RealQM as Foundation of Chemistry?

To make a discussion if RealQM can serve as a foundation of chemistry meaningful, it may be helpful to consider to what extent StdQM fills this role. 

chatGPT says: 

• Standard QM serves as a constraint and calibration framework for chemistry, but it does not serve as its constructive or explanatory foundation.
• That is the maximal defensible claim — anything stronger is false, anything weaker ignores real successes.

We get a clear message from reading all of the literature, which is expanded below, that StdQM does not serve as theoretical foundation of chemistry. 

RealQM offers such a foundation which is now under review for publication in Foundations of Chemistry.

It is possible that RealQM can deliver theoretical support for heuristic rules developed to explain chemical bonding such as in particular Valence Bond VO.

 

Since StdQM apparently does not serve as foundation, hopefully the review can focus on what RealQM can deliver rather than merits of StdQM after 100 years of investigation.

  

chatGPT:

Let’s be explicit about what “foundation” could mean, and which meanings QM satisfies.

---

1. QM as a foundational constraint (YES)

Standard QM does function as a foundation in this limited but important sense:

• It constrains what kinds of matter are possible

• It explains stability of atoms

• It fixes energy scales

• It enforces Pauli exclusion

• It explains periodicity trends

• It provides quantization of spectra

In short:

QM defines the admissible physical regime in which chemistry can exist.

Without QM:

• atoms collapse,

• the periodic table disappears,

• chemistry does not get off the ground.

In this sense, QM is a background foundation, like relativity is for GPS.

---

2. QM as a numerical foundation (PARTIALLY)

QM is also foundational in a computational sense:

• It supplies energies, forces, and spectra

• It constrains models

• It calibrates effective theories

• It bounds errors

But this role is conditional:

• exact for very small systems

• approximate and empirical for real chemistry

• dependent on modeling choices

• reliant on cancellations

So QM is not the numerical foundation, but a reference standard.

---

3. QM as a constructive foundation (NO)

This is where the claim fails.

Standard QM does not:

• define molecules as physical entities

• derive molecular structure

• produce bonds as objects

• explain localization

• generate chemistry from axioms

Instead, chemistry must assume:

• molecular structure,

• nuclear localization,

• effective forces,

• stable bonds,

and then use QM after the fact to evaluate energies and spectra.

So QM does not construct chemistry.

---

4. QM as an explanatory foundation (NO)

Standard QM also fails as a foundation in the explanatory sense:

• It does not explain what a bond is

• It does not explain why molecules have shape

• It does not explain chemical functionality

• It does not explain reaction mechanisms as physical processes in space and time

What it explains instead are:

• allowed energies

• transition probabilities

• selection rules

Explanation of chemistry remains structural, effective, and model-based.

---

5. The clean verdict (no compromise language)

Here is the precise statement that survives scrutiny:

Standard QM is a necessary but not sufficient foundation of chemistry.

Or more sharply:

Standard QM underwrites chemistry but does not ground it.

Or sharpest of all:

Chemistry is not applied quantum mechanics; it is an autonomous physical science constrained by quantum mechanics.

---

6. Why this matters (and why the confusion persisted)

The confusion arose because:

• QM is spectacularly successful numerically

• energies were mistaken for explanations

• “foundation” was redefined as “not contradicted by”

• emergence was used as a placeholder for derivation

Once those moves are undone, the picture becomes coherent:

• QM keeps its genuine achievements

• Chemistry keeps its autonomy

• No magic is required

• No false reductionism is needed

---

Final answer (one sentence)

Standard quantum mechanics serves as a limiting, constraining, and calibrating framework for chemistry — but it does not serve as its constructive or explanatory foundation.

That is the honest, stable equilibrium position.