Qualitative Valence-Only Models

The simplest electronic structure models for magnetic interactions only consider the unpaired electrons and their orbitals. All other electrons are taken as inactive and not included in the description. This leads to very simple wave functions, especially in the case of two identical S = magnetic centers. Such valence-only models, where valence is not used in its usual chemical context, are numerically not competitive with large-scale all-electron calculations, but have provided chemists and other scientists working in the field with important insights to control the magnetic interactions in transition metal complexes and materials with organic radicals. 

---

Why are the CASSCF computations not only quantitatively but also qualitatively incorrect Inclusion of dynamic correlation decreases the diradical connibution to the wavefunction, which is overestimated by CASSCF. This was a very surprising result at that time. The simple valence bond model described above would imply that the CASSCF approach should be satisfactory. The failure of CASSCF meant that much greater computational resources than anyone had expected would be needed to adequately describe even simple organic reactions, such as the Cope rearrangement. 

In the case of valence band photoemission, the atomic model cannot directly be applied to the numerical estimation of the effect, but rather for a qualitative consideration only. For valence bands, the initial state is no longer described by a single spinor spherical harmonic as it was done in [32] but it can be expanded for a certain k value in a series of spherical harmonics [44] due to their completeness. This procedure will influence the values of the state multipoles and the dipole matrix elements in Eq. 5.6, but the general Eqs. 5.5 and 5.7 will remain unchanged. In particular, they should correcdy describe the dependence of MDAD on the angle of photon incidence. 

The Huckel method and is one of the earliest and simplest semiempirical methods. A Huckel calculation models only the 7t valence electrons in a planar conjugated hydrocarbon. A parameter is used to describe the interaction between bonded atoms. There are no second atom affects. Huckel calculations do reflect orbital symmetry and qualitatively predict orbital coefficients. Huckel calculations can give crude quantitative information or qualitative insight into conjugated compounds, but are seldom used today. The primary use of Huckel calculations now is as a class exercise because it is a calculation that can be done by hand. 

For ionic compounds, crystal field theory is generally regarded a sufficiently good model for qualitative estimates. Covalency is neglected in this approach, only metal d-orbitals are considered which can be populated with zero, one or two electrons. To evaluate (Vzz)vai 4t the Mdssbauer nucleus, one may simply take the expectation value of the expression — e(3cos 0 — for every electron in a valence orbital i/, of the Mdssbauer atom and sum up,... 

The most widely used qualitative model for the explanation of the shapes of molecules is the Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) model of Gillespie and Nyholm (25). The orbital correlation diagrams of Walsh (26) are also used for simple systems for which the qualitative form of the MOs may be deduced from symmetry considerations. Attempts have been made to prove that these two approaches are equivalent (27). But this is impossible since Walsh s Rules refer explicitly to (and only have meaning within) the MO model while the VSEPR method does not refer to (is not confined by) any explicitly-stated model of molecular electronic structure. Thus, any proof that the two approaches are equivalent can only prove, at best, that the two are equivalent at the MO level i.e. that Walsh s Rules are contained in the VSEPR model. Of course, the transformation to localised orbitals of an MO determinant provides a convenient picture of VSEPR rules but the VSEPR method itself depends not on the independent-particle model but on the possibility of separating the total electronic structure of a molecule into more or less autonomous electron pairs which interact as separate entities (28). The localised MO description is merely the simplest such separation the general case is our Eq. (6)... 

The chemist is accustomed to think of the chemical bond from the valence-bond approach of Pauling (7)05), for this approach enables construction of simple models with which to develop a chemical intuition for a variety of complex materials. However, this approach is necessarily qualitative in character so that at best it can serve only as a useful device for the correlation and classification of materials. Therefore the theoretical context for the present discussion is the Hund (290)-Mulliken (4f>7) molecular-orbital approach. Nevertheless an important restriction to the application of this approach must be emphasized at the start viz. an apparently sharp breakdown of the collective-electron assumption for interatomic separations greater than some critical distance, R(. In order to illustrate the theoretical basis for this breakdown, several calculations will be considered, the first being those for the hydrogen molecule. 

In a one-electron model the electrons are added after the MOs are formed. Thus, the eight MOs of B2 provide a qualitative description of any diatomic molecule with s and p valence functions only. Electrons are added using the same rules we... 

Valence bond theory is one of the two quantum mechanical approaches that explain bonding in molecules. It accounts, at least qualitatively, for the stability of the covalent bond in terms of overlapping atomic orbitals. Using the concept of hybridization, valence bond theory can explain molecular geometries predicted by the VSEPR model. However, the assumption that electrons in a molecule occupy atomic orbitals of the individual atoms can only be an approximation, since each bonding electron in a molecule must be in an orbital that is characteristic of the molecule as a whole. 

---