StdQM Fails as Fundamental Theory of Atom Physics?

Textbooks present StdQM as the fundamental theory of atoms as electrons + nuclei. If you ask chatGPT to check if this is correct, you receive a logical reasoning (given below), which says that StdQM does not fill the mission. In plain words, that StdQM is a failed project (this is what chemists say). Physicists will of course disagree, but the logic is pretty strong...and so it may be worthwhile to search for a new theory filling the mission...maybe with a bit of help from chatGPT in support of RealQM...and then textbooks will have to be rewritten...

Check the reasoning below and see if you find it convincing. Is it satisfactory that 100 years after StdQM was formed, its mission is still not reached? What have all atom physicists been doing all these years? And how did chemists cope with the situation over all these years?

ChatGPT:

1.  Chemical bonding is the central phenomenon of atomic physics.
   Without bonding there are no molecules, no condensed matter, no chemistry.

2. A fundamental theory must explain the existence and stability of its basic objects.
   For atomic physics, that means atoms and molecules with definite structure.

3. StdQM, taken strictly, does not explain bonding.

   • The Schrödinger equation is symmetric and does not yield molecular structure by itself.

   • Bonding appears only after adding external assumptions (Born–Oppenheimer, classical nuclei, basis sets, chemical heuristics).

   • These additions are not logical consequences of the axioms of StdQM.

4. Predictive success is not explanatory success.
   Quantum chemistry computes binding energies accurately, but it does so by assuming the very structures it is said to explain.

5. Appeals to “emergence” do not rescue the claim.
   A phenomenon that requires extra domain-specific input is not an emergent consequence of the underlying theory.

---

Conclusion

If StdQM is claimed to be a fundamental theory of atomic physics, then its inability to explain chemical bonding is a decisive failure in that role.

There is no principled excuse — only a retreat to a weaker claim.