Pub Date : 2024-05-14DOI: 10.1007/s10698-024-09508-y
Ricardo Vivas-Reyes
In this contribution, the role of epistemology in understanding quantum chemistry is discussed. Quantum chemistry is the study of the behavior of atoms and molecules using the principles of quantum mechanics. Epistemology helps us evaluate claims to knowledge, distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs, and assess the reliability of scientific methods. In quantum chemistry, the epistemology of knowledge is heavily influenced by the mathematical nature of quantum mechanics, and models can be tested, proven, and validated through experimentation. This paper also discusses key concepts used in quantum chemistry, such as the wave-particle duality of matter and the uncertainty principle. This work utilizes Kant’s philosophy of science to frame debates and discussions in quantum chemistry, particularly with regard to the interplay between empirical observation and theory. Additionally, the text explores how Kant’s ideas about the role of the mind in constructing our understanding of the world can help us comprehend the counterintuitive phenomena of quantum mechanics and its applications in quantum chemistry theory.
{"title":"Clashing perspectives: Kantian epistemology and quantum chemistry theory","authors":"Ricardo Vivas-Reyes","doi":"10.1007/s10698-024-09508-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10698-024-09508-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this contribution, the role of epistemology in understanding quantum chemistry is discussed. Quantum chemistry is the study of the behavior of atoms and molecules using the principles of quantum mechanics. Epistemology helps us evaluate claims to knowledge, distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs, and assess the reliability of scientific methods. In quantum chemistry, the epistemology of knowledge is heavily influenced by the mathematical nature of quantum mechanics, and models can be tested, proven, and validated through experimentation. This paper also discusses key concepts used in quantum chemistry, such as the wave-particle duality of matter and the uncertainty principle. This work utilizes Kant’s philosophy of science to frame debates and discussions in quantum chemistry, particularly with regard to the interplay between empirical observation and theory. Additionally, the text explores how Kant’s ideas about the role of the mind in constructing our understanding of the world can help us comprehend the counterintuitive phenomena of quantum mechanics and its applications in quantum chemistry theory.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":"26 2","pages":"291 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-024-09508-y.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140941567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-11DOI: 10.1007/s10698-024-09504-2
Marabel Riesmeier
From organic synthesis to quantum chemical calculation, chemists interact with chemical substances in a wide variety of ways. But what even is a chemical substance? My aim is to propose a notion of chemical substance that is consistent with the way in which chemical substances are individuated in chemistry, addressing gaps in previous conceptions of chemical substance. Water is employed as a case study to develop the account, not only because it is a familiar example of a chemical substance, but also because its structural peculiarities make it an ideal test case for drawing out potential issues and limitations. Examining four distinct views of chemical substance—the microstructural, thermodynamic, purification, and a functional/relational account—I conclude that each has considerable drawbacks when used as a standalone concept. However, these accounts are not rendered obsolete, but are combined into a semi-pluralist conceptual patchwork. My interactive account of chemical substance is consistent with existing substance descriptions and chemical practice.
{"title":"An interactive approach to the notion of chemical substance and the case of water","authors":"Marabel Riesmeier","doi":"10.1007/s10698-024-09504-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10698-024-09504-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>From organic synthesis to quantum chemical calculation, chemists interact with chemical substances in a wide variety of ways. But what even is a chemical substance? My aim is to propose a notion of chemical substance that is consistent with the way in which chemical substances are individuated in chemistry, addressing gaps in previous conceptions of chemical substance. Water is employed as a case study to develop the account, not only because it is a familiar example of a chemical substance, but also because its structural peculiarities make it an ideal test case for drawing out potential issues and limitations. Examining four distinct views of chemical substance—the microstructural, thermodynamic, purification, and a functional/relational account—I conclude that each has considerable drawbacks when used as a standalone concept. However, these accounts are not rendered obsolete, but are combined into a semi-pluralist conceptual patchwork. My interactive account of chemical substance is consistent with existing substance descriptions and chemical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":"27 1","pages":"47 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-024-09504-2.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140941592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
∆Hrxn is the enthalpy change of reaction as measured in a reaction calorimeter and ∆Grxn the change in Gibbs energy as measured, if feasible, in an electrochemical cell by the voltage across the two half-cells. To Gibbs, reaction spontaneity corresponds to negative values of ∆Grxn. But what is T∆Srxn, absolute temperature times the change in entropy? Gibbs stated that this term quantifies the heating/cooling required to maintain constant temperature in an electrochemical cell. Seeking a deeper explanation than this, one involving the behaviors of atoms and molecules that cause these thermodynamic phenomena, I employed an “atoms first” approach to decipher the physical underpinning of T∆Srxn and, in so doing, developed the hypothesis that this term quantifies the change in “structural energy” of the system during a chemical reaction. This hypothesis now challenges me to similarly explain the physical underpinning of the Gibbs–Helmholtz equation
While this equation illustrates a relationship between ∆Grxn and ∆Srxn, I don’t understand how this is so, especially since orbital electron energies that I hypothesize are responsible for ∆Grxn are not directly involved in the entropy determination of atoms and molecules that are responsible for ∆Srxn. I write this paper to both share my progress and also to seek help from any who can clarify this for me.
{"title":"Deciphering the physical meaning of Gibbs’s maximum work equation","authors":"Robert T. Hanlon","doi":"10.1007/s10698-024-09503-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10698-024-09503-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>J. Willard Gibbs derived the following equation to quantify the maximum work possible for a chemical reaction</p><p><span>({text{Maximum work }} = , - Delta {text{G}}_{{{text{rxn}}}} = , - left( {Delta {text{H}}_{{{text{rxn}}}} {-}{text{ T}}Delta {text{S}}_{{{text{rxn}}}} } right) {text{ constant T}},{text{P}})</span></p><p>∆H<sub>rxn</sub> is the enthalpy change of reaction as measured in a reaction calorimeter and ∆G<sub>rxn</sub> the change in Gibbs energy as measured, if feasible, in an electrochemical cell by the voltage across the two half-cells. To Gibbs, reaction spontaneity corresponds to negative values of ∆G<sub>rxn</sub>. But what is T∆S<sub>rxn</sub>, absolute temperature times the change in entropy? Gibbs stated that this term quantifies the heating/cooling required to maintain constant temperature in an electrochemical cell. Seeking a deeper explanation than this, one involving the behaviors of atoms and molecules that cause these thermodynamic phenomena, I employed an “atoms first” approach to decipher the physical underpinning of T∆S<sub>rxn</sub> and, in so doing, developed the hypothesis that this term quantifies the change in “structural energy” of the system during a chemical reaction. This hypothesis now challenges me to similarly explain the physical underpinning of the Gibbs–Helmholtz equation</p><p><span>({text{d}}left( {Delta {text{G}}_{{{text{rxn}}}} } right)/{text{dT}} = - Delta {text{S}}_{{{text{rxn}}}} left( {text{constant P}} right))</span></p><p>While this equation illustrates a relationship between ∆G<sub>rxn</sub> and ∆S<sub>rxn</sub>, I don’t understand how this is so, especially since orbital electron energies that I hypothesize are responsible for ∆G<sub>rxn</sub> are not directly involved in the entropy determination of atoms and molecules that are responsible for ∆S<sub>rxn</sub>. I write this paper to both share my progress and also to seek help from any who can clarify this for me.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":"26 1","pages":"179 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-024-09503-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140834829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-23DOI: 10.1007/s10698-024-09507-z
Mihalj Poša
The new mathematical connection of De Donder’s differential entropy production with the differential changes of thermodynamic potentials (Helmholtz free energy, enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy) was obtained through the linear sequence of equations (direct, straightforward path), in which we use rigorous thermodynamic definitions of the partial molar thermodynamic properties. This new connection uses a global approach to the problem of reversibility and irreversibility, which is vital to global learners’ view and standardizes the linking procedure for thermodynamic potentials (Helmholtz free energy, enthalpy, and and Gibbs free energy)—preferably to the sensing learners. It is shown that De Donder’s differential entropy production in an isolated composite system is equal to the differential change in total entropy and that De Donder’s equation agrees with Clausius’ inequality. The useful work of the irreversible process is discussed, which with the decrease of irreversibility tends towards the hypothetical maximum useful work of the reversible process.