Valence bond theory limitations

The Hy-CI function used for molecular systems is based on the MO theory, in which molecular orbitals are many-center linear combinations of one-center Cartesian Gaussians. These combinations are the solutions of Hartree-Fock equations. An alternative way is to employ directly in Cl and Hylleraas-CI expansions simple one-center basis functions instead of producing first the molecular orbitals. This is a subject of the valence bond theory (VB). This type of approach, called Hy-CIVB, has been proposed by Cencek et al. (Cencek et.al. 1991). In the full-CI or full-Hy-CI limit (all possible CSF-s generated from the given one-center basis set), MO and VB wave functions become identical each term in a MO-expansion is simply a linear combination of all terms from a VB-expansion. Due to the non-orthogonality of one-center functions the mathematical formalism of the VB theory for many-electron systems is rather cumbersome. However, for two-electron systems this drawback is not important and, moreover, the VB function seems in this case more natural. 

It will now be clear that the accuracy that may be attained in crystal analysis depends on the number of observed reflections and on the precision with which their intensities can be measured. (We assume that the structure is not complicated by any randomness or disorder, and that the necessary absorption and extinction corrections can be made.) A very useful discussion of the requirements necessary for determining bond lengths to within a limit of error of 0-01 A has been given by Cruickshank (1960). This is, of course, a very ambitious limit, but if it could be achieved it would enable the predictions of the molecular-orbital and valence-bond theories in aromatic hydrocarbons to be distinguished. It is pointed out that at the 0-1% level of significance a bond length difference must be 3-3 times the standard deviation to be accepted as genuine, so the limit of error of 0-01 A would require an e.s.d. (estimated standard deviation) of 0-003 A or better in the bond difference, or a coordinate e.s.d. of 0-0015 A or better. 

Before considering how SMIRKS can be used to carry out transformations with multiple reactants, first consider simpler unimolecular transformations. These are discussed separately because of the important use of unimolecular transformations to enforce the consistent use of SMILES throughout the database. This improves the integrity of the data in a chemical sense, rather than a relational database sense as discussed previously. The root of the issue is this There are multiple ways to represent the same molecular structure due to the limitations of valence bond theory. In valence bond theory, upon which SMILES is based, atoms have formal charges, most often zero. The bonds between atoms are shared pairs of electrons and may consist of multiple shared pairs giving rise to double, triple, or possibly even higher-order bonds between atoms. This simple theory, while quite powerful and applicable to a majority of chemical structures, leads to certain ambiguities. 

A more elaborate example than those shown above is the anionic compound SiFg2- (Figure 1.2), which adopts a classical octahedral shape that we will meet also in many metal complexes. Silicon lies below carbon in the Periodic Table, and there are some limited similarities in their chemistry. However, the simple valence bond theory and octet rule that... 

Overall, hybrid orbitals provide a convenient model for using valence-bond theory to describe covalent bonds in molecules in which the molecular geometry conforms to the electron-domain geometry predicted by the VSEPR modeb The picture of hybrid orbitals has limited predictive value. When we know the electron-domain geometry, however, we can employ hybridization to describe the atomic orbitals used by the central atom in bonding. 

The first quantitative theory of chemical bonding was developed for the hydrogen molecule by Heitler and London in 1927, and was based on the Lewis theory of valence in which two atoms shared electrons in such a way that each achieved a noble gas structure. The theory was later extended to other, more complex molecules, and became known as valence bond theory. In this approach, the overlap of atomic orbitals on neighbouring atoms is considered to lead to the formation of localized bonds, each of which can accommodate two electrons with paired spins. The theory has been responsible for introducing such important concepts as hybridization and resonance into the theory of the chemical bond, but applications of the theory have been limited by difficulties in generating computer programs that can deal efficiently with anything other than the simplest of molecules. 

A journey from generalized valence bond theory to the full Cl complete basis set limit ... 

Application of valence bond theory to more complex molecules usually proceeds by writing as many plausible Lewis structures as possible which correspond to the correct molecular connectivity. Valence bond theory assumes that the actual molecule is a hybrid of these canonical forms. A mathematical description of the molecule, the molecular wave function, is given by the sum of the products of the individual wave functions and weighting factors proportional to the contribution of the canonical forms to the overall structure. As a simple example, the hydrogen chloride molecule would be considered to be a hybrid of the limiting canonical forms H—Cl, H Cr, and H C1. The mathematical treatment of molecular structure in terms of valence bond theory can be expanded to encompass more complex molecules. However, as the number of atoms and electrons increases, the mathematical expression of the structure, the wave function, rapidly becomes complex. For this reason, qualitative concepts which arise from the valence bond treatment of simple molecules have been applied to larger molecules. The key ideas that are used to adapt the concepts of valence bond theory to complex molecules are hybridization and resonance. In this qualitative form, valence bond theory describes molecules in terms of orbitals which are mainly localized between two atoms. The shapes of these orbitals are assumed to be similar to those of orbitals described by more quantitative treatment of simpler molecules. 

Although valence bond theory explains the bonding and magnetic properties of complexes, it is limited in two important ways. First, the theory cannot easily explain the color of complexes. Second, the theory is difficult to extend quantitatively. Consequently, another theory—crystal held theory—has emerged as the prevailing view of transition-metal complexes. 

However, the valence bond theory approach to transition metals has severe limitations. It fails to account for the absorption spectra and magnetic properties of coordination compounds. These and other properties are more satisfactorily explained by crystal field theory or ligand field theory. 

Pauling s valence bond theory is likewise of only limited value in its application to transition metal complexes. In the VBT, the ligand electrons are accommodated in hybrid orbitals localized on the central metal. The orbitals of interest for transition metals are the nd, n -f 1), n + l)p, and n + )d. An octahedral configuration arises from d sp hybridization of the metal orbitals, while dsp hybridization gives the square planar structure and sp hybridization results in a tetrahedral geometry. 

Pyrolysis of one mole of A gives two moles of benzene. From the result of the pyrolysis, benzene is reasonably considered to exist in the compound. However, the IR spectra of the compounds revealed no benzene absorption the compound is not a benzene occlusion complex. From this data, structure [5-37] was tentatively proposed. This structure can be reasonably explained by the valence bond theory, FAN, and molecular orbital theory to be an octahedral complex, as described in Chapter 3. Subsequently, structure [5-38] was assigned to the chloride salt B. From the limited data given above, it is not possible to assign the orientation of two benzene rings on the chromium atom. 

Valence bond theory can explain many aspects of chemical bonding—such as the rigidity of a double bond—but it also has limitations. In valence bond theory, we treat electrons as if they reside in the quantum-mechanical orbitals that we calculated/or atoms. This is a significant oversimplification that we partially compensate for by hybridization. Nevertheless, we can do better. 

---