Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
The collection

Every essay — page 36

Page 36 of 36, continuing through the fields in the same order.

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 is taught wrongly

The explanations that are confident, memorable and false — stated fairly and then tested against a calculation rather than an opinion.

The second number is the first one, rearranged. The composite's error against the change in the correlation energy, at every point on both axes of the square. They lie on the diagonal because they are the same quantity: the composite is the target's mean field plus the reference's correlation energy, so its error is the reference's correlation energy minus the target's. The largest departure across 20 points is 2.2e-16, which is the arithmetic's own precision and not a measurement.

The second number is the error, rearranged

A cheap diagnostic for a composite method leaves a scatter it cannot explain, and the number that ought to close it is the change in the correlation energy, already computed at every point, so the test is arithmetic rather than a calculation. It is arithmetic, and the arithmetic is the answer. The composite's error is that change with a sign on it.

6 figures The capacity against the quantity it was supposed to be. The chemical capacity of 14 atoms against their second ionisation energy, with the capacity on a logarithmic axis because it spans nearly three orders of magnitude. The suspected relation is not there: N and K are 2.02 electronvolts apart in the second ionisation energy and differ by a factor of 193 in capacity, which no function of one variable can produce.

A correlation is not an account

A quantity called the chemical capacity is ordered against the thing it was supposed to predict and correlates instead with the second ionisation energy, which invites asking how much of it that accounts for — on the reasoning that a quantity which is ninety per cent of one input has a simpler name than the one it carries. It is three per cent of it. Nitrogen and potassium sit two electronvolts apart in the second ionisation energy and differ two hundredfold in capacity.

6 figures Five candidates, five failures, five different places. Every point of the square, with each cheap diagnostic's failing pair joined by a line. The five tested candidates fail on five different pairs involving 10 different points — no line shares an end with another. Had they all failed on one corner the lines would have converged on it, and the honest conclusion would have been that composites are safe away from that corner.

Five failures in five different places

Seven quantities a mean field produces for nothing have been tried as diagnostics, and none of them is usable. The question left is whether that is one finding or seven — whether the same awkward corner of the square breaks every candidate, or each is broken somewhere else. Each is broken somewhere else. Five candidates, five failing pairs, ten systems, and not one of them appearing twice.

6 figures The input the question named is the worst of the six. For each candidate input, the largest capacity ratio between two atoms that are neighbours in that input. A quantity the capacity were a function of would have a small bar. The dashed line is the floor — neighbours in the capacity itself still differ by ×5.0, because fourteen atoms spread over a factor of four hundred cannot do better. The second ionisation energy is ×193, which is 39 times that floor.

The worst of the six was the one we asked about

The capacity's correlation with the second ionisation energy explains 2.9 per cent, and the natural next step is the same pair test against every other candidate input. Every input fails it — but the second ionisation energy fails it by a factor of twenty-four more than the best, and the test itself had to be repaired first, because the version the question implied reports the capacity failing to be a function of itself.

6 figures Correlated tables stop cancelling each other's luck. The number of the 19 flagged pairs expected to show all tables agreeing by chance, against the number of tables, for four correlations between them. Independent tables halve it with every table added, and it falls below the 0.0513 at which one agreement would be significant at ten tables. Correlated tables share part of their luck, and the expectation falls only as a power of the panel size: at a correlation of a half it is still 0.095 with four hundred.

No panel of this kind can find an exception

Four electronegativity tables leave three exceptions to a rule for which bond polarities they dispute, and four independent coins would produce two and a half. How many tables before one exception would mean something? Ten, if tables were coins. Near the boundary they are not: they correlate at 0.32, two of the four are nearly one table, and the requirement becomes seventy-three — with a plausible range running past any panel that could exist.

7 figures Adding one measurement, and six of fifteen change verdict. Each atom's chemical capacity from a cubic fitted through four electron counts and from a quartic fitted through five, on a logarithmic axis, with an unbounded capacity drawn at the right-hand margin. Five atoms go from a finite capacity to an unbounded one and one goes the other way — and the five are exactly the five largest the cubic reported. The seven that stay finite keep their order and change their values.

