Valence bond theory and molecular orbital theory — how do they complement one another?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
Based on my readings, valence bond theory (VBT) and molecular orbital theory (MOT) tend to complement one another in explaining a molecule, but I don’t understand how VBT helps us explain the properties of a compound (other than bond angles). How does VBT complement MOT in aiding our understanding of molecules?
molecular-orbital-theory valence-bond-theory
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Based on my readings, valence bond theory (VBT) and molecular orbital theory (MOT) tend to complement one another in explaining a molecule, but I don’t understand how VBT helps us explain the properties of a compound (other than bond angles). How does VBT complement MOT in aiding our understanding of molecules?
molecular-orbital-theory valence-bond-theory
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
4
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Based on my readings, valence bond theory (VBT) and molecular orbital theory (MOT) tend to complement one another in explaining a molecule, but I don’t understand how VBT helps us explain the properties of a compound (other than bond angles). How does VBT complement MOT in aiding our understanding of molecules?
molecular-orbital-theory valence-bond-theory
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
$endgroup$
Based on my readings, valence bond theory (VBT) and molecular orbital theory (MOT) tend to complement one another in explaining a molecule, but I don’t understand how VBT helps us explain the properties of a compound (other than bond angles). How does VBT complement MOT in aiding our understanding of molecules?
molecular-orbital-theory valence-bond-theory
molecular-orbital-theory valence-bond-theory
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
edited Feb 16 at 18:09
andselisk
17.7k656117
17.7k656117
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
asked Feb 16 at 16:02
ANZGC FlyingFalconANZGC FlyingFalcon
1006
1006
1
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
4
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
4
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44
1
1
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
4
4
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You are correct that Valence Bond Theory (VB) is still very active in the chemical bonding community along with MOs. I recommend this article/conversation by Roald Hoffmann about this topic (Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (10), 750–756). Succinctly, they both are capable of providing a description of bonding in molecules; however, VB theory is better at demonstrating the existence of localized bonds while MO theory is more generalizable to delocalized systems (and ultimately the foundation of predictive computational chemistry). If you have an organic molecule, for example, the VB picture is more helpful for understanding reactivity because these molecules (for some reason) usually behave according to the intuition accessible within such a local bonding framework. MO theory could give you a numerically exact answer, but the wavefunction is in general hard to interpret since it's delocalized across the entire molecule.
One topic that might be of interest to you in this field is MO Localization. This is the field of study which aims to take the MOs and the high accuracy wavefunction and transform them into orbitals that reflect chemistry as intuitively as VB theory. (One can take arbitrary rotations of MOs without changing the observables of the wavefunction). This problem is technically ill-defined, however, there are many approaches that have done this to great success. For example: Natural Bond Orbitals (NBOs), Adaptive Natural Density Partitioning (AdNDP), Intrinsic Bond Orbitals (IAOs), and many others. As the titles suggest, there is a belief that localized (VB-like) bonds are real things hidden in the true wavefunction.
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109615%2fvalence-bond-theory-and-molecular-orbital-theory-how-do-they-complement-one-an%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You are correct that Valence Bond Theory (VB) is still very active in the chemical bonding community along with MOs. I recommend this article/conversation by Roald Hoffmann about this topic (Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (10), 750–756). Succinctly, they both are capable of providing a description of bonding in molecules; however, VB theory is better at demonstrating the existence of localized bonds while MO theory is more generalizable to delocalized systems (and ultimately the foundation of predictive computational chemistry). If you have an organic molecule, for example, the VB picture is more helpful for understanding reactivity because these molecules (for some reason) usually behave according to the intuition accessible within such a local bonding framework. MO theory could give you a numerically exact answer, but the wavefunction is in general hard to interpret since it's delocalized across the entire molecule.
One topic that might be of interest to you in this field is MO Localization. This is the field of study which aims to take the MOs and the high accuracy wavefunction and transform them into orbitals that reflect chemistry as intuitively as VB theory. (One can take arbitrary rotations of MOs without changing the observables of the wavefunction). This problem is technically ill-defined, however, there are many approaches that have done this to great success. For example: Natural Bond Orbitals (NBOs), Adaptive Natural Density Partitioning (AdNDP), Intrinsic Bond Orbitals (IAOs), and many others. As the titles suggest, there is a belief that localized (VB-like) bonds are real things hidden in the true wavefunction.
