[Chaste]

Hi all,

what can both models account for and what can the former account for which the latter can't?

[Mitch]

The power of MO theory is it allows for the prediction of excited states.

[Chaste]

I want to clarify this, do both theories offer the same type of explanation to explain the bonding in molecules? For eg. homonuclear diatomics. VB theory would talk about the degree of overlap of atomic orbitals to indicate a covalent character of the sharing of electron. while MO theory on the other hand is about combining the linear combination of the atomic orbitals to form new molecular orbitals. It's a different approach in explanation right?

[Mitch]

Yes, they are different approaches. VB theory came first, and was well developed. MO is newer, but both explain ground state molecules as well, or as badly, as each other.

[Chaste]

are they just models to explain? how true is it? because from what I see, it seems that the different approaches to explain bonding makes it contradicting.

[nj_bartel]

Mitch, my understanding of VBT was that it held the electrons were only shared throughout the bonding electron cloud overlap, not through the entire molecule as MOT holds.  Is this incorrect?

[Chaste]

sorry for bumping this, are both VBT and MOT both accurate models to depict and explain the bonding found in molecules?