Resonance/energy levels contributing structures

  • Thread starter Thread starter DDTea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Levels Structures
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of resonance in organic chemistry, particularly in the context of carbon-carbon double bonds as described in Robert B. Grossman's "The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms." The user expresses confusion about Grossman's definition of "higher energy" structures and whether it aligns with the concept of resonance as degenerate solutions in quantum mechanics. They suggest that Grossman's examples may serve more as illustrative tools rather than definitive representations of resonance. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on how energies of various resonance structures are calculated, emphasizing that resonance is not limited to structures of equal energy. The user recommends exploring works by Linus Pauling and the classic "Quantum Chemistry" for deeper theoretical insights.
DDTea
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I'm working my way through The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms by Robert B. Grossman (excellent book, by the way), but the way he describes resonance is confusing me. I feel like the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets.

Consider a carbon-carbon double bond: C=C. He says that there are a few different ways that the pi electrons can be distributed in this bond:

C=C
(-)C--C(+)
(+)C--C(-)
.C--C.

Where the last structure is a radical. Although some of those structures are theoretically possible, they would offer a poor description of the behavior of the C=C . So, he develops a set of rules for which theoretical contributing structures are higher in energy and thus poorer descriptions of the chemical behavior.

So my question is, is this definition of "higher energy" a literal definition? Or am I misunderstanding the definition of resonance: degenerate solutions for the energy term in the Schrodinger equation--i.e., of equal energy!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
If he is using an isolated double bond to describe resonance it is only being used in the form of an object lesson. ie. you might draw a double bond in the following ways...
just as you might draw resonance structures in the following ways. How the energies of the various representations are calculated, if not discussed by Grossman, can be assumed to be by one of the various MO methods that are accurate enough to provide a relative ranking.
 
The different structures correspond best to a set of valence bond structures. You can now form a matrix representaiton of your molecular hamiltonian using these structures as a basis. The diagonal matrix elements will be the "energies" of the hypothetical isolated structures. The importance of a given structure in the real wavefunction of the molecule depends not only on tihs energy but also on the value of the non-diagonal matrix elements. However it is important that resonance is not restricted to structures of the same energy.
These concepts should be exposed in the books by Linus Pauling, or, on a more theoretical basis in the classic book "quantum chemistry" by Eyring Walter and Kimball.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top