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct that Valence Bond Theory (VB) is still very active in the chemical bonding community along with MOs. I recommend this article/conversation by Roald Hoffmann about this topic (Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (10), 750–756). Succinctly, they both are capable of providing a description of bonding in molecules; however, VB theory is better at demonstrating the existence of localized bonds while MO theory is more generalizable to delocalized systems (and ultimately the foundation of predictive computational chemistry). If you have an organic molecule, for example, the VB picture is more helpful for understanding reactivity because these molecules (for some reason) usually behave according to the intuition accessible within such a local bonding framework. MO theory could give you a numerically exact answer, but the wavefunction is in general hard to interpret since it's delocalized across the entire molecule.
One topic that might be of interest to you in this field is MO Localization. This is the field of study which aims to take the MOs and the high accuracy wavefunction and transform them into orbitals that reflect chemistry as intuitively as VB theory. (One can take arbitrary rotations of MOs without changing the observables of the wavefunction). This problem is technically ill-defined, however, there are many approaches that have done this to great success. For example: Natural Bond Orbitals (NBOs), Adaptive Natural Density Partitioning (AdNDP), Intrinsic Bond Orbitals (IAOs), and many others. As the titles suggest, there is a belief that localized (VB-like) bonds are real things hidden in the true wavefunction.
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are correct that Valence Bond Theory (VB) is still very active in the chemical bonding community along with MOs. I recommend this article/conversation by Roald Hoffmann about this topic (Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (10), 750–756). Succinctly, they both are capable of providing a description of bonding in molecules; however, VB theory is better at demonstrating the existence of localized bonds while MO theory is more generalizable to delocalized systems (and ultimately the foundation of predictive computational chemistry). If you have an organic molecule, for example, the VB picture is more helpful for understanding reactivity because these molecules (for some reason) usually behave according to the intuition accessible within such a local bonding framework. MO theory could give you a numerically exact answer, but the wavefunction is in general hard to interpret since it's delocalized across the entire molecule.
One topic that might be of interest to you in this field is MO Localization. This is the field of study which aims to take the MOs and the high accuracy wavefunction and transform them into orbitals that reflect chemistry as intuitively as VB theory. (One can take arbitrary rotations of MOs without changing the observables of the wavefunction). This problem is technically ill-defined, however, there are many approaches that have done this to great success. For example: Natural Bond Orbitals (NBOs), Adaptive Natural Density Partitioning (AdNDP), Intrinsic Bond Orbitals (IAOs), and many others. As the titles suggest, there is a belief that localized (VB-like) bonds are real things hidden in the true wavefunction.
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
$endgroup$
You are correct that Valence Bond Theory (VB) is still very active in the chemical bonding community along with MOs. I recommend this article/conversation by Roald Hoffmann about this topic (Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (10), 750–756). Succinctly, they both are capable of providing a description of bonding in molecules; however, VB theory is better at demonstrating the existence of localized bonds while MO theory is more generalizable to delocalized systems (and ultimately the foundation of predictive computational chemistry). If you have an organic molecule, for example, the VB picture is more helpful for understanding reactivity because these molecules (for some reason) usually behave according to the intuition accessible within such a local bonding framework. MO theory could give you a numerically exact answer, but the wavefunction is in general hard to interpret since it's delocalized across the entire molecule.
One topic that might be of interest to you in this field is MO Localization. This is the field of study which aims to take the MOs and the high accuracy wavefunction and transform them into orbitals that reflect chemistry as intuitively as VB theory. (One can take arbitrary rotations of MOs without changing the observables of the wavefunction). This problem is technically ill-defined, however, there are many approaches that have done this to great success. For example: Natural Bond Orbitals (NBOs), Adaptive Natural Density Partitioning (AdNDP), Intrinsic Bond Orbitals (IAOs), and many others. As the titles suggest, there is a belief that localized (VB-like) bonds are real things hidden in the true wavefunction.
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
edited Feb 17 at 3:44
Gaurang Tandon
5,28052563
5,28052563
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
answered Feb 16 at 17:55
PJ RPJ R
1,007113
1,007113
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109615%2fvalence-bond-theory-and-molecular-orbital-theory-how-do-they-complement-one-an%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
VBT is for kids who ain't ready to digest MOT.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Feb 16 at 16:05
4
$begingroup$
@Ivan Neretin I’m not talking about the nonsense one learns in organic chemistry, but the actual mathematical VBT model Pauling proposed that computational methods still use (somewhat) today.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 16 at 16:06
$begingroup$
I would be cautious on calling nonsense chemical reasoning that allowed to sketch down structural formulae such as those of benzene or porphyrin well before of VB and MO theories and techniques such as AFM.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
Feb 17 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@AlchImista what I was referring to was not Pauling’s VBT model, but the oversimplified “sp/sp2/sp3” stuff you learn in introductory College Chemistry.
$endgroup$
– ANZGC FlyingFalcon
Feb 17 at 12:44