What are we talking about when we discuss the Born-Oppenheimer approximation?

Hernan Lucas Accorinti; Juan Camilo Martinez Gonzalez; Olimpia Lombardi; Sebastian Fortin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 references

What are we talking about when we discuss the Born-Oppenheimer approximation?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Born-Oppenheimer approximation hides a classical assumption, this paper argues.

desk verdict A solid, well-documented rebuttal of HLT's reading of the literature, but its central uncertainty-violation claim overreaches: a c-number parameter is not automatically a definite nuclear state. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12223 v1 pith:IQMQKKLG submitted 2025-07-16 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Olimpia Lombardi , Sebastian Fortin , Juan Camilo Martinez Gonzalez , Hernan Lucas Accorinti This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph

keywords Born-OppenheimerapproximationclampednucleimolecularstructurechemicalreductionHeisenberguncertaintysymmetryproblempotentialenergysurfaceidealization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper defends the claim that the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, in its standard clamped-nuclei form, is not merely a well-justified tool for computing molecular energy levels: its first step replaces the quantum operators for nuclear positions with definite classical parameters, thereby assigning sharp positions and momenta to the nuclei and conflicting with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The authors argue that this step is a counterfactual idealization rather than a limit of infinite nuclear mass, because the Hamiltonian obtained by letting nuclear masses grow still contains nuclear operators and has a purely continuous spectrum with no normalizable bound states. On this basis they reject the rival view that the approximation is purely formal and that chemistry reduces smoothly to quantum physics. They further argue that the deeper obstacle to reduction, the symmetry problem, arises from the full Coulomb Hamiltonian itself and is independent of the approximation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{\text{cn}}$, obtained from the molecular Coulomb Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ by replacing the nuclear position operators $\hat{R}_g$ with classical parameters $R_g$. The argument turns on comparing $\hat{H}^{\text{cn}}$ with the electronic Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$ that survives when nuclear masses are taken to infinity: the latter still has nuclear operators and a purely continuous spectrum, so clamping is not a limiting procedure. A second piece of machinery is the distinction between a factual approximation, which can be replaced by a legitimate limit, and a counterfactual idealization, which contradicts a postulate of the theory; the paper classifies clamping as counterfactual and notes that no known factual approximation replaces it. Finally, the potential energy surface, built from the family of clamped Hamiltonians, carries the chemical information about equilibrium structures, transition states, and isomers that makes the Born-Oppenheimer approximation central to quantum chemistry beyond energy-level calculations.

What would settle it

For a simple molecule such as $\mathrm{H}_2$ or $\mathrm{H}_2^+$, compute the full non-relativistic Coulomb ground state and check whether the nuclear position and momentum uncertainties can simultaneously remain large while the clamped-nuclei energy surface is reproduced; if they can, the claim that clamping is required as a counterfactual classical step would need qualification. Alternatively, exhibit a mathematically controlled limit of the molecular Hamiltonian, such as a sequence of scaled operators, that yields the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian without the operator-to-parameter substitution; the existence of such a limit would falsify the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Clamped Nuclei Approximation, which is essential to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, requires conceiving the nuclear position operators $\hat{R}_g$ in the molecular Coulomb Hamiltonian as classical parameters $R_g$ with definite values. Since a system with definite nuclear positions would also have definite nuclear momenta, this step contradicts the Heisenberg uncertainty relation $\Delta Q\,\Delta P \ge \hbar/2$. The paper argues that the approximation cannot be justified as an infinite-nuclear-mass limit: the Hamiltonian that results from letting masses tend to infinity still treats the nuclei as quantum degrees of freedom, has a purely continuous spectrum, and has no normalizable eigenfunctions, so it yields no molecular bound states and no potential energy surfaces. The clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{\text{cn}}$ is instead obtained by deliberately substituting operators with classical variables, a counterfactual idealization in the sense that it contradicts the very theory it is meant to approximate. The paper concludes that these classical elements lack quantum justification and are incompatible with the principles of quantum mechanics, in particular with the Heisenberg principle.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's broader non-reductionist conclusion depends on the premise that a collection of molecules described by Coulomb interactions has the same symmetry properties as a single molecule, so the environment cannot break molecular symmetry unless extra terms are added by hand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the clamped-nuclei step is genuinely counterfactual, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation cannot be cited as evidence that molecular structure emerges from quantum mechanics without additional assumptions.
Since the Hamiltonian reached in the infinite-mass limit has only a continuous spectrum and no normalizable eigenstates, the usual mass-disparity justification of the approximation fails, and the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian must be introduced by hand.
The symmetry problem, in which symmetric Coulomb Hamiltonians cannot explain molecular asymmetry, chirality, or dipole moments, is independent of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and remains an obstacle to reduction even if the approximation is set aside.
Because quantum-chemistry practice uses potential energy surfaces to define minima, transition states, and reaction paths, the classical choice of nuclear configurations is built into what chemists call molecular structure, not merely into energy-level computations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension would be to search for a mathematically controlled limiting procedure, such as a sequence of scaled or transformed operators, that yields the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian without any operator-to-parameter substitution; if one exists, the paper's counterfactual classification would need revision.
The symmetry problem shifts the burden onto open-systems accounts of molecular structure: they would have to exhibit a specific, non-ad-hoc interaction through which a Coulombic environment, whose total Hamiltonian shares the molecule's symmetries, selects one asymmetric configuration rather than another.
The paper's distinction between computing energy levels and explaining molecular structure implies that even a fully non-adiabatic calculation, however accurate, would not automatically deliver chemistry's three-dimensional structural concepts; those concepts may require an independent classical or structural input.
If the authors' reading is correct, the historical continuity between the original 1927 perturbative expansion and the modern clamped-nuclei method is weaker than often assumed, because the modern method contains a non-perturbative classical step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know first: this is a rebuttal, not a new thesis. The core claim—that the clamped-nuclei step in BOA is a classical idealization incompatible with the uncertainty principle—is the authors' earlier position. What's new is the detailed case that HLT misread the relevant literature. That case is largely solid.

