Another motivating goal of this work is to build a bridge between the chemistry and physics communities, with regard to perspectives and even language surrounding electron correlation. As frequently highlighted by R. Hoffman, 24 a paradigmatic example of a concept that is fundamental, chemically-consequential, and beloved by chemists, but whose definition proves more evasive the more one tries to formalise it, is aromaticity and, more interestingly in our view, anti-aromaticity. According to one of the oldest and most widely-used definitions, aromaticity arises in cyclic compounds with 4N +2 electrons in a conjugated π-orbital system, while antiaromatic compounds have 4N electrons. Baird's rule further states that a system with an aromatic (antiaromatic) ground-state will have anti-aromatic (aromatic) lowlying vertical excited states. Admittedly, such definitions and counting rules are not mathematically rigorous, yet empirically these concepts are seen to hold. For example, evidence of aromaticity includes literal aromaticity (smell), unusual stability / inertness to chemical reactivity, and magnetic shielding effects due to ring currents; while antiaromaticity implies an unusually unstable state that tends to rapidly react or distort geometrically. A beautiful and unexpected result of this work is that antiaromatic molecules share a formal quantummechanical footprint with seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from bond-stretching and superexchange physics to antiferromagnetic order in some polynuclear transition metal catalysts and cuprate materials. Indeed, we venture to propose that the footprint is due to the elephant in the room -strong correlation.