Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper re-examines the logical relationship between chemical bonding and molecular stability, arguing that bonding is a descriptor *derived* from the quantum state, not a fundamental cause of stability. The authors critique the common notion that "bonding stabilizes structure" as potentially circular reasoning, where bonding is inferred from a stable structure and then invoked as its cause. Through examples from QTAIM, NCI, protein structure, and hydrogen-hydrogen bonding, they illustrate that bonding correlates with stability without causing it.
The familiar concept of the chemical bond may be a useful descriptor, but it's not the fundamental *cause* of molecular stability, challenging chemists' intuitive understanding of structure.
The chemical bond is a central organizing concept in chemistry, yet it is absent from the molecular Hamiltonian and no "bond operator" exists. Bonding is therefore not a primitive physical entity but a derived descriptor emerging from the quantum state. The logical consequences of this observation are revisited. Statements such as "bonding stabilizes structure" when taken literally risk circular reasoning (petitio principii), whereby bonding is inferred from a stationary structure and then invoked as its cause. The same caution applies to concepts such as steric repulsion, which is also a derived descriptor. Bonding accompanies stable or metastable states and correlates with their properties without constituting their cause. Illustrative examples are drawn from QTAIM, non-covalent interaction (NCI) approach, protein structure, and hydrogen-hydrogen bonding. Causation, language, and the autonomy of chemistry are also briefly discussed. The aim is not at all to diminish the role of bonding, but to place it at the correct logical level, that is, as a powerful, state-dependent descriptor that organizes, classifies, and predicts chemical behavior without serving as its fundamental cause.
