Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Overlap integral — where it appears

The integral of two orbitals' product over space, computed rather than assumed. Where symmetry forbids it the result is arithmetic noise rather than a small number, which is a different kind of statement.

Named by 49 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

sulfur hexafluoride — Oh. The molecule with the point group found from its coordinates rather than looked up: every candidate operation was applied and kept when it permuted the atoms among themselves.

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.

beyond · Hypervalency 1s with 1s at 2.8 bohr. The two orbitals in the plane containing both nuclei, with the regions where their product is positive and negative shown faintly. The overlap integral is the signed volume of that product, and where symmetry makes the two regions mirror images it comes out exactly zero. Contours drawn: 1s at 50% of its density, |ψ| = 1.48e-1; 1s at 50% of its density, |ψ| = 1.48e-1.

Overlap decides

Two orbitals interact in proportion to how much they overlap, and the sign of the overlap decides which of the two combinations is the lower in energy. It is one integral, and almost everything about bonding follows from it.

bonding · Overlap 1s with 2px at 2.8 bohr. The two orbitals in the plane containing both nuclei, with the regions where their product is positive and negative shown faintly. The overlap integral is the signed volume of that product, and where symmetry makes the two regions mirror images it comes out exactly zero. Contours drawn: 1s at 50% of its density, |ψ| = 1.48e-1; 2px at 50% of its density, |ψ| = 3.16e-2.

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.

bonding · Overlap Splitting goes with overlap. For each pair, the atomic levels on the outside and the combinations they form in the middle, with the splitting drawn in proportion to the computed overlap. A pair that symmetry forbids does not split at all, because its overlap is exactly zero.

Molecular orbital and valence bond

Two frameworks, taught as rivals, describing the same molecules. One starts from delocalised orbitals and localises; the other starts from localised bonds and delocalises. Pushed far enough they meet.

bonding · Models Overlap against separation, Z = 3.25. How the overlap integral falls as two atoms are pulled apart, for several pairs of orbitals. Where a closed form exists it is drawn over the computed curve, so the integrator is checked rather than trusted.

A double bond is not two single bonds

Carbon's single bond is 348 kilojoules a mole and its double is 614, which is not twice anything. The two halves are different integrals over different orbitals with different distance dependence, and computing them shows why no arithmetic could have made them add.

wrong · Overlap Four bonds, or one a₁ and three t₂. The same four occupied orbitals written in two bases. On the left each orbital sits on one bond; on the right one is shared over all four hydrogens and three follow the Cartesian directions. The transformation between them is orthogonal, so the density is unchanged.

The localisation transformation, demonstrated

Four equivalent bonds or one a₁ and three t₂ — two descriptions of methane's bonding electrons that disagree about everything except the electron density, which they agree about to the last bit a double can hold.

bonding · Hybrids Two orbitals, 4 electrons, S = 0 and S = 0.25. Two interacting orbitals with 4 electrons in them, drawn twice: once with the overlap set to zero and once with it kept at 0.25. Dropping the overlap makes the two shifts equal, which is the picture usually taught; keeping it makes the upper level rise by more than the lower falls, which is why four electrons in two orbitals is a repulsion.

The antibonding level goes up more

The two-level diagram every course draws is symmetric, and the symmetry is an artefact of setting the overlap to zero. Keep it, and the upper level rises further than the lower one falls — which is why helium has no molecule and why closed shells push each other apart.

bonding · Overlap Two orbitals, 2 electrons, S = 0 and S = 0.2. Two interacting orbitals with 2 electrons in them, drawn twice: once with the overlap set to zero and once with it kept at 0.2. Dropping the overlap makes the two shifts equal, which is the picture usually taught; keeping it makes the upper level rise by more than the lower falls, which is why four electrons in two orbitals is a repulsion.

Overlap is not interaction

Two orbitals interact by the square of their coupling divided by the distance between them in energy. A coupling half again as large, with a gap four times worse, buys a third less stabilisation — so the pair that overlaps best is often not the pair that bonds best.

applied · Overlap The exponent the molecule chooses, and what it buys. The 1s exponent that minimises the energy of a one-electron diatomic, against the separation of the nuclei, with the binding curves at that exponent and at the free atom's. Held at ζ = 1 the bond comes out at 2.49 bohr and binds 0.0648 hartree; with the exponent free it comes out at 2.00 bohr at ζ = 1.238 and binds 0.0865. The exact answer for this molecule is 2.00 bohr and 0.1026.

