Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Resonance, outdated, why?!

  1. #1 Resonance, outdated, why?! 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    I recently read a treatise on inorganic chemistry by J.D. Lee and it said, "Resonance is ,at best, an inadequate and clumsy concept and at worst, misleading and wrong!"

    Why is ths so?


    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    if im not wrong, resonance truly is outdated and irrelevant. If im not mistaken, it is the intermediate between two states of which neither is truly the real state but where the answer lies somewhat in between. Take for example benzene; its resonance structure shows it to have an alternating double bond at different points (i.e. 1,3,5 & 2,4,6) with an equilibrium arrow between both to show that the true state lies somewhat between the 2 shown.

    However, in the case of benzene, it is now known that a triple double bond (C=C) alternating cannot account for its stability and also symmetry. As such, the alternating double bond also gives a false impression that benzene would be able to undergo addition reactions very much like an alkene. But this is not so (benzene only undergoes addition reactions under rather extreme conditions). Thus, the delocalization theory was founded. And thus far, has proven itself rather well. S.Refugee, any comments?


    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    How do you resonance in Chemistry? Anything to do with vibration?

    Just curious. I've been looking for references on resonance down to atomic level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    its not the same as the physics terms for resonance, i think. the chemistry version is explained above..
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    I didn't get you oceanwave. You're saying that "delocalisation" concept has succeeded in filling the voids left in the Resonance concept. But, as far as my limited knowledga goes, resonance implies delocalisation , or rather, both imply each other.

    The resonance hybrid is the molecule containing delocalised pi bonds.

    My original doubt is, what theory or concept, has overshadowed resonance so much, that resonance is considered to be completely misleading. That theory which I am looking for, much be very different and advanced (having less abstractness and a lot of math) than resonance.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    nope, i didn't (or i hope i did not) imply that delocalisation supplements the resonance theory. The delocation theory literally threw the resonance theory out of the door. Also, the resonance theory (elaboration of my earlier point) came about because of the *irrational* logic that the double bonds swap places; from the 1,3,5 to the 2,4,6 and back. Thus, since they couldn't really decide on the form that it settles on, the resonance thus allowed for this variable state and hence, u can see 2 different kekule structures of benzene under the theory. However, under the delocalisation theory, benzene is just a hexane-like molecule that has a ring in it.
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Doesn't resonance point toward delocalisation? The 2 different kekule structures point to the hybrid hexane-like molecule with the delocalised ring of pi electrons.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    nope, it does not. There is a major difference when there are 3 alternating double bonds in the kekule structure and a delocalised model. In the kekule model, the 3 double bonds already give the wrong impression that there are double bonds (but there are none) and these double bonds also give many wrong impressions like their physical and chemical properties. For example (other then the addition reactions which it does not undergo): benzene is very much more stable than what the kekule structure gives it credit for. And the difference is rather large, about 150+kJ/mol (are my units right? seems wrong...).

    And now, more specifically, to the resonance theory. The resonance theory came about because the scientists back then could not answer the flaws in the kekule structure (which, mind you, came about because kekule dreamt of its structure so obviously, flaws were unavoidable) of which back then, they could not figure out from experimental data at which points the double bonds occurred and hence, the 'resonance' structure to sooth the resonances' theory's detractors.

    Why don't u ask specific questions on why you're confused? It helps others understand why u don't understand something. Or give a scenario...hope the above helps
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    I thought that the multiple resonance structures were supposed to imply that the electrons were delocalized over several bonds. I think most people were taught that there are no double bonds in benzene, but that the bonds are identical (seen experimentally by identical bond lengths). Most people were not taught that this was a fault of resonance theory, but that resonance structures imply that electrons are delocalized over the relevant bonds. I realize that it's a simplistic picture, but I think that is why oceanwave is confuse by your separation of the concepts of delocalization and resonance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    haha..finally another reply...anyways, its exactly bacause of the identical bond lengths of C-C that causes the resonance structure to misrepresent the true benzene structure. the resonance theory came before the delocalisation theory so i doubt that it would be right to assume that the resonance structure is there to supplement delocalisation. And no, im not confused...hahaha..
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    I have never heard of 'delocalization theory'. I'm saying that you guys have resonance theory wrong. Resonance theory does not say that benzene is an equilibrium of two structures, it poses that it is a superposition of the two structures. I think resonance theory explains the electrons in benzene as 'delocalized'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kpkent
    I have never heard of 'delocalization theory'. I'm saying that you guys have resonance theory wrong. Resonance theory does not say that benzene is an equilibrium of two structures, it poses that it is a superposition of the two structures. I think resonance theory explains the electrons in benzene as 'delocalized'.
    maybe i wasn't being clear in all my previous posts but, right off, i can tell that u ripped that off wiki...and if u do, at least complete the research on resonance and go through all the links. Im not saying that there is a delocalization theory. Its a simplified version of saying: the electrons in benzene are delocalised hence the resonance theory is outdated.

