Method for determining molecular structure in which electrons are not assigned to individual bonds between atoms, but are treated as moving under the influence of the nuclei in the whole molecule.
It is closer to reality, but it becomes quite complex with larger molecules, so computation is required and approximations are often used.
Compare the result to experimental data, then interpret.
Valence bond theory treats bonding more as 2 atoms sharing 2 bonding electrons and is commonly used with VSEPR and hybridization. MO theory says molecular bonds can contain contributions from many atoms.
The whole molecule, not just orbitals on individual atoms.
MO bonding can occur over more than 2 atoms.
Because MO orbitals are complex and require calculations, so valence bond theory, VSEPR, and hybridization are more practical for routine use.
For π systems and transition metal systems.
When atomic orbitals overlap with the correct direction, relative energy, and number of electrons.
The number of MOs equals the number of atomic orbitals used to construct the MOs.
MOs are of different energy and are filled with valence electrons in the same manner as atomic orbitals.
As a linear combination of atomic orbitals.
They add, which is stabilizing, and gives a bonding MO.
ψMO = N[ψ1 + ψ2]
A bonding molecular orbital.
They subtract, which is destabilizing, and gives an antibonding MO.
ψ*MO = N*[ψ1 − ψ2]
An antibonding molecular orbital.
Normalization factors.
The integral of ψ² over all space equals 1.
H2.
Draw the valence orbital energy levels for the bonding atoms on the left and right, here 2 H atoms.
Each H has one valence electron and one valence atomic orbital, 1s.
A σ bonding MO and a σ* antibonding MO.
From adding the two 1s atomic orbitals in phase.
From subtracting the two 1s atomic orbitals, so they are out of phase.
Because they experience attractions to both nuclei.
It refers to a bonding MO with most electron density along the H–H axis.
All the same phase.
In the space along the H–H axis, between the nuclei.
Because constructive overlap concentrates electron density between the nuclei, giving attraction to both nuclei.
Because the phases do not match, so there is no bonding overlap and electron-electron repulsion destabilizes.
They are of opposite phase.
Outside the bonding region, not concentrated between the nuclei.
A nodal plane.
Perpendicular to the H–H atom-atom axis.
In order of energy, like atomic orbitals.
Molecules with all bonding MOs filled are the equivalent of having full valence electrons and are stable.
Same.
Opposite.
Yes, especially for transition metal chemistry.
Because it is required to understand σ-bonding and π-back bonding in transition metal systems.
The Haber-Bosch process: N2 + 3H2 ⇌ 2NH3 with Fe as catalyst.
Fe is a nanoparticle catalyst.
Because it shows, on a molecular level, how MO theory explains activation of ligands in transition metal chemistry.
Any atom or group of atoms bonding to a metal.
The filled H–H σ bonding MO donates σ-bonding electrons to an empty atomic orbital on Fe.
An empty σ orbital on Fe, for example orbitals with the correct symmetry such as combinations involving s, px, or dx²−y² depending on the axis and metal orbital makeup.
Because in metallic Fe the MO is likely some combination of orbitals, and computations are needed to know the proportions.
σ donation from the H–H σ bonding orbital to an empty orbital on Fe.
Because it involves metal σ orbitals and occurs along the axis between the metal centre and the ligand.
It weakens the H–H bond by depleting electrons from the H–H bonding orbital.
π-back bonding from filled Fe d orbitals into the H–H σ* antibonding orbital.
A filled dxy orbital on Fe.
Because the metal dxy π orbital can bond with and donate into the empty H–H σ* orbital due to its orientation above and below the Fe–H2 axis.
It weakens the corresponding bonding interaction.
π-back bonding from Fe dxy to H–H σ* weakens the H–H bond.
The H–H bond breaks.
This is how transition metal centres activate many types of ligands.
No.
Because the σ bonding and σ* antibonding MOs are both filled, so bonding and antibonding effects cancel.
Bond order = (# electrons in bonding MOs − # electrons in antibonding MOs) / 2
(2 − 2) / 2 = 0 for the 1s-derived interaction, so no net bond.
He2 does not exist.
Yes.
The 2s-derived MOs.
They form filled bonding and filled antibonding orbitals, so they cancel and do not contribute net bonding.
Only the bonding 2s-derived MO is filled.
(4 bonding electrons − 2 antibonding electrons) / 2 = 1, or considering only the net 2s contribution, a single bond.
Li–Li exists with a single bond.
Yes, but the Li–Li bond is weak.
No.
All σ bonding and σ* antibonding MOs are full, so bonding and antibonding cancel.
(4 − 4) / 2 = 0
MO theory predicts that Be2 does not exist, and that is true.
Bonding helps, antibonding hurts, divide the difference by 2.
If bond order is greater than 0, it exists; if bond order is 0, it does not.
Same phase gives overlap and stabilization; opposite phase gives a node and destabilization.
Donate out of H–H σ, donate into H–H σ*, and the H–H bond weakens until it breaks.