Six of fifteen change verdict

The chemical capacity is finite or infinite according to the sign of a coefficient that is one sixth of a second difference of three measurements, and the pair test asked how much of its reported ordering is the quantity and how much is the fit's resolution. Adding a fifth point changes the verdict on six of fifteen atoms — and the five it unbounds are the five it had largest.

5 figures One size scale, computed for every atom at once. Each atom's valence shell at the effective charge Slater's rules give it, with the mean radius of a hydrogenic orbital of that shell and that charge, and its root-mean-square radius. Both are closed forms in the principal and angular quantum numbers and the charge, so both are on one scale for every atom by construction — which is the difficulty a tabulated radius has and this does not. Neither quantity is anywhere in the cubic, which knows three energies and no length.

A size the fit was not made from

Every input tested against the chemical capacity so far has been inside the cubic that produced it, so the search was constrained to fail. A size is not: a hydrogenic orbital at the effective charge Slater's rules give an atom's valence shell has an exact radius, on one scale for every atom, and the cubic knows three energies and no length at all. It fails the test by sixteen times the floor.

5 figures Straight segments, and the curve fitted through their ends. Cl's energy against the charge it carries. The exact theory says the energy is straight between integers, with a kink at each one: the slope below the neutral atom is the electron affinity and the slope above it is the first ionisation energy, and the two are different numbers. Every quantity in this argument comes from the smooth curve fitted through those points instead — and the curve's second derivative, which is the hardness, is a property the segments do not have at all.

Four quantities go and one question stays

The exact theory says an atom's energy against electron count is straight segments between integers, and that model gets the alkali metals right for free — which is exactly where the fitted curves give lithium a negative electronegativity. What it costs is the hardness, the capacity, the electronegativity and equalisation, and what it leaves is a question whose answer is an integer.

6 figures Letting disputed pairs through narrows the rule and barely moves the panel. Over 61,353 straight boundaries in the plane of difference and dispute, the fewest pairs any boundary flags for each number of disputed pairs it lets through (bars), and the number of tables that flagged count needs at the measured correlation of 0.325 (dots). Missing none, nineteen is the least — the published rule. Each miss saves one or two flags and two to five tables; at eight misses, half the disputed pairs, the rule flags 8 and still needs 46 tables.

The rule is not the lever

One exception among nineteen flagged bond pairs would need seventy-three electronegativity tables to mean anything, and a rule that flagged fewer pairs looked like the way to need fewer. Searched over sixty-one thousand boundaries, nineteen is already the fewest that misses no disputed pair; each missed pair buys a table or five; and a rule flagging a single pair would still need fourteen. The requirement lives in the correlation between the tables, which moves it nine times as far as any rule can.

6 figures Six removal lines, each smooth, and the contrast is whichever two sit at the cut. The weight of each of the six strongest removal lines of the half-filled chain of six, followed from U = 16 upward by continuity in energy and labelled by the energy it tends to. Every line is monotone from U = 19. The contrast is the third strongest over the fourth, so it changes whenever two lines exchange those ranks: at U = 28.92 the line tending to +0.45 overtakes the one tending to −1.80 and the two weights are equal, and at U = 157 the fourth and fifth exchange. Lines at ±E, drawn in one colour, converge to one weight.

The limit of one is a parity

A half-filled chain of six has no degenerate removal lines, and its intensity contrast still goes to one — after dipping near U = 32 and rising again to U = 128. Followed line by line, every removal line is smooth and monotone; the dip is an exact tie between two lines at U = 28.916, and the rise ends where two satellites change places. At large repulsion the lines pair up at ±E with equal weights, so the contrast goes to one exactly when the cut falls inside a pair. On a chain of four it does not, and the limit is 1.3125.

6 figures