Test Your Knowledge: True or False? Orbitals

AI Thread Summary
Unhybridized orbitals are generally considered symmetrical, while hybridized orbitals exhibit asymmetry due to their formation from the mixing of different atomic orbitals. To better understand these concepts, visual aids like simulations or artistic renditions of orbitals can be beneficial. Exploring orbitals in molecules with diverse elements rather than diatomic ones can provide clearer insights. It is advised to avoid examining orbitals in homonuclear diatomic bonds, such as C-C, for this analysis. Understanding the symmetry properties of these orbitals is crucial for grasping their behavior in chemical bonding.
UNknown 2010
Messages
77
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



True Or False ?
Unhybridised orbitals are symmetrical
Hybridised orbitals are asymmetrical



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try taking a look at simulations or artistics renditions of different orbitals. It may give you a good idea of whether hybridized/unhybridized orbitals have symmetry. I would also suggest looking at orbitals present in molecules that have various different elements in it, rather then diatomic elements. Also, do not look at the orbitals between two of the same elements, such as a C-C bond.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Orbital overlap diagram for ammonia
Replies
5
Views
6K
Orbitals S P D F: Francium & 7s Orbital
Replies
5
Views
2K
How does the Radial Distribution Function compare for 1s and 2s orbitals?
Replies
10
Views
5K
Max Aphelion Distance of Kuiper Belt Comet w/216 yr Orbital Period
Replies
11
Views
3K
Energy level Diagram relating to SP3 hybridization
Replies
2
Views
7K
Schrodinger equation and Born's Rule
Replies
1
Views
2K
Drawing Orbital overlap diagram for ammonia
Replies
1
Views
9K
FALSE OR TRUE problem about incoming and outgoing energy
Replies
4
Views
1K
Is My Reasoning for Aromaticity Correct?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Chemistry: First principle of thermodynamics
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top