Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Series

Magnetism — the series

16 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. 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.

    part 1 · applied
  2. 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.

    part 2 · applied
  3. 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.

    part 3 · applied
  4. What the angular momentum operator connects. The five real d functions, with a line between each pair the z component of orbital angular momentum connects and the size of the connection on it. Written in this basis the operator is i times an antisymmetric matrix, so its expectation in any real function is exactly zero — that is the quenching, and it holds before any field is applied. The three t₂g functions are connected among themselves, so as a SET they carry eigenvalues 1, 0, -1; the two eg functions are each connected only to something outside the pair, so as a set they carry nothing.

    An orbital carries no angular momentum

    The d orbitals every chemist draws carry exactly no orbital angular momentum, and the proof is one line about a matrix being antisymmetric. A set of three of them carries a whole unit, which is why the spin-only formula works for most ions and fails for cobalt by nearly a Bohr magneton.

    part 4 · applied
  5. Which way the line moves counts the electrons. Three ions, their computed g-values and their measured ones. The shift is −2λ times a sum of squared matrix elements over energy denominators; the matrix elements are exactly two for Lz between dx²−y² and dxy and exactly one for Lx between dx²−y² and dyz, which is why the shift along the axis is four times the shift across it. The last column is what is left over — the orbital reduction factor, which is below one when the electron spends part of its time on the ligands and is a covalency measured with a magnet.

    The g-value is the orbital coming back

    A ligand field quenches the orbital angular momentum of a d electron, and spin-orbit coupling gives some of it back — upward for a shell more than half full and downward for one less than half full. Which way a resonance line moves counts the electrons, and the size of the move comes from two matrix elements and one optical splitting.

    part 5 · applied
  6. A moment that is not an integer's worth of anything. The effective magnetic moment against temperature for an iron(II) complex whose two spin states lie close together, with the moments belonging to whole numbers of unpaired electrons drawn across. The curve spends its time between them and settles on neither.

    A moment between two integers

    A magnetic moment is celebrated as one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer: count the unpaired electrons, feed the count into a formula, and nine first-row ions come out right. That works when one state lies far below the others. Sit a complex at its own crossover and the same measurement returns 0.30 at 80 K and 3.61 at 400 K — a quantity that counts nothing and is a temperature in disguise.

    part 6 · applied
  7. The same sample, fitted over four temperature ranges. A pair coupled at -50 cm⁻¹, its susceptibility computed exactly, fitted to a Curie–Weiss law over four ranges. The moment and the Weiss temperature the fit reports both depend on which range was used, and the quality of the fit does not warn about it.

    The moment a fit invents

    One coupled pair of spins, its susceptibility computed exactly, fitted to a Curie–Weiss law over four temperature ranges. The moments reported are 2.471, 2.535, 2.566 and 3.590 Bohr magnetons, and the Weiss temperatures −51, −78, −78 and −292 K — from one sample, measured perfectly, with three of the four fits agreeing with their own data to better than a part in three hundred.

    part 7 · applied
  8. The coupling a fit reports, and the coupling the sample has. Exact susceptibilities of Heisenberg chains of two, four, six and eight spins, every one of them coupled at -50 cm⁻¹, each fitted with the two-spin expression over 80–600 K. The two-spin sample returns its own coupling exactly; every longer chain returns one too large, by more the longer it is, up to 20.9 per cent. Every one of those fits has an R² above 0.99, so nothing in the fit reports that anything is wrong.

    The model is what is fitted

    Fit a pair of coupled spins with the two-spin expression and it hands back the coupling exactly, from any temperature range. Fit a chain of eight with the same expression and it hands back −66.7 where the sample has −50, with a residual of 0.998 and a g factor of 1.973 — three numbers of which only the last says anything is wrong, and it is the one nobody looks at.

    part 8 · applied
  9. How much of a curve each extra parameter has left to work with. The singular values of the design matrix for a susceptibility curve, for two, three and four parameters fitted to the same data, on a logarithmic scale. With four they run 12.411, 2.026, 0.149, 0.025 — a span of 500 — so one per cent data fix the first two to under 3 per cent and the last to 37. Each value is what is left of the measurement after the directions above it have taken their share, so a short bar is not a hard parameter but an absent one.

    How many parameters a curve is worth

    A susceptibility curve routinely carries four fitted parameters and the question of whether it can support them is never asked. It has an arithmetic answer: the four directions the fit sees span a factor of five hundred, so one per cent data fix the first two to under three per cent and the last to thirty-seven — and forty points reaching two kelvin are worth more than sixteen thousand starting at twenty.

    part 9 · applied
  10. The four things a susceptibility curve measures, in order. The four directions in the parameter space, best fixed first, each written as the product of powers it is. The Jacobian is logarithmic, so a direction is a set of exponents and a combination is a product — which is why the answer can be printed. The best-determined is g · J^-0.33, fixed to 0.08 per cent by a curve measured to one per cent; the worst is tip · rho^-0.40, fixed to 40. Neither is one parameter's own axis.

