Chemistry: Theory Does Not Represent Observation

Basic fact about practical operational chemistry (check with ChatGPT if you do not believe so):

• Molecules are real 3D spatial objects.
• Electron density in 3D is real.
• Forces between nuclei are real.
• Experiments measure 3D structures.
• Reactivity depends on 3D geometry.
• Overwhelming support a 3D spatial ontology.

Basic fact about theoretical chemistry (check!):

• There is no corresponding theory based on quantum physics. 

This is because the foundation of quantum physics is Schrödinger's Equation SE in $3N$-dimensional configuration space for a molecule with $N$, which is not real 3D space for $N>1$.  

When SE was formulated by Born-Heisenberg-Dirac in 1926 as the fundamental model of quantum physics, the firm expectation expressed by Dirac was that SE would give chemistry a theoretical foundation in quantum physics without the gap between real 3D space and configuration space.

But 100 years later the gap has not narrowed, and so chemistry lacks a foundation in quantum physics still today. It seems that chemists have accepted this fact and have compensated with their own ad hoc theories. 

So is the situation hopeless? Maybe not. There is a new initiative going back to an early idea of Schrödinger, which was not developed since the SE of Born-Heisenberg-Dirac took all space, as an 

• Alternative Schrödinger Equation for Chemistry        (submitted to Foundations of Chemistry)

which carries 3D ontology and so gives a theoretical foundation of the observations of practical chemistry.

ChatGPT 

What is the physical mechanism of covalent bonding?

In 1927: Lowering of energy due to exchange and delocalisation. No mechanism. Crude numbers.

In 2026: Lowering of energy via delocalisation and exchange. No mechanism. More precise numbers.

This is a key aspect. It is hard to believe that covalent bonding still 2026 is not well explained in university textbooks, which deceives the expectations of students with experience of school chemistry as incomprehensible, the same as I met 70 years ago. My experience today after having communicated with several leading chemists is equally puzzling: How can chemists of today accept that physicists prevent them from understanding the real physics of covalent chemical bonding? Born-Heisenberg-Dirac are all gone, but the spirit of Schrödinger is still alive...