How G.N. Lewis Reset the Terms of the Dialogue between Chemistry and Physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While quantum physics provided a mathematical framework for understanding the valency of chemical elements, to make use of these mathematical equations required approximations based on chemical experience. To better understand how this establishes limits to the presumption that chemistry can be derived from physics, this paper starts with the warnings in Coulson's widely read text, Valence, as to why there are pitfalls in the interpretation of what "valence" accomplishes. He directs some of these concerns back to Pauling's earlier text, The Nature of the Chemical Bond. Both Coulson and Pauling are aware that quantum theory's ability to approximate the energetic stability of chemical systems is of use to chemistry only if it can be correlated with the molecular structure that results from chemical bonding. While this may now be routinely expected, it was a struggle to see that this was the challenge chemistry posed to physics-and this achievement they both attribute to G.N. Lewis. Until the more mature forms of quantum mechanics arose in the 1920s, Lewis was skeptical that the dynamic models of the atom posed by Bohr could meet this challenge. How Lewis formulates this challenge initially in 1916 and then in his longer work, Valence and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules, will be examined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".