    The product a curve measures

    A susceptibility curve's fourth parameter is undetermined, and the question is which combination the free direction actually is. It is a product of powers, because the Jacobian is logarithmic — and at the usual window it is the temperature-independent term divided by the 0.40 power of the monomer fraction, fixed to forty per cent, while the product one place up is fixed to 6.7. A paper could print that instead of four numbers.

    part 10 · applied
  11. The exponent's sign is the ring's parity. The power the temperature-independent term carries in the free combination, for an open chain and for rings of five to ten spins. Every odd ring is negative and every even ring and the chain is positive — so the free product is ρ·χ_TIP raised to a power whose SIGN changes, which is a different combination rather than a shifted one. Nothing here is a near miss: the closest pair on either side of zero are +0.23 and −0.29.

    The sign a frustrated ring changes

    There is a sharper question than whether a low-temperature feature buys back a fourth parameter: does it change which combination is free? It does, and by a sign. Every odd ring of spins leaves free the monomer fraction times a negative power of the temperature-independent term, and every even ring a positive power, with no case in between.

    part 11 · applied
  12. The sign follows the count, on a ring and on a chain alike. The free combination's exponent against the number of spins, for open chains and for rings. Every even count is positive and every odd count is negative, whichever topology it is — and an open chain has no frustration at all. The usual comparison sets frustrated odd rings against an unfrustrated chain of eight, which varies the frustration and the parity together.

    It was the count, not the frustration

    The free combination's exponent comes out negative on every odd ring and positive on every even ring and on an open chain, and the sign was put down to frustration. The control was a chain of eight. A chain of five is not frustrated in any sense — a chain is bipartite and every bond can be satisfied — and its exponent is −0.792.

    part 12 · applied
  13. Nine clusters, two candidate rules, and one of them survives. Every cluster's exponent, with whether it is frustrated and whether its count is even. Frustration is decided by whether the coupling graph is bipartite, since an antiferromagnet can satisfy every bond exactly when a two-colouring exists. All four decisive cases come out positive — 0.2136, 0.2084, 0.1924, 0.2048 — so the parity rule survives and the frustration account does not. The gap between the lowest positive exponent and the highest negative one is 1.0497.

    The frustrated cluster with an even count

    A parity account of the exponent's sign replaced a frustration account and left the two still confounded: every case tested had frustration and odd parity aligned. A tetrahedron of four spins is frustrated and even. Its exponent is +0.2084, and so are those of three more clusters the two accounts disagree about — but the mechanism proposed with the parity rule is refuted along with the account it replaced.

    part 13 · applied
  14. Sixteen clusters, and the couplings at which each one's sign changes. The sign of the exponent for every cluster across couplings from 2 to 1000 cm⁻¹, read at a 20–300 K window, with each change of sign marked. No cluster keeps one sign across the range. The clusters with a ground spin change sign twice below 150 cm⁻¹, at couplings that fall as the ground spin rises; the singlets first change sign above 300 cm⁻¹. The spin rule — positive for a singlet ground state, negative otherwise — is right on all sixteen at once only between 20.1 and 47.0 cm⁻¹, and the working point every earlier reading used, 50 cm⁻¹, is just outside it.

    The sign rule holds between two poles

    The sign of a susceptibility fit's exponent was put down to the parity of the spin count, then to the spin of the ground state, and every cluster tried had the two aligned. A star of four spins is even with a ground spin of one, and its exponent is −6.84. But swept across the coupling, every cluster's sign changes, through poles the ground spin places, and the spin rule is right on all sixteen clusters only between 20.1 and 47.0 cm⁻¹.

    part 14 · applied
  15. Where the nuisance parameters separate hardly depends on purity. For each of the seven clusters with a ground spin, the two couplings below 150 cm⁻¹ at which the monomer fraction and the temperature-independent term are uncorrelated, against the monomer fraction from half a per cent to sixteen, on logarithmic axes. Every cluster keeps both at every fraction. For ground spins of one and above they move by under three per cent; for the three doublets by about a tenth. A circle marks a pole of the third direction's exponent there and a square a zero.

    Purity renames the poles

    A susceptibility fit's sign poles were located at one monomer impurity, two per cent, and a real sample's impurity is rarely known. Swept from half a per cent to sixteen, the couplings where the fit's nuisance parameters separate barely move for ground spins of one and above and move a tenth for doublets. But the same separation stops being a pole and becomes a zero of the exponent at a few per cent, and above six to eight per cent every singlet acquires separations of its own.

    part 15 · applied
  16. Stars drift above the band and K₂,ₙ graphs fall below it. The upper separation coupling times (S + ½) against ground spin for every cluster computed, with the seven that defined the band shaded between 114.7 and 129.3 cm⁻¹. The stars, from four centres to eight, run 129.3, 114.7, 117.3, 127.2, 140.3 — down and then steadily up. The K₂,ₙ graphs, from K₂,₃ to K₂,₆, run 114.8, 124.0, 100.9, 90.0 — up and then steadily down. K₃,₅ sits at 113.9. Seven clusters of up to six centres happened to lie where the two families cross.

    Five more clusters break the band

    Seven spin clusters put their upper separation coupling times the ground spin plus a half inside a band from 115 to 129 cm⁻¹, which looked like a law of where a susceptibility fit's nuisance parameters decouple. Five clusters built to test it — two larger stars and three larger bipartite graphs — land inside it once. Stars drift above and bipartite graphs below, and neither the shape of the curve nor the first excitation places the separation instead.

    part 16 · applied

All series