The best part is Sections 3.4 and 3.5. The paper documents, with direct quotes, that Sutcliffe and Woolley's complaint was about the purely continuous spectrum of the translationally invariant electronic Hamiltonian, not about clamped Hamiltonians lacking discrete spectra. It also shows that Jecko's projection method was not a response to Sutcliffe and Woolley but a known technique from the 1970s, so the supposed debate is partly an artifact of HLT's reading. And the paper is right that sending nuclear masses to infinity does not produce the clamped Hamiltonian, because nuclear position operators remain operators in that limit. Those are genuine corrections.

The soft spot is the load-bearing interpretive step. The paper moves from 'R is a c-number parameter in a family of clamped Hamiltonians' to 'the nuclei are assigned definite positions and momenta, violating Heisenberg.' That inference is not forced. A parameter in a family of Hamiltonians is not by itself a physical state attribution; in the direct-integral version of the Born-Huang expansion, nuclear coordinates can be integration variables rather than labels of a classical configuration. HLT's 'purely formal' reading is at least defensible, and the paper does not engage that formalism enough to refute it. Calling the clamping step an idealization in Norton's sense does not settle the disagreement, because HLT can accept that label and still deny that it assigns a definite nuclear state.

That said, the anti-reductionist conclusion does not stand or fall on the uncertainty thesis. The symmetry problem—Coulomb Hamiltonian symmetries versus molecular asymmetry—is independent of BOA and well supported by the literature the paper cites. The weakest link there is Hendry's claim that n-molecule Coulomb Hamiltonians have the same symmetries as one-molecule systems; if environmental symmetry breaking works, that obstacle weakens. The paper acknowledges the debate and gives concrete examples of asymmetric environments breaking symmetry, so it is not hiding the problem.

The citation pattern is fine. The paper leans on the authors' own prior work, but that is appropriate since the disputed position is theirs, and the external sources—Sutcliffe and Woolley, Primas, Villaveces and Daza, Lang et al.—are used accurately.

Who is this for? Philosophers of chemistry and anyone invested in the HLT exchange. It deserves a serious referee. The textual and technical corrections matter even if the uncertainty thesis is not fully established. Send it out.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a critical reply to Huggett, Ladyman, and Thébault's (HLT) treatment of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA). The authors argue that HLT mischaracterize their position, that the Clamped Nuclei Approximation replaces nuclear position operators with classical parameters and thereby assigns definite positions and momenta to the nuclei, and that this is incompatible with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. They further claim that HLT misread Sutcliffe and Woolley's work on the continuous spectrum of the electronic Hamiltonian, that the alleged debate between Sutcliffe and Woolley and Jecko is a construction, and that HLT overlook the central role of the potential energy surface in quantum chemistry. Finally, they present the symmetry problem as an independent obstacle to the reduction of molecular structure to quantum mechanics, concluding that the classical elements in the BOA lack quantum justification and are incompatible with quantum principles.

