lessons on quantum mechanics I belief that all  
>> the equations (not excluding Schrodinger or Dirac) were models of a  
>> more complex reality that none can describe for instance with  
>> numbers. Is this true?
>
> That's my view as well and I have had the same sense of bewilderment  
> reading the recent discussion. For me the question is not if orbitals  
> are "real" but if they are useful in understanding molecules. But the  
> same comment applies to electrons and nuclei.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --------
> Konrad Hinsen
> -------

Many useful things are unobservable!

The question was indeed whether one can observe an orbital.
I don't think anybody really doubts the usefulness of the concept.

Electrons and nuclei are at least observable in principle.
The usual understanding is that orbitals are not.

eric scerri

Dr. Eric Scerri,
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry,
UCLA,
Los Angeles,
CA 90095- 1569

E-mail scerri [a] chem.ucla.edu

Tel: 310 206 7443

Web Page:  http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/

Editor of Foundations of Chemistry,
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1386-4238

Also see International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry
http://www.georgetown.edu/earleyj/ISPC.html