I am learning about MO theory in my advanced inorganic chemistry course and am starting to realize that it is truly the most accurate representation of how molecular orbitals look like, where they are located in the molecule, and their relative energies to each other and the original atomic orbitals from which they are composed of. We are using Symmetry Adapted Linear Combinations as the approximation method and so far this method has successfully explained all chemical/magnetic/electronic properties for any molecule investigated thus far.

My question is: Is MO theory perfect? Or does it have a flaw somewhere like every other bonding theory (Lewis, VB, hybridization) I have learned about so far in my chemistry career?

  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Everything is flawed because we can't solve the Schrodinger eqn. By MO theory I'd assume you are referring to a Hartree-Fock wavefunction, which gets electron correlation pretty wrong. $\endgroup$
    – orthocresol
    Mar 29 '16 at 22:47
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ This question sounds like someone has skipped two semesters of introductory lectures on quantum mechanics. It is usually a good idea to learn the basics first. $\endgroup$
    – Karl
    Mar 29 '16 at 23:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for orthocresol for the great answer. No thank you to the other two for making me feel stupid. I struggle enough with chemistry, no need to rub it in. Just trying to learn. $\endgroup$
    – Nova
    Apr 2 '16 at 1:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nova, I don't think that anyone wanted to make you feel stupid. I believe the key problem is - and I came across that many times - that you are learning quantum chemistry from an inorganics point of view. The theory you learn there is usually a short version of the whole deal. It is good that you question the concept, stay curious. I think (hope) that @Karl wanted to express that to gain deeper insight into the matter it would have been better if you were introduced properly to quantum chemistry first. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 '16 at 5:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yea, sorry, I didn't mean to be snippish. It's just that studying advanced concepts without the complete basic training in physical chemistry is imo bound to be very hard for both you and your teacher, who then has the choice of loosing half his audience by overcharging them or the other half by boring them with endless repeating of introductory stuff. I know a lot of universities allow or even advocate that. :-/ $\endgroup$
    – Karl
    Apr 6 '16 at 8:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.