Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T19:26:05.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two Conceptions of the Chemical Bond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

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.

Type
Chemical Bonds
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Paul Needham, Janet Stemwedel, and Michael Weisberg for extensive discussions on the topic of this article. I am also grateful to the British Academy for funding my travel to the PSA meeting.

References

Brock, William (1992), The Fontana History of Chemistry. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Ronald, Gillespie, and Popellier, Paul (2001), Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry: From Lewis to Electron Densities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendry, Robin Findlay (2004), “The Physicists, the Chemists, and the Pragmatics of Explanation”, The Physicists, the Chemists, and the Pragmatics of Explanation 71:10481059.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. N. (1913), “Valence and Tautomerism”, Valence and Tautomerism 35:14481455.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. N. (1916), “The Atom and the Molecule”, The Atom and the Molecule 38:762785.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. N. ([1923] 1966), Valence and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules. Reprint. Originally published under the same title (Washington, DC: Chemical Catalogue Company). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Park, Buhm Soon (1999), “Chemical Translators: Pauling, Wheland and Their Strategies for Teaching the Theory of Resonance”, Chemical Translators: Pauling, Wheland and Their Strategies for Teaching the Theory of Resonance 32:2146.Google Scholar
Park, Buhm Soon (2000), “The Contexts of Simultaneous Discovery: Slater, Pauling and the Origins of Hybridisation”, The Contexts of Simultaneous Discovery: Slater, Pauling and the Origins of Hybridisation 31B:451474.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1928a), “The Shared-Electron Chemical Bond”, The Shared-Electron Chemical Bond 14:359362.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1928b), “The Application of the Quantum Mechanics to the Structure of the Hydrogen Molecule and Hydrogen Molecule-Ion and to Related Problems”, The Application of the Quantum Mechanics to the Structure of the Hydrogen Molecule and Hydrogen Molecule-Ion and to Related Problems 5:173213.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1956), “The Nature of the Theory of Resonance”, in Todd, Sir Alexander (ed.), Perspectives in Organic Chemistry. London: Interscience, 18Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1960) The Nature of the Chemical Bond. 3rd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1964), “Modern Structural Chemistry,” in Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1942–1962. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 429437.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1970), “Fifty Years of Progress in Structural Chemistry and Molecular Biology”, Fifty Years of Progress in Structural Chemistry and Molecular Biology 99:9881014.Google ScholarPubMed
Ramberg, Peter (2003), Chemical Structure, Spatial Arrangement: The Early History of Stereochemistry, 1874–1914. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Simoes, Ana, and Gavroglu, Kostas (2001), “Issues in the History of Theoretical and Quantum Chemistry”, in Reinhardt, Carsten (ed.), Chemical Sciences in the Twentieth Century: Bridging Boundaries. Weinheim: Wiley, 5174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar