Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Philosophy of Science

The Recently Claimed Observation of Atomic Orbitals and Some Related Philosophical Issues

Eric R. Scerri

Published Jan 1, 2001• 37 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The main thrust of the paper involves a theoretical and philosophical analysis of the claim made in September 1999 that atomic orbitals have been directly imaged for the first time. After a brief account of the recent claims the paper reviews the development of the orbit and later orbital concepts and analyzes the theoretical status of atomic orbitals. The conclusion is that contrary to these claims, atomic orbitals have not in fact been observed. The non-referring nature of modern atomic orbitals is discussed in the context of Laudan's writings on realism, the success of theories, and whether or not scientific terms refer. I conclude that the failure to observe orbitals is a good prima facie case for divorcing the success of theories from the question of whether their central terms refer. The added relevance of this case is that it concerns a current and highly successful theory. Finally, the relevance of this ‘floating model’ to contemporary discussions on scientific models is briefly considered.

DOI
10.1086/392899

Related papers

Acerca del status ontológico de las entidades químicas: El caso de los orbitales atómicos

Martín Labarca, Olímpia Lombardi

The aim of the present paper is to analyze the problem of the relationship between\nchemistry and physics, by focusing on the widely discussed case of the atomic orbitals.\nWe will begin by remembering the difference between the physical and the chemical interpretation\nof the concept of orbital. Then, we will refer to the claim made in 1999 that\natomic orbitals have been directly imaged for the first time. On this basis, we will analyze\nthe problem from a new approach, by comparing the concept of orbital used in physics with\nthe concept of orbital used in chemistry. Such an analysis will allow us to argue for an ontological\npluralism that admits the coexistence of different ontologies without priorities or\nmetaphysical privileges. From this philosophical framework, the concepts of chemical orbital\nand physical orbital correspond to two different ontologies. As a consequence, chemical orbitals\nare real entities belonging to the ontology of molecular chemistry, and can be observed\nlike any other entity not belonging to the quantum mechanical ontology.

•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

Are Orbitals Observable?

Peter Mulder, HYLE Publications

In this paper I discuss the question whether orbitals can be observed or not. I argue that the answer depends on how the terms ‘orbitals’ and ‘observed’ are understood. The fact that different authors take radically different stances on the issue is caused by their employing different uses of either of the two terms. I furthermore discuss a recent argument by Labarca and Lombardi to the effect that the orbital concept in chemistry is discontinuous with that in quantum mechanics. I argue that, quite to the contrary, there is continuity between the two.

HYLE•Jan 1, 2011•21 citations

The Recently Claimed Observation of Atomic Orbitals and Some Related Philosophical Issues

Eric R. Scerri

IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks•Jun 1, 2008•3 citations

Scientific realism and quantum theory: on the status of the ‘unobservables’

Arunima Chakraborty

Scientific realism does not view theoretical terms as mere instruments of experimental predictions; it grants referential status to natural kind terms with 'epistemic access' and view scientific theories and terms as corresponding to physical phenomena and entities which exist independently of observation, and as thereby being the source of objective -approximate and not absolute- knowledge of the physical realm. As a result, scientific realism is accused of ontologising the unobservables. Against this charge, scientific realism posits the idea of the dialectical relation between theoretical terms referring to the unobservables and scientific methods. The second argument made by realism is the ‘no miracle’ thesis. These arguments stand challenged by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The aim of the paper is to examine the relevance of the two arguments of scientific realism in countering the idea that the existence of quantum states in the microphysical world renders realism obsolete.

Journal of Critical Realism•May 27, 2023•1 citation

Another Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics, or What Quantum Theory Is Not

Nancy Delaney Cartwright

INTRODUCTION In 1965 Hilary Putnam published the standard work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a piece that all philosophers of quantum mechanics of the time had to come to terms with. He laid out one-by-one in a clear non-technical way each of the available approaches to the problem and explained, again non-technically but very exactly, what is wrong with them. In his own final words Putnam took ‘the modest but essential step of becoming clear on the nature and magnitude of the difficulties’ (1965, 158). In the almost forty years since there have been a variety of advances, technical developments and new points of view. But none of these is uncontroversial. In fact each suffers from some one or another of the very difficulties that Putnam summarised. Many of the newer approaches explain why the problem is not a problem after all; a few bury the problems in technical detail; and some make heroic assumptions, often metaphysical, that cause the problems to disappear. My conclusion surveying the contemporary literature is the same as Putnam's in 1965: ‘no satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics exists today’ (1965, 157). The time scale is amazing. Putnam's important piece was written forty years after the first formulations and successes of quantum mechanics. I am writing forty years later, and about a theory that has transformed our technology and our way of thinking about the world. Why does this theory still have ‘no satisfactory interpretation’?

