![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Why not "Chemical bonding of water"? That would avoid the need for title formatting. -- Khajidha ( talk) 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"In short, valence bond theory and MO theory are at core, a manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When treating electrons in localized orbitals (VB theory), one can fairly accurately predict and measure its shape, geometry and position, but cannot accurate predict its energy and momentum. When treating electrons in delocalized orbitals (MO theory), one gains more measurements on its energy and momentum, but loses accuracy on its position. In other words, MO and VB theory should be used appropriately depending on what one wishes to measure."
Is there anything to back this statement up? Although I am not a computational chemist, I am almost certain this is not the right way to look at things. Both VB and MO based ab initio methods have been able to reproduce essentially all ground state properties of molecules (and can be as accurate as desired, in principle). Both MO and VB are ways that humans choose to apportion electron density into "boxes". They have nothing to do with the uncertainty principle, to my knowledge. Would a computational chemist chime in?
Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 07:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Why not "Chemical bonding of water"? That would avoid the need for title formatting. -- Khajidha ( talk) 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"In short, valence bond theory and MO theory are at core, a manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When treating electrons in localized orbitals (VB theory), one can fairly accurately predict and measure its shape, geometry and position, but cannot accurate predict its energy and momentum. When treating electrons in delocalized orbitals (MO theory), one gains more measurements on its energy and momentum, but loses accuracy on its position. In other words, MO and VB theory should be used appropriately depending on what one wishes to measure."
Is there anything to back this statement up? Although I am not a computational chemist, I am almost certain this is not the right way to look at things. Both VB and MO based ab initio methods have been able to reproduce essentially all ground state properties of molecules (and can be as accurate as desired, in principle). Both MO and VB are ways that humans choose to apportion electron density into "boxes". They have nothing to do with the uncertainty principle, to my knowledge. Would a computational chemist chime in?
Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 07:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)