Register to reply

Are there any advantanges to VB theory over MO theory?

by CrimpJiggler
Tags: advantanges, theory
Share this thread:
CrimpJiggler
#1
Nov17-13, 06:22 PM
P: 149
Are there any things that can be explained by valence bond theory, that cannot be explained by molecular orbital theory? I know of various things that can only be explained by MO theory, and not VB theory, but does it go both ways?
Phys.Org News Partner Chemistry news on Phys.org
Water leads to chemical that gunks up biofuels production
Celebrating 100 years of crystallography
Turning waste from rice, parsley and other foods into biodegradable plastic
DrDu
#2
Nov18-13, 01:58 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,593
Yes, e.g. VB yields a molecule F2 while it isn't stable in Hartree Fock theory.
I don't think there are many things that can't be explained in VB theory but only in MO theory.
However, VB theory becomes cumbersome when you use it in metallic or semi-metallic componds
like Boranes as you need an excessive number of resonance structures.
Generally, VB calculations are much more accurate than Hartree Fock calculations but also much more
costly in terms of computing power.
CrimpJiggler
#3
Nov18-13, 08:53 AM
P: 149
One case that I know of that can be explained only by MO theory, are back bonding in carbonyl metal complexes (the C=O bond gets weakened by electron donation from the metal, AFAIK this can only be explained by considering antibonding orbitals). Another example is cycloadditions, i.e. you can explain why photoexcited 2 + 2 cycloadditions work, by considering the phases of the MOs. Maybe these things can be explained by VB theory too, I haven't put too much thought into it.

DrDu
#4
Nov18-13, 10:01 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,593
Are there any advantanges to VB theory over MO theory?

Maybe this article is an interesting read:
http://yfaat.ch.huji.ac.il/SASON/A%2...d%20Theory.pdf

Also the Woodward Hoffmann rules can be explained by VB.
The case of back-bonding is IMHO quite simple, just consider the following two resonance structures
## \ddot{M}-C=O\leftrightarrow M=C-\ddot{O}##
hence the second structure will lead to a weaker bond between C and O and a stronger one between M and C.
CrimpJiggler
#5
Nov18-13, 04:48 PM
P: 149
Thanks. Yeah, resonance structures explain it pretty simply alright. I didn't know resonance structures applies to coordination complexes like that. That'll help me a lot in understanding the properties of various complexes, thanks a lot.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gauge theory, string theory, and twistor theory converge Beyond the Standard Model 15
Is newtons theory of gravity kind of like our current pop theory on quantum mechanics General Physics 7
Control Theory..please advise if cont theory should be in system design threads Electrical Engineering 6
String theory ~ the theory of physical theory? Beyond the Standard Model 32
Applied mathematics of Game Theory overlooked as a representaiton in string theory? Beyond the Standard Model 0