La relación entre química y física: isomerismo óptico y la paradoja de Hund

dc.contributor0000-0002-4531-7461
dc.contributor0000-0002-7239-1763
dc.creatorFortín, Sebastían
dc.creatorMartínez González, Juan Camilo
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-03T16:03:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-05T14:25:37Z
dc.date.available2021-11-03T16:03:49Z
dc.date.available2023-06-05T14:25:37Z
dc.date.created2021-11-03T16:03:49Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-01
dc.identifier0124-4620
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/6275
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v13i26.1649
dc.identifierinstname:Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifierreponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifierrepourl:https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/6637506
dc.description.abstractEn el presente trabajo abordamos el problema de la relación entre química y física focalizándonos en la cuestión del isomerismo óptico y la llamada ‘paradoja de Hund’, que apunta a la dificultad de dar cuenta de la quiralidad mediante la mecánica cuántica. En particular, presentamos la solución a la paradoja propuesta desde la teoría de la decoherencia. El objetivo del trabajo consiste en cuestionar esta solución a la luz de una interpretación precisa del concepto de decoherencia. Sobre esta base argumentamos que una respuesta satisfactoria a la paradoja de Hund sólo puede brindarse desde una adecuada interpretación de la mecánica cuántica, que logre sortear los desafíos conceptuales de la teoría.
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia
dc.relationRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 0124-4620, Vol. 13 Núm 26, 2013, 199-224.
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/1649
dc.relationAdler, S. “Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34 (2003): 135-142.
dc.relationArdenghi, J. S., Fortin, S. & Lombardi, O. “The conceptual meaning of reduced states: decoherence and interpretation”. 14th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Nancy, 2011
dc.relationBacciagaluppi, G. “The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. E. N. Zalta. 2008. <http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/>.
dc.relationBacciagaluppi, G. & Hemmo, M. “Making sense of approximate decohe-rence”. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 1 (1994): 345-354.—.. “Modal interpretations, decoherence and measurements”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27 (1996): 239-277.
dc.relationBader, R. Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994
dc.relationBallentine, L. Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. Singapore: World S cient i fic , 1998
dc.relationBerlin, Y. A., Burin, A. L. & Goldanskii, V. V. “The Hund paradox and stabilization of molecular chiral states”. Zeitschrift für Physik D 37 (1996): 333-339.
dc.relationBub, J. Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
dc.relationD’Espagnat, B. “An elementary note about mixtures”. Preludes in Theore-tical Physics. Eds. A. De-Shalit, H. Feshbach & L. van Hove. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1966.
dc.relationD’Espagnat, B. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Benjamin, 1976.
dc.relationDirac, P. A. M. “Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 123 (1929): 714-33
dc.relationElby, A. “The ‘decoherence’ approach to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics”. Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philo-sophy of Science Association 1 (1994): 355-365.
dc.relationHarris, R. A. & Stodolsky, L. “Time dependence of optical activity”. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 74 (1981): 2145-2155.
dc.relationHealey, R. A. “Dissipating the quantum measurement problem”. Topoi 14 (1995): 55-65.
dc.relationHeisenberg, W. “The physical content of quantum kinematics and mecha-n i c s”. Quantum Theory and Measurement. Eds. J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Trad. de “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischer Kinematic und Mechanik”. Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (1927 ): 172 -198.
dc.relationHendry, R. F. “The physicists, the chemists, and the pragmatics of explana-t i on”. Philosophy of Science 71 (2004): 1048-59.—. “Two conceptions of the chemical bond”. Philosophy of Science 75 (2008): 909-920.—. “Ontological reduction and molecular structure”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (2010): 183-191.
dc.relationHettema, H. “Explanation and theory foundation in quantum chemistry”. Foundatios of Chemistry 11 (2009): 145-174.—.Reducing Chemistry to Physics. Limits, Models, Consecuences. Groningen: University of Groningen, 2012.
dc.relationHund. F. “Zur Deutung der Molekelspektren. III”. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, (1927) 805-826.