    Some things to clarify: (most off wiki)

    1) Resonance in chemistry is a theory used to represent and model certain types of non-classical molecular structures

    2) It is only a notation and does not represent a real phenomenon. The individual resonance structures do not exist in reality: the molecule does not inter-convert between them. Instead, the molecule exists in a single unchanging state, intermediate between the resonance structures and only partially described by any one of them.

    3) Due to confusion with the physical meaning of the word resonance, as no elements actually appear to be resonating, it has been suggested that the term resonance be abandoned in favor of delocalization. Resonance energy would become delocalization energy and a resonance structure becomes a contributing structure. The double headed arrows would be replaced by commas.

    What I am implying by pasted the above is this: BECAUSE the resonance theory MUST make use of WRONG structures of benzene (read all previous posts and a new way of interpretation would be using the orbital theory to prove that the double bond structure is wrong) which CAUSES it to be INACCURATE and thus a more RATIONAL theory be adopted: DELOCALISATION which ACCOUNTS more accurately BENZENE's actual structure as understanding what the delocalisation represents, then can we apply accordingly that of the two theories delocalisation is the better therory

    bleah, tired of explaining (and hey, i really could be wrong) so will someone please stand up? cheers :-D
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    1) I know that the structures are not real and that the molecules do not interconvert between eachother. I also know that the the molecule is in one unchanging state, which is why I said that it is a SUPERPOSITION of the resonance structures. If you don't know what a word means, don't look it up on wikipedia and accuse someone of ripping their explanation off wikipedia. I was taught all of this information under the name of resonance theory.

    2) I want to get something straight here, the difference between delocolization theory and resonance theory (per your post), is that you use commas instead of double headed arrows. THAT'S IT!?!? If that is true, then you must use the WRONG structures when using delocalization theory to explain things. So it sounds like delocalization theory is not a new theory AT ALL, but instead a change in semantics. You should really present it that way.

    3) You mentioned molecular orbital theory briefly, and that is truly a different theory. If you are saying that molecular orbital theory replaces resonance theory, then there are ACTUAL differences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    I meant to say PritishKamat was confused by your separation of resonance and delocalisation earlier, not you. Sorry about that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kpkent
    1) I know that the structures are not real and that the molecules do not interconvert between eachother. I also know that the the molecule is in one unchanging state, which is why I said that it is a SUPERPOSITION of the resonance structures. If you don't know what a word means, don't look it up on wikipedia and accuse someone of ripping their explanation off wikipedia. I was taught all of this information under the name of resonance theory.
    exactly because it is a superposition! if i draw an apple and an orange and say that a fruit look like an apple and an orange but no both, will anyone actually know exactly how the fruit is meant to look like? instead of just giving two (wrong) structures, what i mean to say is that: isnt it better to give just one (more accurate) answer?

    [quote]2) I want to get something straight here, the difference between delocolization theory and resonance theory (per your post), is that you use commas instead of double headed arrows. THAT'S IT!?!? If that is true, then you must use the WRONG structures when using delocalization theory to explain things. So it sounds like delocalization theory is not a new theory AT ALL, but instead a change in semantics. You should really present it that way.

    ok, didnt really understand what u were getting at but finally saw the line of: ".....The double headed arrows would be replaced by commas. " under point 2. Anyways, yes, didnt know why that statement went in and no, i do not think that a cosmetic change is warranted. And....oh wait, after reading this on waking up (i was writing the previous post at 4am local time) i think that i entirely do not support the point. Sorry about that. (if u could, please explain/reason it for me will u?)

    3) You mentioned molecular orbital theory briefly, and that is truly a different theory. If you are saying that molecular orbital theory replaces resonance theory, then there are ACTUAL differences.
    no no, i didnt say that it replaces the theory. im just saying that the molecular orbital theory supports the benzene structure with a ring in the middle. As the molecular orbital theory is more accepted compared to the valence bond theory that is used in the canonical structures. It relates more to the representation and greater accuracy.




    ok ok, as of now, let me just state that delocalisation is just a better way to state how benzene is (structure, stability and all that). it like assuming one has a zebra and a horse. assuming both mates and a zorse or hebra comes out, then we should show the actual picture of the zorse/hebra and the exact nature (timid, high strung, etc) of the new product instead of just giving the picture of the horse and zebra and saying that the product looks something in between - which is not wrong yet not entirely accurate right? also, saying that something is in between another, is extremely vague and if there exists a theory that better explains it, why not take up the more distinct/clear result?
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    To see if a molecule has resonance structures, you look for a way to redistribute the electrons, without moving any atoms, or breaking any bonds in the skeletal structure. What do you do to see if electrons should be delocalized in delocalization theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kpkent
    To see if a molecule has resonance structures, you look for a way to redistribute the electrons, without moving any atoms, or breaking any bonds in the skeletal structure. What do you do to see if electrons should be delocalized in delocalization theory?
    erm, i dont really get what u're getting at...care to elaborate? I'll answer for the part which i think i understand, which is the 2nd portion:

