Non-bonding orbitals — where it appears
Named by 19 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Hypervalency without d orbitals
Sulfur hexafluoride is not d²sp³ hybridised. The d orbitals are far too high in energy to contribute meaningfully, the bonding is three-centre four-electron, and the textbook account has been known to be wrong for fifty years.
Exactly zero
Where symmetry forbids an interaction the overlap is not small. It is zero — and computing it and finding arithmetic noise is a different kind of statement from computing it and finding a small number.
Eighteen is a count
The eighteen-electron rule is usually justified by adding up an s, three p and five d orbitals. That is a restatement rather than a reason. Reduce the ligand orbitals in the complex's own point group, match them against the metal's by symmetry, and the number that comes out is the count of orbitals lying below a gap — which is eighteen for an octahedron, sixteen for a square plane, and eighteen again for a tetrahedron for a different reason.
Back-bonding is two interactions
A carbon monoxide molecule bound to a metal donates from an orbital that is slightly antibonding and accepts into one that is strongly antibonding, so the two halves of the bonding move its stretching frequency in opposite directions. Five isoelectronic complexes differing only in charge settle which wins — and one of them stretches above free CO.
The trans influence is an overlap argument
Two ligands on opposite sides of a metal both bond through the same metal orbital, and there is only one of it. Strengthen one and the bond order to the other falls — computed exactly on three levels, and measured as a bond length that grows by a tenth of an ångström.
Three-centre bonding, computed
Three orbitals in a line and four electrons: a bonding level, a level with exactly zero amplitude on the central atom, and an empty antibonding one. The middle atom never exceeds an octet, and the ligands carry the charge — which is why every molecule that needs this arrangement has electronegative ligands.
Six bonds and four orbitals
The six fluorine σ functions of sulfur hexafluoride span a₁g ⊕ eg ⊕ t₁u. Sulfur's 3s and 3p supply a₁g and t₁u and nothing else, so four bonding orbitals hold twelve electrons across six bonds — a bond order of two thirds, computed from characters with no energy anywhere in it.
Sixteen is also a count
A transition metal brings nine valence orbitals, and nine filled orbitals is eighteen electrons. A square plane leaves more of those nine unmatched than an octahedron does and still holds fewer electrons, because one of the leftovers is out of reach.
Hypervalency is about the ligands
The three-centre four-electron bond is offered as the reason sulfur hexafluoride needs no d orbitals. Read it forwards instead of backwards and it is a requirement rather than a permission — the arrangement puts half an electron onto each ligand before any electronegativity difference is applied, which is why the hypervalent compounds are fluorides and SH₆ is not a compound.
Hypervalency does not stop at three centres
The three-centre four-electron bond is written up everywhere as an arrangement peculiar to hypervalent molecules. It is the first member of a family — five centres and six electrons, seven and eight — and the family predicts alternating bond strengths that the polyiodide crystal structures have.
Four is all that s and p can match
Reduce the ligand σ set of ten molecules in each one's own point group and ask how many of its components transform as one of the central atom's four valence orbitals. The answer is never more than four — not by arrangement, in every geometry from linear to octahedral — and what is left over is n + L − 4, with exactly twice that many electrons in excess of an octet.
The count is the population
The census counted how many ligand combinations have no partner on the central atom and called the count n + L − 4. A σ-only model built from each molecule's own coordinates says what that count is worth: with no electronegativity difference anywhere, the mean charge on a ligand is minus the orphan count divided by the ligand count, exactly, in all ten cases. And the prediction the census made — that the charge grows with the orphan count — is refused by the divisor.
The hybrids that point outside the bonds
Coulson's relation says two equivalent hybrids sharing an s orbital are orthogonal only between ninety and a hundred and eighty degrees. Cyclopropane's carbons make sixty, so its ring hybrids cannot point at the atoms they bond to — and the same relation says by how much they miss: 22.75 degrees each, falling to 0.03 in cyclohexane.
Two models that disagree about the shape
The identity says how much charge a hypervalent molecule's ligands must share and nothing about how. Working out which arrangement shares it most evenly puts the σ model and the repulsion model on one axis for the first time: the even sharer is the pentagonal plane, which is the arrangement the repulsion likes least — and along the interchange chemistry actually uses, one model sees 0.15 per cent of a change and the other sees 54.
The square that wastes an orbital
The orphan count that prices hypervalency was treated as a property of a molecule's composition — ligands plus lone pairs minus four. Run on twenty-six arrangements of the same ten molecules it is right for twenty-three and wrong for three, and all three are flat. A planar arrangement gives a main-group centre three usable orbitals rather than four, so the count is a property of the shape.
The orbital a ligand cannot reach
The sixteen-electron count of a square plane is a statement about an energy rather than about symmetry matching, so it was the count that ought to be sensitive to a π channel where the eighteen-electron one is not. It is not sensitive either — and for a sharper reason. The orbital that sets its gap is d(z²), and a square-planar ligand set contains nothing of that symmetry, so the gap is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one.
A bond with nothing in the middle
Two head-on 2p functions have an overlap that changes sign at 5.03 bohr, and the picture of what that means is worth drawing. Below that separation the combination the model fills has a nodal plane through the midpoint of the bond, so two electrons in it put exactly nothing between the nuclei; above it the same model fills the other one. Which picture a bonding orbital has is decided by a separation.
A level no symmetry was protecting
A three-orbital trio keeps one level at the free-atom energy exactly, and the reason given was that its two outer orbitals are equivalent. Make them inequivalent by changing one overlap rather than one energy and the level does not move at all — not to first order, not to any order, at any energy of the third orbital. It was never the symmetry. It is allyl's non-bonding orbital, held by a count.
The spin the count does not hold
Three orbitals in a row keep one level at the free-atom energy however the overlap of one end is changed, and at three electrons that level holds the radical's unpaired electron. Its energy does not move. Its spin does: from half on each end to 0.236 and 0.764 as one overlap goes from 0.25 to 0.45, exactly the squared ratio of the two overlaps, at every energy of the middle orbital. A coupling between the ends moves the level and cannot move the spin. The energy and the spin are answering to different things.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Three-centre bondingHypervalencyElectron countIrreducible representationsModel limitOctet ruleReduction formulaBond orderOverlap integralLigand fieldd orbitalsElectronegativity