Two conceptions of the chemical bond

Philosophy of Science 75 (5):909-920 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article I sketch G. N. Lewis’s views on chemical bonding and Linus Pauling’s attempt to preserve Lewis’s insights within a quantum‐mechanical theory of the bond. I then set out two broad conceptions of the chemical bond, the structural and the energetic views, which differ on the extent in which they preserve anything like the classical chemical bond in the modern quantum‐mechanical understanding of molecular structure. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, Durham University, 50 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; e‐mail: [email protected].

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-03-14

Downloads
184 (#106,974)

6 months
32 (#104,132)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robin Hendry
Durham University

Citations of this work

Ontological reduction and molecular structure.Robin Findlay Hendry - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (2):183-191.
Conceptual fragmentation and the rise of eliminativism.Henry Taylor & Peter Vickers - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7 (1):17-40.
The Chemical Bond is a Real Pattern.Vanessa A. Seifert - forthcoming - Philosophy of Science:1-47.

View all 33 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Nature of the Chemical Bond.Linus Pauling - 1941 - Philosophy of Science 8 (1):133-133.

Add more references