Difference between Valence bond theory and molecular orbital theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between Valence Bond (VB) theory and Molecular Orbital (MO) theory in the context of chemical bonding. Participants explore theoretical distinctions, predictions, and applications of both models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the definitions of VB theory and MO theory, suggesting they seem similar since both involve atomic orbitals.
  • Another participant points out that VB theory predicts no unpaired electrons in molecular oxygen, while MO theory predicts two unpaired electrons, highlighting a key difference in their predictions.
  • It is noted that MO theory can be verified through the paramagnetism of molecular oxygen, which supports its predictions over those of VB theory.
  • A participant describes VB theory as focusing on electron pairs and their spatial arrangement due to electrostatic repulsion, while MO theory accounts for energy levels and symmetry in bonding.
  • There is a mention that VB theory may be more effective for nonmetallic compounds, such as fluorine, whereas it struggles with delocalized bonding scenarios.
  • One participant references a specific program, VB2000, for performing VB calculations and suggests comparing results with MO calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that VB theory and MO theory are different, but there is no consensus on the precise nature of these differences or which theory is superior in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the lack of clarity on specific definitions and assumptions underlying each theory, as well as the unresolved complexities in modeling certain molecular structures.

mahela007
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I am having trouble identifying the difference between VB theory and molecular orbital theory. To me, they seem to be one and the same.
In VB theory, two atomic orbitals overlap and share electrons forming a bond... Wouldn't this combination of two Atomic orbitals make a molecular orbital?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
They actually have different predictions in some cases.

For instance, valence bond theory predicts no unpaired electrons in molecular oxygen, while molecular orbital theory predicts two unpaired electrons in the 2\pi^{*} orbitals.

Molecular orbital theory can be verified in this case, since molecular oxygen is paramagnetic.

VB theory is reasonably good at providing qualitative information about the shapes of molecules, but MO theory provides more information about energy levels, bond strengths, etc.
 
Last edited:
I know they ARE different.. i just don't understand how they are different according to their definitions.
As I said in the first post, VB theory says orbitals just overlap. Doesn't this overlap form a molecular orbital (i.e an orbital common to both atoms)
 
VB doesn't even really assume proper orbitals--it just assumes the electrons form pairs (either as bonds or nonbonding pairs) and then attempts to maximize the distance between electron pairs on a given atom based on electrostatic repulsion of electrons.

MO theory actually keeps track of energy levels, symmetry matching required for orbital overlap, bonds with multiple centers, etc.

VB theory looks at sp^{2} hybridization as merely three electron pairs spaced as far apart as they can possibly be while surrounding a central atom. MO theory looks at the same hybrid orbitals as a set of linearly independent combinations of one S orbital and two P orbitals.

Also, try modeling the 3-centered bonds that hold a BH_{3} dimer together with VB theory and you'll see it doesn't work so well.
 
Last edited:
Loosely speaking valence bond theory describes the molecule with a linear combination of products of atomic orbitals. In MO theory, one forms first linear combinations of atomic orbitals (the "molecular orbitals") and then forms products of these. Usually, VB performs much better than MO for nonmetallic compounds(e.g. it gives a working description of Fluorine F2, while this molecule would not be stable in MO theory without further corrections), while it quickly becomes infeasible for compounds with delocalized bonding.
By the way, there is a program out there called VB2000 with which you can perform VB calculations online: http://www.scinetec.com/
Just try it out with your favourite molecule and compare with your preferred MO program.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K