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 24, 2005•1 citation

Conclusion

Michela Massimi

The aim of this book was to investigate the rationale for Pauli's principle, and the conditions under which we are justified in regarding a phenomenological and contingent rule as an important scientific principle. To this purpose, I urged a Kantian perspective. As a conclusion, I want to foreshadow how this perspective relates to contemporary discussions about images of science, and how it bears upon the on-going debate on scientific realism in philosophy of science. I shall barely scratch the surface of this complex topic and its vast literature. The best I can do in these concluding remarks is to suggest a philosophical position that I think deserves to be further explored. What follows should then be read more as an outline for future research, than as a conclusion. I began this book by reconstructing the origins of the exclusion principle as a phenomenological rule arising from the spectroscopic research of the 1920s. I argued that the rule was derived – in conjunction with the concept of the electron's Zweideutigkeit – from spectroscopic phenomena with the help of some theoretical assumptions, in the period of revolutionary transition from the old to the new quantum theory. I defended the prospective intelligibility of this revolutionary transition in the light of the piecemeal process of transformation of the old quantum theory, from which brand new scientific concepts and nomic generalizations followed.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 4, 2005•0 citations
The main thrust of the paper involves a theoretical and philosophical analysis of the claim made in September 1999 that atomic orbitals have been directly imaged for the first time. After a brief account of the recent claims the paper reviews the development of the orbit and later orbital concepts and analyzes the theoretical status of atomic orbitals. The conclusion is that contrary to these claims, atomic orbitals have not in fact been observed. The non-referring nature of modern atomic orbitals is discussed in the context of Laudan's writings on realism, the success of theories, and whether or not scientific terms refer. I conclude that the failure to observe orbitals is a good prima facie case for divorcing the success of theories from the question of whether their central terms refer. The added relevance of this case is that it concerns a current and highly successful theory. Finally, the relevance of this ‘floating model’ to contemporary discussions on scientific models is briefly considered.
The aim of the present paper is to analyze the problem of the relationship between\nchemistry and physics, by focusing on the widely discussed case of the atomic orbitals.\nWe will begin by remembering the difference between the physical and the chemical interpretation\nof the concept of orbital. Then, we will refer to the claim made in 1999 that\natomic orbitals have been directly imaged for the first time. On this basis, we will analyze\nthe problem from a new approach, by comparing the concept of orbital used in physics with\nthe concept of orbital used in chemistry. Such an analysis will allow us to argue for an ontological\npluralism that admits the coexistence of different ontologies without priorities or\nmetaphysical privileges. From this philosophical framework, the concepts of chemical orbital\nand physical orbital correspond to two different ontologies. As a consequence, chemical orbitals\nare real entities belonging to the ontology of molecular chemistry, and can be observed\nlike any other entity not belonging to the quantum mechanical ontology.
In this paper I discuss the question whether orbitals can be observed or not. I argue that the answer depends on how the terms ‘orbitals’ and ‘observed’ are understood. The fact that different authors take radically different stances on the issue is caused by their employing different uses of either of the two terms. I furthermore discuss a recent argument by Labarca and Lombardi to the effect that the orbital concept in chemistry is discontinuous with that in quantum mechanics. I argue that, quite to the contrary, there is continuity between the two.
Scientific realism does not view theoretical terms as mere instruments of experimental predictions; it grants referential status to natural kind terms with 'epistemic access' and view scientific theories and terms as corresponding to physical phenomena and entities which exist independently of observation, and as thereby being the source of objective -approximate and not absolute- knowledge of the physical realm. As a result, scientific realism is accused of ontologising the unobservables. Against this charge, scientific realism posits the idea of the dialectical relation between theoretical terms referring to the unobservables and scientific methods. The second argument made by realism is the ‘no miracle’ thesis. These arguments stand challenged by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The aim of the paper is to examine the relevance of the two arguments of scientific realism in countering the idea that the existence of quantum states in the microphysical world renders realism obsolete.
INTRODUCTION In 1965 Hilary Putnam published the standard work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a piece that all philosophers of quantum mechanics of the time had to come to terms with. He laid out one-by-one in a clear non-technical way each of the available approaches to the problem and explained, again non-technically but very exactly, what is wrong with them. In his own final words Putnam took ‘the modest but essential step of becoming clear on the nature and magnitude of the difficulties’ (1965, 158). In the almost forty years since there have been a variety of advances, technical developments and new points of view. But none of these is uncontroversial. In fact each suffers from some one or another of the very difficulties that Putnam summarised. Many of the newer approaches explain why the problem is not a problem after all; a few bury the problems in technical detail; and some make heroic assumptions, often metaphysical, that cause the problems to disappear. My conclusion surveying the contemporary literature is the same as Putnam's in 1965: ‘no satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics exists today’ (1965, 157). The time scale is amazing. Putnam's important piece was written forty years after the first formulations and successes of quantum mechanics. I am writing forty years later, and about a theory that has transformed our technology and our way of thinking about the world. Why does this theory still have ‘no satisfactory interpretation’?
The aim of this book was to investigate the rationale for Pauli's principle, and the conditions under which we are justified in regarding a phenomenological and contingent rule as an important scientific principle. To this purpose, I urged a Kantian perspective. As a conclusion, I want to foreshadow how this perspective relates to contemporary discussions about images of science, and how it bears upon the on-going debate on scientific realism in philosophy of science. I shall barely scratch the surface of this complex topic and its vast literature. The best I can do in these concluding remarks is to suggest a philosophical position that I think deserves to be further explored. What follows should then be read more as an outline for future research, than as a conclusion. I began this book by reconstructing the origins of the exclusion principle as a phenomenological rule arising from the spectroscopic research of the 1920s. I argued that the rule was derived – in conjunction with the concept of the electron's Zweideutigkeit – from spectroscopic phenomena with the help of some theoretical assumptions, in the period of revolutionary transition from the old to the new quantum theory. I defended the prospective intelligibility of this revolutionary transition in the light of the piecemeal process of transformation of the old quantum theory, from which brand new scientific concepts and nomic generalizations followed.