The atom does not bring its own orbital

Build a one-electron diatomic from two hydrogen 1s functions and it comes out 25 per cent too long and 37 per cent too weakly bound. Let the molecule choose how large those functions are and the bond length is right to three figures, at an exponent of 1.238 — the orbital contracts by a quarter when the bond forms.

orbitals · Orbital The wrong shape, fitted as well as it can be. The exact hydrogen 1s orbital and the best sums of one, two, three and six Gaussians, each with its exponents optimised for the energy. Three of them already reproduce the exact function to 99.94 per cent by overlap, which is why the method works at all — and the two places it goes wrong, at the nucleus and far out, are exactly where the other faces of this figure look.

A Gaussian is the wrong shape

Sixty years of molecular calculation are built on functions that get the two ends of an orbital wrong. A Gaussian has no cusp at the nucleus and dies too fast far away, and no number of them fixes either — while three of them already reproduce hydrogen's 1s to better than 99.9 per cent by overlap, and that is why the method works.

orbitals · Basis A σ contour at 90 per cent, and the two atomic ones. The section through both nuclei of the surface enclosing 90 per cent of the bonding orbital's density at 2 bohr, with circles marking where two atomic contours of the same stated fraction would be. The two pictures are different shapes and enclose different amounts, and the atomic pair encloses 91.70 per cent of the molecular orbital's density. Contours drawn: 1s at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 3.94e-2.

A bond is not two atoms overlapping

The surface enclosing ninety per cent of a σ orbital's density is one closed surface with both nuclei inside it, at a level of 0.0359. The two atomic surfaces usually drawn instead sit at 0.0394, are a different shape, and enclose 91.70 per cent of the same orbital — and whether the molecular one is one object or two is decided by the fraction the caption claims, anywhere between 2.1 and 5.2 ångström.

orbitals · Contour The ionic weight against how much ionic structure is in the wavefunction. The percentage each convention calls ionic, at a fixed structure overlap, as the amount of ionic structure in the wavefunction is raised from none to the molecular orbital value. They meet at both ends of the sweep and disagree everywhere between. Every curve is a weight and every set sums to one.

A weight that depends on how it is weighed

The ionic character of a two-electron bond is quoted as a percentage. For one wavefunction at hydrogen's bond length, three conventions in the literature give 18.73, 34.74 and 5.88 per cent — a factor of six — and on a wavefunction with no ionic structure in it at all, one of them still reports a quarter.

bonding · Models Three bands of one spectrum, and the bond length behind each. Nitrogen's three photoelectron bands, drawn as the vibrational intensity distributions computed from the measured bond lengths and vibrational constants of the three states of the ion. Each band's lines add to one. The middle band is spread over five lines because the electron removed came out of a strongly bonding orbital and the bond lengthened by 77.22 thousandths of an ångström; the outer two keep 92 and 88 per cent of their strength in a single line.

The width of a band is a bond length

Nitrogen's three photoelectron bands are one sharp line, a progression of five, and a line with a shoulder. Computed from the measured bond lengths of the three states of the ion, the intensities come out at 0.917, 0.263 and 0.880 in the first line of each — because removing a weakly bonding electron lengthens the bond by 18.7 thousandths of an ångström, a strongly bonding one by 77.2, and an antibonding one shortens it by 23.7.

spectra · Photoelectron seven sets of parameters, one spectrum. Benzene's π levels from seven sets of the three Hückel parameters, each fitted to reproduce the two measured ionisation energies exactly. The two occupied levels sit at the same energy in every column, because that is what was fitted. The empty level moves from -3.15 to 4.69 electronvolts across the family, and the resonance integral from -3.05 to -7.66.

One spectrum, a line of models

Hückel theory has three parameters and benzene's photoelectron spectrum supplies two numbers, so the fit has a curve of solutions rather than a point. Along it the resonance integral runs from −3.05 to −7.66 electronvolts, the empty level moves by eight, the terminal-to-central bond order ratio in butadiene goes from 2.000 to 2.671 — and the delocalisation energy is 6.100 electronvolts in every member.

bonding · Models The part of the bond that is outside the picture. The share of the overlap integral between two 1s orbitals that lies outside both of their 90 per cent contours, against how far apart the atoms are. At a bond length it is 8.3 per cent; by 7 bohr it is 53.4. The two drawn surfaces stop touching at 5.32 bohr, where the overlap is still 0.08 — so the picture separates well before the interaction does.

