What is maximum Pauling electronegativity or energy difference between orbitals?

AI Thread Summary
Atomic orbitals need to be at similar energy levels to combine into molecular orbitals, but the term "similar" lacks a precise definition, leading to ambiguity in discussions. The relationship between electronegativity, atomic radius, and atomic orbital energy is highlighted, suggesting that these factors influence bonding. A key point of discussion revolves around Pauling's electronegativity formula for dissociation energies, which indicates that stronger bonds can form even when the energy difference between atomic orbitals is high. This raises questions about whether the initial assertion regarding "similar" energy levels is contradictory. Ultimately, the conversation suggests that the complexities of bonding cannot be fully captured by simplified rules and that a more nuanced understanding rooted in quantum mechanics is necessary.
adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
AO energy difference maximum such that bonding orbital is still possible is what?
>-Atomic orbitals must be at the similar energy levels to combine as molecular orbitals, said Wikipedia.


This is unclear. How do you quantify how "similar" means?

I heard electronegative is tied to atomic radius is tied to atomic orbital energy.


What are two atoms that would in theory form an ionic compound if you use a naive theory but actually don't because the atomic orbitals are too dissimilar in energy levels according to molecular orbital theory?

>The essential point of Pauling electronegativity is that there is an underlying, quite accurate, semi-empirical formula for dissociation energies, namely:
>$$
E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{AB})=\frac{E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{AA})+E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{BB})}{2}+\left(\chi_{\mathrm{A}}-\chi_{\mathrm{B}}\right)^2 \mathrm{eV}
$$

According to this equation, you have a stronger bond when the atomic orbital energy difference $$(\chi_A-\chi_B)$$ is high. Does this equation contradict the first quote?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
There is no strict definition of what "similar" means, these are just rules of thumb, so they use lots of handwaving.
adf89812 said:
>$$
E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{AB})=\frac{E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{AA})+E_{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{BB})}{2}+\left(\chi_{\mathrm{A}}-\chi_{\mathrm{B}}\right)^2 \mathrm{eV}
$$

According to this equation, you have a stronger bond when the atomic orbital energy difference $$(\chi_A-\chi_B)$$ is high. Does this equation contradict the first quote?

Only if you ignore first part of the formula. You can have very strong bond even if $$(\chi_A-\chi_B)$$ is zero.
 
Borek said:
There is no strict definition of what "similar" means, these are just rules of thumb, so they use lots of handwaving.


Only if you ignore first part of the formula. You can have very strong bond even if $$(\chi_A-\chi_B)$$ is zero.
what's the non-handwaving answer they're avoiding?
 
That there is no such thing like ionic/molecular bond and that the full and exact answer is just a direct application of quantum mechanics (and as such far from being easily applicable).
 
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