What is maximum Pauling electronegativity or energy difference between orbitals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Pauling electronegativity and the energy differences between atomic orbitals in the context of molecular orbital theory. Participants explore how these concepts relate to the formation of ionic compounds and the quantification of "similar" energy levels necessary for atomic orbitals to combine.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to quantify the "similar" energy levels required for atomic orbitals to combine as molecular orbitals.
  • Another participant notes that electronegativity is related to atomic radius and atomic orbital energy.
  • A participant presents a semi-empirical formula for dissociation energies, suggesting that a higher energy difference between atomic orbitals leads to stronger bonds.
  • Some participants argue that there is no strict definition of "similar" energy levels, indicating that existing explanations may rely on vague rules of thumb.
  • One participant asserts that a strong bond can exist even when the energy difference between atomic orbitals is zero, challenging the interpretation of the presented formula.
  • A later reply suggests that the full answer to the bonding question lies in a direct application of quantum mechanics, implying complexity beyond simple models.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the definitions and implications of energy differences in bonding. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the relationship between electronegativity, atomic radius, and orbital energy levels.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clear definitions for "similar" energy levels and the potential oversimplification of complex quantum mechanical principles in the discussion of bonding.

adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
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).
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
15K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K