The tenth that is not drawn

A ninety per cent contour of a hydrogen 1s orbital is a sphere of radius 2.661 bohr, and two of them stop touching at 5.322 bohr — where the overlap between the two orbitals is still 0.0768 and rising in importance. At a three-ångström contact, 36.9 per cent of the overlap integral lies outside both drawn surfaces, and holding nine tenths of it inside the picture would take a contour enclosing 97.28 per cent.

orbitals · Contour Where two He atoms stop, with no contact distance put in. The repulsion between two He atoms, computed from the overlap of their filled valence orbitals — four electrons in a bonding and an antibonding pair, of which the antibonding one rises further — against London's dispersion attraction from the measured polarisability and ionisation energy. The minimum is at 3.14 ångström where the tabulated van der Waals contact is 2.8, and nothing anywhere in the calculation is a length.

The radius that was tabulated

A van der Waals radius is a fitted number that every structural argument in chemistry uses. Computing it instead — a repulsion taken from computed overlap integrals, an attraction taken from two measured scalars, and no length anywhere — puts helium's contact at 3.140 ångström against a tabulated 2.80, neon's at 3.226 against 3.08 and argon's at 3.996 against 3.76. And the surface two atoms actually stop at encloses 99.4 per cent of the density, not ninety.

orbitals · Contour The bonding follows the overlap over, and turns where it turns. The stabilisation of three pairs of orbitals against how far apart they are, each scaled to its own largest, with the coupling taken from the computed overlap. Two orbitals with no radial node are stabilised less at every separation further out; the two with one turn over — and the maximum of the bonding is at exactly the separation of maximum overlap, to five decimal places, because a coupling proportional to the overlap makes the stabilisation a strictly increasing function of it.

The same overlap, a different bond

A 1s and a 2s change their overlap by two thirds between two and seven bohr, and change what they are bonded by by 0.154 per cent. The overlap turns over and the bonding turns over with it, at exactly the same separation to five decimal places — the arithmetic refused the expectation that the secular denominators would move it — and what separates one pair from another is not where the maximum is but how little of it there is.

wrong · Overlap The splitting against the square of one computed overlap. five chromium(III) complexes: the measured ligand-field splitting against the square of the metal–ligand σ overlap, computed from Slater-type functions at the measured bond lengths. The angular overlap model says the splitting is proportional to that square and to no other power, and the line drawn through the origin is that proportionality with nothing fitted but its slope. Across a series in which the splitting doubles, the ratio varies by 30.75 per cent.

The splitting against something structural

The angular overlap model says a ligand field splitting is proportional to the square of one overlap integral and to no other power. Computing that integral from Slater functions at the measured bond lengths, for five chromium complexes whose splittings run from 13,600 to 26,700 wavenumbers, the ratio varies by thirty-one per cent with nothing fitted. And a power law on the donor's effective charge, at an exponent nobody predicted, does slightly better.

applied · Ligand field Three bent bonds, at a hundred and one degrees to each other. A carbon–carbon triple bond in its localised description: three equivalent bent bonds, spaced by 101.54 degrees, each tilted 63.43 degrees off the axis and each carrying 0.17 of an s orbital — an sp⁵ hybrid. Its charge sits 0.32 ångström off the axis, where every canonical orbital's sits on it. The mixing that makes the three equivalent is a rotation in the three-dimensional occupied space, so the density is untouched.

Three bent bonds, and the same hybrid

A triple bond localises into three bent bonds at 101.537 degrees to one another, each an sp⁵ hybrid with exactly one sixth s character. A double bond's two bent components are sp⁵ hybrids at 101.537 degrees. The two are the same hybrid, built out of different frameworks and in different numbers, and the reason is that a third of a half is a half of a third.

shape · Hybrids Two errors, opposite signs, four orders of magnitude apart. A finite basis makes H₂⁺'s binding too large by letting each atom borrow the other's functions, and too small by describing the molecule incompletely. Both are computed here against the exact binding of 0.102634 hartree. The second is thousands of times the first at every basis size, and it is the first that counterpoise removes — so the corrected number is further from the true one than the uncorrected at every row of this table.

The basis the other atom lent

Two atoms in a molecule are described in each other's functions and the separated atoms are not, so the molecule is treated better than the pieces and the binding comes out too large. That is the basis set superposition error, it is removed by a standard correction, and for H₂⁺ in four Gaussians a centre it is six tenths of a microhartree against an incompleteness error of twelve millihartree — a factor of eighteen thousand the other way.

orbitals · Basis A correction computed at 3 bohr and used everywhere. Three binding curves for H₂⁺ in 2 Gaussians a centre: uncorrected, properly counterpoise corrected at every separation, and corrected once at 3 bohr with that value subtracted throughout. The frozen curve is the uncorrected one shifted down by a constant, so its minimum sits at 2.2270 bohr — exactly where the uncorrected minimum is, and 4.2 millibohr from where the full correction puts it. The depth moves and the structure does not.

A correction computed at one length

The counterpoise correction is expensive, so it is evaluated once at a reference geometry and subtracted across a whole potential surface. A constant does not move a minimum — so a frozen correction returns the uncorrected bond length exactly, at every reference geometry and in every basis, and everything the correction does to a structure is the part that has just been thrown away.

orbitals · Basis The metal's charge is a coordinate, and the count is not. The metal's charge in an octahedral d6 complex, against how much of each shared pair the ligand is given. Half each is Mulliken's rule and the whole to the ligand is the assumption an oxidation state makes; the answer runs over 2.06 electrons between them. The oxidation state itself is 0, which is off the end of the range, and the electron count is the same number at every point on it.

An integer nobody measured

The oxidation state of chromium in the hexacarbonyl is zero. Its charge, computed from the same wavefunction, is anywhere between −3.04 and −0.98 depending on how the shared electrons are divided — and the integer sits outside that whole range. The electron count, meanwhile, is eighteen at every point on it.

applied · Electron count Two molecules, one eigenvalue, and 1.27 eV between them. Six alternant hydrocarbons placed by the Hückel eigenvalue of their highest occupied level — computed by diagonalising each molecule's own adjacency matrix — against the measured first π ionisation energy. Ethene and benzene share an eigenvalue of exactly 1 and their measurements differ by 1.27 eV; butadiene and naphthalene share 0.618 and differ by 0.94. A model that reads only the eigenvalue is a function of it, so it must give each pair one answer, and the two vertical pairs are the whole of its error.

A parameter that never finds a value

Show a two-parameter model six measurements instead of two and it stops being underdetermined and starts being wrong. Adding the third parameter improves the fit by one part in eighty, moves the resonance integral by a factor of four, and never finds a best value at all — because nine tenths of the error is a term the model does not have.

bonding · Models The hybrids do not point at the atoms. For each cycloalkane, the angle between its two ring hybrids — fixed by orthogonality once the measured H–C–H angle has said how much s character the hydrogens take — against the angle between its carbons. Cyclopropane's differ by 45.5°, so each hybrid points 22.75° outside the bond it makes; cyclohexane's agree to 0.035°, which is the control.

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.

bonding · Hybrids What the second channel buys, and what it cannot. Five measured splittings against three models. Adding the π overlap takes the error from 1747 to 1402 cm⁻¹, and telling the model which ligand is an acceptor takes it to 961 — so the fact about occupation is worth more than twice the integral. The two halides are the pair that fixes which model is which, and no single one of the three gets both them and cyanide right.

The integral that cannot count electrons

Adding the π channel to a ligand-field splitting means one more overlap integral over the same two orbitals at the same distance. It removes a fifth of the error. Telling the model which ligand is a π acceptor — one word per ligand, quoted rather than computed — removes forty-five per cent, because an overlap cannot know whether the orbital it reaches is full or empty.

applied · Ligand field A control that ranked better than the mechanism. Rank correlations against the additivity shortfall, over eight ion pairs. The overlap of the two closed shells ranks at 0.8571 — but the cation's formal charge, which cannot be a mechanism, ranks at 0.9524, so the set is confounded: its eight pairs split four and four by charge and everything else rises with it. Held fixed within a charge group the overlap still ranks at 0.80 — and so does the softness, at -1.00. Four pairs cannot separate two candidates.

A control that outranked the mechanism

Ruling polarisation out left one candidate, and the closed-shell overlap ranks at 0.857 against the additivity shortfall — which looked like the answer until the control was read. The cation's formal charge, which cannot be a mechanism, ranks at 0.9524. Eight pairs split four and four by charge cannot separate anything, and within a charge group two candidates both rank perfectly.

orbitals · Contour Eight wells, and where each one puts its pair. The total energy of each pair against separation, with the measured distance marked on every curve. The wells are deep and their minima are in the right region — tenths of an ångström from the measurements — which is what makes the comparison worth making. What they are not is closer to the measurements than the sum of two tabulated radii, and that is the result.

A size a confound cannot supply

A rank correlation of 0.857 was beaten by a control that cannot be a mechanism, so a size is the next thing to ask for: does a closed-shell repulsion of the computed magnitude displace two ions by the tenths of an ångström the additive radii are wrong by. It does not. The balance of a Madelung attraction against six computed repulsions predicts six separations to 0.242 ångström where adding two tabulated radii predicts them to 0.183, and the displacement it produces ranks at 0.14 against the shortfall it was proposed to explain.

orbitals · Contour A functional with no interior maximum. The Boys functional against the mixing angle for a carbonyl, evaluated directly at a hundred and eighty-one angles. It is a quadratic in cos²θ − ½ with no linear term, so it is symmetric about forty-five degrees and its maximum is at the middle or at the ends and nowhere else. Here the coefficient is positive, so the best is at 0° — the canonical σ and π. There is no angle to search for, however unsymmetrical the molecule is.

The angle that does not have to be searched for

A carbonyl's two bent components have no symmetry making them equivalent, so the mixing that best localises them looks like something to search for and their s characters look like two different numbers. Neither happens. The localisation functional is a quadratic with no linear term, so its maximum is at forty-five degrees or at the ends — bent bonds or canonical ones, decided by one inequality, with nothing in between.

bonding · Hybrids The pair's regime is not a property of the pair. How much the pair's bonding responds to its own overlap — the ratio of what it is bonded by at an overlap of 0.4 to what it is bonded by at 0.1 — with and without a third orbital coupled to both. Alone it is 11.83, which is the regime in which bonding tracks overlap. With a third orbital present it falls to 1.46, 0.92, 0.74 — and two of those are below one, meaning a fourfold increase in the overlap between the two atoms buys them less bonding rather than more. The coupling comes from the overlap by the Wolfsberg–Helmholz rule with K = 1.75, which is fitted rather than derived. Every stabilisation here inherits that; the shape of the curve against separation does not, because K is a constant.

A regime that belongs to the neighbours

Two orbitals at the same energy are bonded in proportion to their overlap and two far apart are barely bonded at all — two regimes, and the natural question is whether the regime is a property of the pair. It is not. Put a third orbital beside them and the pair's response to its own overlap falls from twelvefold to less than one: more overlap buys less bonding.

wrong · Overlap The filled orbital at 3 bohr, with a node in the middle of the bond. The combination the two-level model puts lower at 3 bohr, drawn as contours of the wavefunction with the two signs in the two colours. The overlap here is 0.4825, so the interaction is of the sign that fills the plus combination. There is a nodal plane through the midpoint: the pair the model calls bonded has no density at all between its nuclei.

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.

bonding · Overlap What the gap alone would predict, and what was fitted. Each halide's π scale as a multiple of fluoride's: the value fitted to the spectrochemical series, against what the energy denominator alone gives with the metal orbital at the vacuum level — which is the weakest the denominator effect can be. It over-predicts at every ligand, and moving the metal level down makes it worse.

The gap that would have to be smaller

An angular overlap parameter is an overlap squared over an energy denominator, and the usual fit folds the denominator away. Put the measured ionisation energies back in and the denominator alone over-predicts the trend down the halide group at every metal level a donor permits — the smallest it can give is 1.67 against a fitted 1.43. So the overlap has to shrink down the group, which is the opposite of the usual expectation.

applied · Ligand field The inequality, decided twice. The quantity the localisation criterion compares — the centroid separation over twice the off-axis dipole — computed with hydrogenic radial functions and with Slater ones at the same effective charges. Below one the localised description is a pair of bent components; above it, σ and π. The hydrogenic answer is 1.8090 and the Slater answer is 0.3937, and they are on opposite sides.

The node that decided a picture

A hydrogenic calculation cannot say whether formaldehyde's localised description is two bent components or σ and π, because the integral that decides it came out at 0.00718 where it should be the largest in the molecule. Replacing the hydrogenic radial functions with nodeless Slater ones moves that overlap by a factor of ninety-seven, leaves the π overlap identical to the last bit, and flips the answer: the description is bent.

bonding · Hybrids A pair with no overlap, and a third orbital swept past it. The three levels of a trio in which the two outer orbitals have exactly no overlap with each other, as the third orbital's energy is swept. The middle line is at -13.6 at every point — the antisymmetric combination of the two, which has no partner of its own symmetry and cannot mix with anything. The other two move, so the pair is split by an orbital it has no direct contact through.

A bond order between atoms that do not interact

A diatomic held where its overlap changes sign has no interaction between its two orbitals at all — which is what the sign change of its overlap means. Put a third orbital beside it and the pair is still split, one line sits exactly at the free-atom energy at every third-orbital energy, and the bond order between the two runs to −0.9999. Three measures of the same bond disagree completely.

wrong · Overlap The residue is four times below the model's own error. The quantity whose sign is wanted, beside the accuracy of the numbers it is a difference of. The measured residues are 0.031 and 0.056 ångström; the model gets a single separation right to 0.242 on average. A fourfold alternating difference of quantities known that badly cannot resolve something that small, and that arithmetic was available before any of this was computed.

The residue is below its own noise

Two interaction terms, both negative, leave the sign a coin toss — and a larger block would settle it. There is a larger block: a model that needs no measured separations supplies twenty-one. It cannot settle anything, because a fourfold alternating difference of distances known to a quarter of an ångström cannot resolve three hundredths of one.

orbitals · Contour One geometry, four electron counts, four answers. The bond order between two orbitals with exactly no overlap and no resonance integral, as the third orbital's energy is swept, at every count the trio can hold. With none it is identically zero. With two it is positive and rises past one. With four it is negative and reaches -0.954. With six it is a horizontal line — the third orbital's energy stops mattering entirely.

A filled shell is not an empty statement

A bond order of −0.954 between two orbitals with no overlap and no resonance integral invites the prediction that at six electrons — every level occupied, the sum over a complete set — it would be exactly zero. It is exactly one seventh, and the reason is that a complete set in a non-orthogonal basis sums to the inverse of the overlap matrix, which has entries where the overlap has none.

wrong · Overlap The two overlaps, squared, at the measured bond lengths. For each chromium(III) donor: the σ overlap squared, a metal 3d(z²) against the donor's p(z), and the π overlap squared, a 3d(xz) against its p(x). Everything is computed — the radial functions from Slater's rules, the separation from the measured bond length, the integral by quadrature. Chloride's π overlap is 3.5 times fluoride's, which is the opposite of what the overlap argument required of it.

The overlap the model is not proportional to

Without a computed π overlap, the natural argument reasons about one instead: the denominator over-predicts the halide trend, so the overlap must shrink down the group to cancel part of it. Computed, it grows — 3.5 times from fluoride to chloride. And the fitted parameter changes sign across the series, which no ratio of squared overlaps can do.

applied · Ligand field What happens to the level that was exact. The three levels of the trio as one of the two outer orbitals is raised. At zero detuning the middle one sits at -13.6 exactly — it is the antisymmetric combination, and nothing of its symmetry exists for it to mix with. The moment the two are made inequivalent that statement is gone: the level leaves linearly, and the other two barely move by comparison.

A symmetry holds or it does not

One level of a three-orbital trio sits at the free-atom energy exactly, at every third-orbital energy, because the antisymmetric combination of the pair has nothing of its own symmetry to mix with. Detuning one of the two by a twentieth of an electron volt moves it by half of that — first order, immediately, with no protected regime at all.

wrong · Overlap Two charges, and three ligands no charge reaches. The metal effective charge each ligand would need on its own for the model's ratio to equal the fitted one. The band is the range Slater's rules allow chromium. Two ligands have an answer, both far outside it and 2.30 apart from each other. Chloride needs more than the overlap rule can be trusted to compute. Ammonia's fitted parameter is exactly zero and cyanide's is negative, and a quotient of squares is neither.

A contraction that cannot reach three of them

The angular overlap model's own derivation gives a π/σ ratio that disagrees with the fitted parameters by up to sixfold, and the metal's contraction is the obvious candidate to account for it. The whole range Slater's rules allow moves the ratio by a factor of two. Two ligands need charges far outside it, one needs a charge past where the overlap rule can be trusted at all, and two are unreachable at any charge because a quotient of squared overlaps cannot be zero or negative.

applied · Ligand field Every window sits above the value it was meant to reach. For each of the five chromium(III) complexes, the whole range of π/σ ratios the model can produce as the ligand's donor atom is taken through every oxidation state it has — from its bare nucleus to its closed-shell anion — drawn as a bar, with the fitted parameter marked beneath it. The three ligands whose fitted parameter is positive have bars that begin above it and never come down. The other two have fitted parameters of zero and of a negative number, which a quotient of squared overlaps cannot be at any charge.

The correction that moves three of them backwards

Every ligand radial function in the angular overlap sweeps was a neutral atom's, while three of the five donors carry a formal charge. Giving each one the charge it actually has moves three of the five computed ratios — and moves all three away from the fitted parameter, none towards it. The whole window each donor's own oxidation states allow sits above the value it was meant to reach.

applied · Ligand field The error runs with the row of the periodic table. The model's relative error on each measured separation, against how many of the two ions have a third-row outermost shell. The three groups do not overlap and they run in order: two second-row ions and the model is about fourteen per cent short, one of each and it is within seven per cent long, two third-row ions and it is eighteen per cent long. The narrowest gap between groups is 11.2 percentage points.

The error was the row, not the charge

An ionic model checked against six measured separations has a wildly uneven error — under one per cent on two pairs, thirteen to eighteen on three others — and the pattern is not obviously size or charge. It is the row of the periodic table. Counting how many of a pair's two ions have a third-row valence shell separates the errors completely, with an eleven-point gap; counting the charge separates nothing.

orbitals · Contour Two interactions, and they push the metal in opposite directions. Each ligand's filled π and empty π against a metal d level, on one energy scale with the vacuum at zero. The π lies below the metal and pushes it up, which is the only interaction the model's derivation has; the π lies above and pushes it down, which is the one it lacks. Both level positions are measured — an ionisation energy and an attachment energy — and the metal's is the single quantity nothing here measures, drawn at -8.0 electronvolts and swept elsewhere.

The channel that points at the metal

Two ligands in the spectrochemical series carry a fitted π parameter no quotient of squared overlaps can produce, because it is negative. Giving the derivation the second interaction it lacks makes both of them negative at every metal level — and the reason is not the energy denominators, which favour the donor channel in all three cases. It is where each orbital keeps its amplitude.

applied · Ligand field The A–C overlap changes by a fifth and the exact level does not move. The three levels of the trio as the overlap between A and C is raised from 0.25 by up to 0.2, with B's overlap to C held and both site energies at -13.6 eV. The two outer orbitals stop being equivalent at the first step. The lowest level falls by 0.80 eV and the highest rises by 5.24, and the middle one stays at -13.6 eV — its largest departure over the whole sweep is 2.7×10⁻¹⁴ eV, which is rounding.

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.

bonding · Overlap The error falls along the sum of the two exponents. The ionic model's relative error on each of the six checkable separations, against the sum of the two ions' Slater exponents, with the least-squares line through all six. The rank correlation is −0.986 and only 4 of the 720 possible orderings of six points do as well, where the count of third-row ions it replaces is matched by 24. The three pairs with one third-row ion, which the count could not tell apart, fall in the order the line runs.

The sum of the exponents, not the softer ion

The row of the periodic table sorted an ionic model's errors into three groups, and a count that takes three values can say nothing inside a group. Made continuous, the variable the proposed mechanism names — how diffuse the softer ion is — carries no information: an oxide's 2p and a chloride's 3p have the same exponent to a hundredth. The sum of the two exponents carries nearly all of it, orders the middle group, and, asked about that group without having seen it, predicts its spread at twice the size.

orbitals · Contour Two conditions, and one factor that nearly meets both. The mean error of each group of pairs as the third-row p exponents alone are contracted, with the second-row pairs untouched by construction. One factor has to bring both other groups onto them. The pairs with one third-row ion arrive at 1.376 and potassium chloride at 1.346, 2.2 per cent apart — a test that could have produced two factors nowhere near each other, and did not.

One contraction for two conditions

The ionic model's errors run with the row of the periodic table, and the test proposed for that — stiffen the repulsion and watch for second-row pairs moving out and third-row pairs moving in — produces exactly that pattern from a repulsion that knows nothing about shells. The test that can fail contracts the third-row shells alone and asks one factor to bring two different groups of pairs onto the second-row ones. The two factors needed are 1.35 and 1.38.

orbitals · Contour Three ions with the same shell, and three different contractions. Each pair with one third-row ion, its error plotted against a contraction of that ion's p exponents alone. Sodium chloride's error falls to the second-row pairs' mean when chloride is contracted by 1.302, potassium fluoride's when potassium is contracted by 1.387, and calcium oxide's when calcium is contracted by 1.441. The single factor that contracts every third-row shell at once, 1.376, is drawn faint: it sits between the three, and the three span 10.7 per cent.

Three contractions for one shell

One contraction of the third-row p shells removed the row pattern from an ionic model's errors, with two conditions met by factors 2.2 per cent apart, and left the order of three pairs untouched. Taken ion by ion, chloride needs 1.302, potassium 1.387 and calcium 1.441 — the pairs' own order — and potassium chloride, fitted on nothing, lands among the second-row pairs. The single factor's two conditions agreed because both were averages of these three.

orbitals · Contour The verdicts hold and the number does not. For each predictor, what survives thirteen strictly increasing reparameterisations of its own scale. The count of exact ties, the share of the variation those ties leave unexplained, and the count of discordant pairs are identical under every one of them — to the last bit, because each asks only about the order of the predicted values and an increasing map preserves order. The slope floor asks for a ratio of differences, and an increasing map does not preserve differences.

A floor on models written in one scale

A tie asks whether two predicted values are equal and a discordance asks whether two differences have the same sign. Both are questions about order, and a strictly increasing change of scale preserves order — so both are exactly invariant under thirteen reparameterisations of all three predictors. The slope floor asks for a ratio of differences, and it moves by factors of nineteen, ten and eleven thousand.

bonding · Models The unpaired electron's level stays put while its spin moves to the far end. Above, the trio's three levels as the overlap of A with C is raised from 0.25 to 0.45 while B's stays at 0.25. The lowest falls from -16.26 to -17.07 eV and the highest rises from -8.02 to -2.78 eV; the middle one, which holds the radical's unpaired electron, stays at −13.6 eV. Below, the spin on A and on B over the same change: from a half each to 0.236 on A and 0.764 on B, with the ratio of squared overlaps drawn as open circles on top.

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.

bonding · Overlap An antibonding occupation fills the zero and moves the minimum. The profile along the bond near π/R, per electron, on a logarithmic scale, for five antibonding occupations of the same two orbitals. With nothing in the antibonding orbital the profile is exactly zero at π/R = 1.573. Two hundredths of an electron leave a minimum at 1.608, which reads the separation as 1.954 bohr instead of 1.997. At 0.104 the minimum becomes a flat shoulder, and the Heitler–London bond, at 0.236, has none.

The zero belongs to one determinant

A bonding orbital's momentum profile along the bond is exactly zero at π/R, and that zero reads a bond length with nothing fitted. It is a property of putting every electron into that one orbital. Any antibonding occupation fills it in linearly and drags the minimum outward, a tenth of an electron erases it, and the valence-bond wavefunction built from the same two functions never has one at any separation.

orbitals · Orbital The zero at π/R follows parity, not bonding. The bonding and antibonding combinations of three atomic functions on nitrogen, each along the bond and each normalised to its own largest value, against momentum in units of π/R. For 2s the bonding combination is zero at π/R and the antibonding one is not. For 2p along the bond it is the other way round: the σ bond carries a sine, is zero at the origin and near its largest at π/R, and the antibonding combination carries the cosine. For 2p across the bond the π bond carries the cosine again. The factor is a cosine exactly when the orbital's inversion parity matches the atomic function's.

The zero is a parity, not a bond

A hydrogen-like σ bond has a momentum profile along its axis that vanishes at π/R, and it is natural to read that zero as a bond's signature. Built from 2p functions pointing along the axis, the σ bond carries a sine instead and sits at 83 per cent of its peak there. Which factor an orbital carries is decided by whether its inversion parity matches its atom's, and bonding has nothing to do with it.

orbitals · Orbital

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Model limitApproximationConventionEffective nuclear chargeMolecular orbitalClosed formBasisAntibondingEigenvalueOne-electron modelsClosed-shell configurationsLigand field

All concepts