The collection

Every essay — page 7

Page 7 of 42, 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

Beyond the octet

Hypervalency without d orbitals, delocalisation, aromaticity, and the structures the first-year rules quietly cannot describe.

Two is the ordinary answer, and one is a different kind of correlation. The local exponent of the correlation energy in the repulsion, against the repulsion, for three systems at half filling. The two closed-shell systems tend to two as the repulsion vanishes, which is ordinary perturbation theory. The ring of four tends to one, at repulsions fifty times smaller than the hopping.

A third kind of correlation

The two-site model gave an exact identity — the power of the correlation energy in the repulsion equals the occupation of the bonding natural orbital — and asked whether anything like it survives with more orbitals. It does not, and the way it fails is better than the identity was: a ring of four gives a power of one where every closed-shell system gives two, at repulsions fifty times weaker than the hopping, because its reference was never a single state.

5 figures
The two figures, per electron. For each ring, the delocalisation energy against isolated double bonds and against the same ring with one bond deleted, divided by the number of pi electrons. The upper bar of each pair is the usual reference; the lower one is the cycle's own contribution, and the two are nowhere proportional.

A stabilisation is measured from somewhere

Benzene's delocalisation energy is 2β against three isolated double bonds and 1.0121β against the same six carbons with one bond deleted. Cyclobutadiene's is exactly zero against the first reference and −0.4721β against the second, so one of the two references records the most famously destabilised ring in the subject as neutral.

10 figures
The error, against the repulsion it is an error about. The energy a mean field misses, for two electron counts on 4 sites, against the strength of the repulsion. Each is a straight line at large repulsion and the dashed line through it is not a fit: its slope is the count of coincidences a uniform density forces, computed from the electron number and the site number alone.

A mean field cannot get out of the way

The energy a mean field misses grows without limit as the repulsion rises — 27.82 at U = 32 for four electrons on four sites, against an exact energy of −0.2946, so the error is ninety-four times the answer. The rate it grows at is not an energy at all: it is n²/4N, a count of the coincidences a spread-out density cannot avoid.

8 figures
One exact state, two correlation energies. The energy each of two mean fields misses, against the repulsion, for one system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below U = 2 the unrestricted search returns the restricted answer and the two definitions agree to the last bit. Above it they part: at U = 32 the restricted reference reports -27.82 and the unrestricted one -0.11, a factor of 259.43, and one is growing while the other falls.

The reference decides the correlation

The correlation energy of one exact state, measured against two references that are both called Hartree–Fock, is −27.82 and −0.107 at the same repulsion — a factor of 259, on a system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below the instability at U = 2 the two agree to the last bit; above it one grows without limit while the other falls, and the reference that reports almost no correlation has ⟨S²⟩ = 1.99 where a singlet is zero.

5 figures
Four, however many ligands there are. For each molecule, the number of ligand σ combinations that find a partner among the central atom's four s and p orbitals, against the number of ligands and lone pairs it has. The matched count rises along the diagonal and then stops at four, because there are four orbitals; everything above the ceiling is a pair with nowhere on the central atom to go, and that is what the word hypervalent names.

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.

6 figures
How many centres, by two measures that do not agree. For each of eight systems, the number of atoms one localised pair has real amplitude on, and its participation number — which weights those atoms by how much of the pair each holds. Where the sharing is even the two coincide; where it is not they differ by more than a whole centre, and that gap is what electron deficiency looks like from the inside. one of the systems has more than one localisation, so for it neither number is an answer.

One scale, from two centres to a cage

How many centres a pair of electrons holds together is two different numbers, and they separate exactly where the bonding is most deficient: the methyllithium tetramer's pairs sit on four atoms each and have a participation number of 2.54. Run the same measurement up the scale and the twelve-vertex borane refuses it — its localisation has at least ten maxima differing by six parts in a thousand, so the number of centres is not an output for it at all.

7 figures
Ten answers, and none of them is another one turned round. Every localised description the search found for a twelve-vertex cage, placed by the value of the functional it maximises. There are 10 of them, spanning 0.02, and the two closest differ by 0 — far more than the 10⁻¹³ the sweep converges to, so they are different maxima rather than one maximum reached to different precision. Each has its own multiset of participation numbers, and a symmetry of the cage permutes sites without changing that multiset, so no two of these are related by one. The controls above find one answer each.

How many descriptions a cage has

A localisation is a maximisation, and running it once reports the maximum it reached rather than the maximum there is. Run to exhaustion on a twelve-vertex borane it finds ten answers and then three batches of twelve starts in a row that find nothing new — and none of the ten is another one seen from a different side, because a symmetry of the cage cannot change a multiset of participation numbers and all ten multisets differ.

5 figures
Where the orphan pair actually sits. A σ-only Hückel model of each molecule, built from its own coordinates: the central atom's four valence orbitals, one σ orbital on each ligand, and the coupling between them the direction cosine of that ligand. Lone pairs need no special handling — they come out of the diagonalisation as the central orbitals no ligand combination transforms like. The charge is measured rather than assigned, and PF₅ comes out with two kinds of fluorine at 3 at -0.13 and 2 at -0.3, the more charged pair being the axial one that carries the orphan.

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.

5 figures
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 answer a search is most likely to give

If a cage has ten equally good localised descriptions, why does the literature agree about its picture? The hoped-for answer was that one basin is very large. Counting four hundred and eighty starting points says it is not: two independent searches agree one time in ten, and the description they most often return is not the best one.

8 figures
Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything. The opposite-spin pair distribution of a half-filled ring of 6 at six repulsions, by separation, each divided by what uncorrelated electrons of the same density would give. At no repulsion it is one everywhere; at a repulsion of 16 the chance of finding two electrons on one site is 0.0430 of that, and what is missing has turned up next door. Nothing here is a difference between two calculations.

Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything

A correlation energy is an exact energy less a mean-field one, so the answer depends on which mean field was picked — by a factor of 259. The pair distribution says the same thing with no subtraction in it, and two systems matched to the same correlation energy turn out to have electrons in visibly different places.

8 figures
The even sharer is the one the repulsion likes least. trigonal bipyramid: 2 kinds of ligand, spread 0.1137, repulsion 6.4747; square pyramid: 2 kinds of ligand, spread 0.1658, repulsion 6.4844; pentagonal planar: 1 kind of ligand, spread 0.0000, repulsion 6.8819. The planar arrangement gives all five ligands exactly the same charge and costs 6.3 per cent more in repulsion than the bipyramid, which is the arrangement chemistry actually adopts — so the two models disagree about which arrangement is preferred, and about how much charge is moved.

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.

5 figures
The same hole, priced three ways. The correlation hole of a ring of 6 at a repulsion of 8, weighted by three interactions. With an on-site interaction the answer is 100 per cent at separation zero — as an identity, since the interaction is zero everywhere else. With one that reaches a neighbour, the enhancement at separation one costs rather than pays, and gives back 44.0 per cent of the on-site saving; with a Coulomb tail, 46.9. Everything beyond one neighbour is worth under a twentieth of the on-site term.

Half of it is given back at one bond

The correlation hole of a ring removes 1.2653 pairs from zero separation and puts 1.1126 of them one site away. With an on-site repulsion that second number costs nothing, because the interaction is zero there — but with anything that reaches a neighbour it costs 44 per cent of what the hole saved, and with a Coulomb tail 46.9.

6 figures