Significance. If the paper's central claim is correct, it would provide a substantive challenge to HLT's deflationary reading of the BOA and to the reductionist conclusion that chemistry reduces to physics. The paper also performs a useful service by gathering direct quotations from the scientific literature on molecular structure and the uncertainty principle, and by emphasizing the distinction between the infinite-mass limit and the actual clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian. The technical observations about the purely continuous spectrum of the translationally invariant electronic Hamiltonian and about the failure of the infinite-mass limit to yield the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian are accurate and worth preserving. However, the main philosophical conclusion rests on an interpretive step that is not adequately defended, so the paper's significance is conditional on that step being made explicit.

major comments (3)

[Sections 3.1, 3.3, 4.4] The central claim that the Clamped Nuclei Approximation assigns definite positions and momenta to the nuclei and therefore conflicts with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not established by the formalism presented. In Eq. (6), H_cn(R) is a family of electronic Hamiltonians parameterized by the nuclear coordinates R, and in the standard Born-Huang expansion R is an integration variable in the nuclear Hilbert space (or a fiber label in a direct integral), not a classical configuration assigned to the system. A c-number parameter in a Hamiltonian does not by itself violate the uncertainty principle, since uncertainty principles constrain states, not Hamiltonian labels. The paper needs to argue why the parameterization should be read as a state attribution rather than as a purely formal mathematical tool; otherwise the conclusion in Section 4.4 that the classical elements 'are incompatible with the principles of quantum mechanics' does not follow. The observation that the infinite-mass limit does not yield H_cn (Section 3.2) shows that clamping is not a limiting procedure, but it does not show that clamping assigns definite positions and momenta.
[Section 3.4] The accusation that HLT misrepresents Sutcliffe and Woolley is overstated. HLT's statement that Sutcliffe and Woolley argue that 'assumptions regarding the discrete spectra of electronic Hamiltonians used in BO are unjustified' is a reasonable paraphrase of the claim, quoted by the paper itself, that the translationally invariant electronic Hamiltonian has a purely continuous spectrum and hence no normalizable eigenfunctions. The difference between 'purely continuous spectrum' and 'not purely discrete' is not enough to support the charge of a 'wrong reading.' Similarly, the claim in Section 3.5 that Jecko (2014) is not a response to Sutcliffe and Woolley is asserted rather than demonstrated; the paper does not quote or examine Jecko's references to Sutcliffe and Woolley. Since this alleged misreading is used to undermine HLT's account of the debate, it should be either substantiated or softened.
[Section 4.1] The symmetry-problem argument depends on Hendry's premise that a Coulomb Hamiltonian for an n-molecule ensemble has the same symmetry properties as a one-molecule Hamiltonian, so that environmental interactions cannot break molecular symmetry without ad hoc additions. This premise is not defended in the paper and appears to be too strong: an environment in an asymmetric state, or interactions with fields, can break the symmetry of the total Hamiltonian. The paper itself concedes that specific asymmetric environments (polarized light in the enantiomer case, an asymmetric electric field in the ammonia case) can induce definite values of symmetry-related observables. If environmental interactions can break symmetry without ad hoc additions, then the symmetry problem may be solvable, and the anti-reductionist conclusion in Section 4.4 is weakened. The paper should either defend the premise against this objection or qualify the conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.1] The text refers to 'Subsection 2.4,' but the previous discussion appears in Section 2.3; this cross-reference should be corrected.
[Section 3.1] Equation (3) is difficult to read; the indices in the sums and the nuclear-nuclear potential term are not clearly typeset. Please ensure the displayed Hamiltonian is legible.
[Section 3.3] The phrase 'no one has done it as far as we know' is informal; consider replacing it with a more precise statement.
[Section 5] The claim that HLT is 'framed in a hierarchical and unified vision of science' is a strong interpretive claim; it would be helpful to support it with explicit quotes from HLT beyond the general framing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's anti-reductionist conclusion is argued from the structure of the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian and independent literature, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