dc.relationJoos, E. “Elements of environmental decoherence”. Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 538. Eds. P. Blanchard, D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer & I. O. Stamatescu. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer, (2000).
dc.relationLandau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. Mecánica Cuántica No-Relativista. Barce-lona: Reverté, 1972
dc.relationLeggett, A. J. “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox”. Quantum Implications. Eds. B. J. Hiley & F. D. Peat. Londres: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 19 8 7
dc.relationLombardi, O & Castagnino, M. “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics39 (2008a): 380-443.—. “The role of the Hamiltonian in the interpretation of quantum mecha-n i c s”. Journal of Physics. Conferences Series. 2008b, # 012014. Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited 28.—. “Matters are not so clear on the physical side”. Foundations of Chemistry 12 (2010): 159-166
dc.relationLombardi, O., Fortin, S., Castagnino M. & Ardenghi, J. S. “Compatibility between environment-induced decoherence and the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics”. Philosophy of Science 78 (2011): 1024-1036
dc.relationombardi, O. & Labarca, M. “The ontological autonomy of the chemical w or ld ”. Foundations of Chemistry 7 (2005): 125-148.—. “The ontological autonomy of the chemical world: A response to Ne e d h a m”. Foundations of Chemistry 8 (2006): 81-92.
dc.relationNagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.
dc.relationPaz, J. P. & Zurek, W. H. “Environment-induced decoherence and the tran-sition from quantum to classical”. Fundamentals of Quantum Information. Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 587. Ed. D. Heiss. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer, 2002. (los números de página está tomados de arXiv:quant-ph/0010011).
dc.relationPrimas, H. Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism. Berlin: Springer, 1983
dc.relationScerri, E. R. “Realism, reduction and the ‘intermediate position”. Of Minds and Molecules. New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry. Eds. N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.—. “Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?”. Foundations of Chemistry 6 (2004): 93-116.—. “Normative and descriptive philosophy of science and the role of chemistry”. Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a New Discipline. Eds. D. Baird, E. Scerri & L. McIntyre. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. 119-128. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 242.—. “Editorial 37”. Foundations of Chemistry 13 (2011): 1-7.
dc.relationScerri, E. R. & McIntyre, L. “The case for the philosophy of chemistry”. Synthese 111 (19 9 7 ): 213 -232
dc.relationSchlosshauer, M. Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
dc.relationSutcliffe, B. T. & Wolley, R. G. “A comment on Editorial 37”. Foundations of Chemistry, 13 (2011): 93-95.—.. “Atoms and molecules in classical chemistry and quantum mechanics”. Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Vol. 6, Philosophy of Chemistry. Eds. R. F. Hendry & A Woody. Oxford: Elsevier, 2012.
dc.relationSzabo, A & Ostlund, N. S. Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1996
dc.relationVan Brakel, J. Philosophy of Chemistry. Between the Manifest and the Scientific Image. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.
dc.relationVemulapalli, G. K. & Byerly, H. “Remnants of reductionism”. Foundations of Chemistry 1 (1999): 17-41.
dc.relationWolley, R. G. “Quantum theory and molecular structure”. Advances in Physics25 (1976): 27-52.—. “Must a molecule have a shape?”. Journal of the American Chemical Society100 (1978): 1073-1078.—. “Is there a quantum definition of a molecule?”. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 23 (1998): 3-12.
dc.relationZurek, W. H. “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”. Physical Review D 24 (1981): 1516-1525.—. “Environment-induced superselection rules”. Physical Review D 26 (1982): 1862-1880.—. “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical”. Physics Today44 (1991): 36-44.—. “Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence”. Progress of Theoretical Physics 89 (1993): 281-312.—. “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical”. Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003): 715-776.
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.rightsAcceso abierto
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional
dc.subjectIsomerismo
dc.subjectQuiralidad
dc.subjectParadoja de Hund
dc.subjectDecoherencia
dc.subjectInterpretación de la mecánica cuántica
dc.titleLa relación entre química y física: isomerismo óptico y la paradoja de Hund


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución