The collection

Every essay

One idea per essay, ordered so that the earlier ones set up the later ones — but nothing here depends on being read in sequence.

Orbitals Where the atoms go Bonding models What symmetry decides Beyond the octet What a spectrum settles When the molecule does not stop What the shape is for What is taught wrongly Series Named objects Orbitals Refutations Search

What the shape is for

Coordination compounds, where the shape decides a colour, a magnetic moment and a bond length — and where the one-electron picture used everywhere else in the collection stops being enough.

A d shell in an octahedral field. The five d energies in octahedral coordination, computed and drawn in units of the octahedral splitting. The dashed line is the barycentre, which the five levels sum to whatever the arrangement.

The splitting is a symmetry statement

Put six ligands round a metal and the five d orbitals stop being degenerate. Which of them stay together, and how many sets there are, follows from the point group alone — before any account of what the ligands are made of, and before any number is computed.

6 figures
The same d shell in four fields. The five d energies in octahedral, tetrahedral, cubic, square planar coordinations, computed and drawn in units of the octahedral splitting. The dashed line is the barycentre, which the five levels sum to whatever the arrangement.

Two models, one ratio

A tetrahedron splits a d shell by four ninths of what an octahedron does. Two models that share nothing but the ligand directions — an integral over a point-charge potential and a rotated diagonal matrix — both produce that number to eight decimal places, and neither was told it.

7 figures
Where the d–d band falls, and where the eye is. Nine ligands' measured splittings as wavelengths, on a logarithmic scale, with the visible range shaded. Three fall inside it; the halides sit in the near infrared and carbon monoxide in the ultraviolet. The splitting decides where the band is and does not decide what is seen.

Where a d–d band falls

A splitting is an energy and an energy is a wavelength, so the ligand field fixes where a complex absorbs. Only three of nine common ligands put that band inside the visible range at all — and the most intensely coloured transition-metal compound in the cupboard has no d electrons to excite.

7 figures
Eighteen electrons, from a reduction. The ligand σ orbitals of an octahedral complex reduced in Oh (A₁g ⊕ Eg ⊕ T₁u), matched against the metal's nine valence orbitals by species, and counted. 6 bonding and 3 non-bonding orbitals hold 18 electrons.

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.

5 figures
Donation strengthens the C–O bond, back-donation weakens it. Two interactions computed as two-level problems: 0.39 of an electron donated out of the ligand's σ orbital, worth 0.06 on the C–O bond order, and 0.5 donated back into π*, worth -0.4. Beside them, six measured stretching frequencies: five isoelectronic species differing only in charge, and free CO.

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.

5 figures
One metal orbital, two ligands competing for it. Metal–ligand bond orders in a three-orbital model as the left-hand ligand's interaction is turned up. Its own bond order rises and the bond order to the ligand opposite falls, from 0.62 at equal strengths to 0.42 at the strongest. Nothing else in the model can carry the effect: switch the second bond off and it vanishes exactly.

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.

6 figures
d⁹: what a tetragonal distortion is worth. The electronic energy of d⁹, the elastic cost of the distortion, and their sum, against the fractional elongation of the axial bonds. The best distortion is at 0.14 and it is worth 0.54 in units of eσ; d⁶ in the same field gains 0, which is nothing.

Copper is never quite octahedral

A d⁹ ion in an octahedral field has three electrons in a doubly degenerate pair, which cannot be shared evenly. The energy it gains by distorting is linear in the distortion and the elastic cost is quadratic, so no stiffness holds the symmetric structure — and the four configurations with an even occupation gain exactly nothing.

5 figures
The spin-only count against nine measured moments. Each ion's magnetic moment computed from the number of unpaired electrons alone, √(n(n+2)) Bohr magnetons, beside the measured value. The two agree to a hundredth for the first five and the measurement exceeds the count by up to 0.93 for Co²⁺ — always in the same direction, which is what an omission looks like rather than noise.

A moment counts electrons, not orbitals

A magnetic moment is one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer. Feed the count of unpaired electrons into √(n(n+2)) and nine first-row ions come back within a hundredth for five of them — and the five that miss all miss the same way, which is what a missing term looks like.

8 figures
d⁶: two states, and where they cross. The energy of the high-spin and low-spin fillings of d⁶ against the splitting, in units of the pairing energy. They cross at Δ = P exactly, with 4 unpaired electrons below it and 0 above.

The pairing energy decides the moment

Whether the sixth d electron pairs up in the lower set or goes alone into the upper one is a competition between the splitting and the cost of pairing. Run the filling rules over the whole shell and exactly four configurations have a choice — and every one of them changes state at Δ = P exactly.

8 figures
A coupling that is second order in the hopping. The singlet–triplet splitting of a two-site Hubbard model, and the same quantity multiplied by U. The product settles on −4t² — -4 at U = 64 — which is what makes the coupling a second-order effect rather than a term somebody put in.

What couples two spins

Two magnetic ions a few ångströms apart interact far too strongly to be doing it magnetically — the dipole–dipole energy is about 0.06 wavenumbers and the measured couplings run to hundreds. What couples them is hopping, which the Pauli principle allows for antiparallel spins and forbids for parallel ones, and the exact answer is −4t²/U.

7 figures
Sixteen electrons, from a reduction. The ligand σ orbitals of a square planar complex reduced in D4h (A₁g ⊕ B₁g ⊕ Eu), matched against the metal's nine valence orbitals by species, and counted. 4 bonding and 4 non-bonding orbitals hold 16 electrons.

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.

5 figures
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.

5 figures