This is a philosophy paper responding to HLT; its chain is argumentative rather than a fitted predictive derivation. The central step—identifying the Clamped Nuclei Approximation with replacing nuclear position operators by classical parameters—is not a hidden equivalence: it is explicitly stated in Section 3.1 via Eqs. (4) and (6) and then used to draw the uncertainty-principle conclusion in Section 3.3. One may dispute the interpretive leap from 'parameters in a family of Hamiltonians' to 'definite positions and momenta,' but that is a substantive philosophical disagreement, not a circular definition of the conclusion. The paper does not fit a parameter and then call it a prediction; it does not import a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work; and it does not rename an established empirical pattern as a new result. The self-citations (e.g., Fortin, Lombardi, and Martínez González 2018; Fortin and Lombardi 2021) are used to identify the authors' own prior position and to report their earlier treatments of decoherence and isomerism, but those citations are not the sole load-bearing evidence for the central claim: the claim is supported by the mathematical contrast between the electronic Hamiltonian and the clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian and by independent sources (Sutcliffe and Woolley 2012a; Hendry 2010; Lang et al. 2024; Villaveces and Daza 1990). The one genuinely vulnerable premise—Hendry's n-molecule symmetry claim—is attributed to an independent author and is a correctness risk, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The argument has no free parameters and introduces no new entities. Its premises are standard quantum mechanics, the technical spectrum result taken from Sutcliffe and Woolley and Jecko, and interpretive assumptions about the scope of the reduction question, the centrality of molecular structure, and the unsolved symmetry problem.

assumptions (6)

standard math The molecular Coulomb Hamiltonian and its eigenfunctions obey standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Invoked throughout Section 3 for the derivation of H, H_0, and H_cn and for the claimed incompatibility of fixed nuclear positions with the uncertainty principle.
domain assumption The Electronic Hamiltonian H_0 has a purely continuous spectrum [0, infinity) and no normalizable eigenstates.
Accepted from Sutcliffe and Woolley (2012a) and Jecko (2014), cited in Sections 3.2 and 3.4, and used to argue that clamping cannot be replaced by a limiting procedure.
domain assumption The relevant reduction question is the strict reduction of molecular structure, not chemistry as a whole.
Stated in Section 2.1 to delimit the scope of the claim, following the authors' earlier papers.
domain assumption Molecular structure, particularly geometrical structure, is the central explanatory concept of chemistry.
Defended in Section 3.6 with quotes from Woolley, Primas, and Hendry; needed for the significance of the symmetry problem.
domain assumption The symmetry problem from the full Coulomb Hamiltonian is independent of the BOA and unsolved by decoherence.
Section 4.1; relies on Hendry's argument and the authors' previous work.
domain assumption The Clamped Nuclei Approximation is an essential first step of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.
Section 3.1; necessary to frame the classical assumption as part of BOA proper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What are we talking about when we discuss the Born-Oppenheimer approximation?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQMQKKLG

@misc{pith2026250712223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What are we talking about when we discuss the Born-Oppenheimer approximation?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQMQKKLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12223}
}

read the original abstract

Nick Huggett, James Ladyman, and Karim Thebault (HLT) have presented a comprehensive article examining the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation (BOA). Their central objective is to challenge our position on the matter-namely, that the BOA incorporates a classical assumption incompatible with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In contrast, HLT contend that the BOA involves no such classical assumption and, as a result, supports the view that chemistry can be reduced to physics. The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical analysis of the HLT article and to clarify why we consider their arguments unpersuasive.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson

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. Amann, A. and Müller-Herold, U. (1999). “Fragments of an algebraic quantum mechanics program for theoretical chemistry” Pp 39-51 in H. Atmanspacher, A. Amann, and U. Müller-Herold (eds....

work page 2003
[27]

The position of the clamped nuclei electronic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics

Cham: Springer. Sutcliffe, B. T. and Woolley, R. G. (2015). “The position of the clamped nuclei electronic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics.” Pp. 13-54 in J. Leszczynski (ed.), Handbook of Computational Chemistry. Cham: Springer. Sutcliffe, B. T. and Woolley, R. G. (2022). “Is chemistry really founded in quantum mechanics?” Pp. 173-202 in O. Lombardi, J. ...

work page 2015
[39]

The open systems view

Berlin: Springer. Cuffaro, M. and S. Hartmann (2024). “The open systems view.” Philosophy of Physics, 2: #6. Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2021). “Is the problem of molecular structure just the quantum measurement problem?” Foundations of Chemistry, 23: 379-395. Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2025). “Bohmian Mechanics for quantum chemistry.” In A. Oldofredi ...

work page 2024
[57]

Hierarchic quantum descriptions and their associated ontologies

New York: Plenum Press. 25 Primas, H. (1981). Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag. Primas, H. (1994). “Hierarchic quantum descriptions and their associated ontologies.” Pp. 201-220 in K. V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen and K. Sunnarborg (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics

work page 1981
[59]

A new application of the modal- Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: the problem of optical isomerism

Fortin, S., Lombardi, O., and Martínez González, J. C. (2018). “A new application of the modal- Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: the problem of optical isomerism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62: 123-135. Franklin, A. and Seifert. V. (2024). “The problem of molecular structure just is the measurement problem.” The ...

work page 2018
[102]

The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics

Dordrecht: Springer. Bacciagaluppi, G. (2020). “The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/qm-decoherence/>. Batterman, R. W. (2001). The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emer...

work page 2020
[461]

On the quantum theory of molecules: rigour, idealization, and uncertainty

Springer, Cham. Huggett, N., Ladyman, J., and Thébault, K. (2024). “On the quantum theory of molecules: rigour, idealization, and uncertainty.” PhilSci Archive, ID: 24037, https://philsci- archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/24037. Jecko, T. (2014). “On the mathematical treatment of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55: #053504....

work page 2024
[538]

Quantum definition of molecular structure

Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer. Lang, L., Cezar, H. M., Adamowicz, L., and Pedersen, T. B. (2024). “Quantum definition of molecular structure.” Journal of the American Chemical Society, 146: 1760-1764. Lombardi, O. (2025a). “The relative nature of open quantum systems.” In M. Cuffaro and S. Hartmann (eds.), The Open Systems View: Physics, Metaphysics and Met...

work page 2024

Show all 9 references

[1994]

The logic of reduction: The case of gravitation

Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontières. Primas, H. and Müller-Herold, U. (1990). Elementare Quantenchemie (2nd Edition). Berlin: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. Rohrlich, F. (1989). “The logic of reduction: The case of gravitation.” Foundations of Physics, 19: 1151-1170. Rueger, A. (2000a...

1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson

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. Amann, A. and Müller-Herold, U. (1999). “Fragments of an algebraic quantum mechanics program for theoretical chemistry” Pp 39-51 in H. Atmanspacher, A. Amann, and U. Müller-Herold (eds....

work page 2003

[2] [27]

The position of the clamped nuclei electronic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics

Cham: Springer. Sutcliffe, B. T. and Woolley, R. G. (2015). “The position of the clamped nuclei electronic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics.” Pp. 13-54 in J. Leszczynski (ed.), Handbook of Computational Chemistry. Cham: Springer. Sutcliffe, B. T. and Woolley, R. G. (2022). “Is chemistry really founded in quantum mechanics?” Pp. 173-202 in O. Lombardi, J. ...

work page 2015

[3] [39]

The open systems view

Berlin: Springer. Cuffaro, M. and S. Hartmann (2024). “The open systems view.” Philosophy of Physics, 2: #6. Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2021). “Is the problem of molecular structure just the quantum measurement problem?” Foundations of Chemistry, 23: 379-395. Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2025). “Bohmian Mechanics for quantum chemistry.” In A. Oldofredi ...

work page 2024

[4] [57]

Hierarchic quantum descriptions and their associated ontologies

New York: Plenum Press. 25 Primas, H. (1981). Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag. Primas, H. (1994). “Hierarchic quantum descriptions and their associated ontologies.” Pp. 201-220 in K. V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen and K. Sunnarborg (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics

work page 1981

[5] [59]

A new application of the modal- Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: the problem of optical isomerism

Fortin, S., Lombardi, O., and Martínez González, J. C. (2018). “A new application of the modal- Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: the problem of optical isomerism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62: 123-135. Franklin, A. and Seifert. V. (2024). “The problem of molecular structure just is the measurement problem.” The ...

work page 2018

[6] [102]

The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics

Dordrecht: Springer. Bacciagaluppi, G. (2020). “The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/qm-decoherence/>. Batterman, R. W. (2001). The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emer...

work page 2020

[7] [461]

On the quantum theory of molecules: rigour, idealization, and uncertainty

Springer, Cham. Huggett, N., Ladyman, J., and Thébault, K. (2024). “On the quantum theory of molecules: rigour, idealization, and uncertainty.” PhilSci Archive, ID: 24037, https://philsci- archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/24037. Jecko, T. (2014). “On the mathematical treatment of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55: #053504....

work page 2024

[8] [538]

Quantum definition of molecular structure

Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer. Lang, L., Cezar, H. M., Adamowicz, L., and Pedersen, T. B. (2024). “Quantum definition of molecular structure.” Journal of the American Chemical Society, 146: 1760-1764. Lombardi, O. (2025a). “The relative nature of open quantum systems.” In M. Cuffaro and S. Hartmann (eds.), The Open Systems View: Physics, Metaphysics and Met...

work page 2024