    As the electrons are delocalised, there is no need for any atoms or bonds to be broken. And explains quite well why the bond lengths in benzene are all similar. hmm, mayb u might want to refer to other situations where partial delocalisation occurs: ozone, hexa-diene, etc.

    kinda forgot the part for ozone but for hexa-diene (which is hexane with 2 C=C bonds), the canonical structure with 2 C=C double bonds leads one to believe that it is less stable (than exactly what i really forgot), however, it has been documented (somewhere) that its double bonds aren't double bonds per se, in fact, they kinda act similar to electron delocalisation; where the electrons are partially delocalised over the positions where the 2 double bonds are supposed to be and hence, again, the hex-diene structure is more stable (with reference to its energetics) than what its skeletal/canonical structure presents. thus, with this and other examples, leads me to conclude that delocalisation is hence more accurate than resonance in terms of leading one to understand and describe a molecule's particular structure and also its properties (chemical or physical).

    and oh, after looking at my previous posts, i really do need to apologise to kent. seems kinda rude now that i look at them. (no more posting during the weeeeee hours of the morning from now on )
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Yes, I was quite mistaken about the Delocalisation 'Theory' that oceanwave was trying so hard to explain. The fact is, now that I understood what the theory is, let me be frank, I am still at my first question : Whats so radically great about delocalisation?

    I mean, deloclisation is explained by resonance. Now, resonance in 1,3,5-cyclohexene is what causes delocalisation and that 1,3,5-cyclohexene is NOT benzene, but what we may assume as a paper representation of benzene when studying its stability.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    I'm saying that you can look for resonance. I'm saying that given a structure, you can determine whether or not the molecule has resonance structure. So now I'm asking how you tell if electrons are delocalized in a molecule. If you look at a structure, how exactly can you tell whether or not electrons are delocalized?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Yes, I was quite mistaken about the Delocalisation 'Theory' that oceanwave was trying so hard to explain. The fact is, now that I understood what the theory is, let me be frank, I am still at my first question : Whats so radically great about delocalisation?

    I mean, deloclisation is explained by resonance. Now, resonance in 1,3,5-cyclohexene is what causes delocalisation and that 1,3,5-cyclohexene is NOT benzene, but what we may assume as a paper representation of benzene when studying its stability.
    erm, i not too sure about 'delocalisation is explained by resonance' as im quite sure that both are rather separate theories used in explaining a situation of how the electrons are distributed in a molecule. And oh, after digging up some wiki research, i think what all of us are arguing about may center mainly on which theories u based ur observations on. First, if u use the molecular orbital theory in viewing benzene, it would then allow one to arrive at the delocalisation conclusion of the pi orbital. next, if u use the valence bond theory to approach benzene, u would be forced to be stuck with canonical structures as per how the theory allows. Hence, depending on which theory u prefer to see benzene as, it would then lead u to resonance or delocalisation. But as i said before in earlier posts, the reason why i choose delocalisation over resonance (or molecular orbital over valence bond theory) is that the former can better represent (in accuracy and also understanding) how benzene (or any molecule in a similar case) would be.

    Next, im not so sure abt 1,3,5-cyclohexene (or 1,3,5 cyclohex-triene if that was what u're meaning) as 1,3,5-cyclohex-triene is very much difference from 2,4,6-cyclohex-triene (if these molecules do really exist at all). The very fact that u label the molecule with their respective 1,3,5 or 2,4,6 already shows that these double bonds are fixed and cannot 'resonate' unlike benzene. if u specifically made a 1,3,5-cyclohex-triene or 2,4,6-cyclohex-triene from reactants, u would not get benzene. so, i think its imperative that we clearly separate these 2 molecules from our discussion.
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kpkent
    I'm saying that you can look for resonance. I'm saying that given a structure, you can determine whether or not the molecule has resonance structure. So now I'm asking how you tell if electrons are delocalized in a molecule. If you look at a structure, how exactly can you tell whether or not electrons are delocalized?
    erm. i dont really get the question. as in, i never believed that we can look for resonance/delocalisation. by looking at a molecule, and viewing how its chemical and physical properties may differ from the canonical structure, then i may be able to say that it may have resonance/delocalised electrons. but to the best of my knowledge, i would say that no, i cannot say with absolute surety that it has.
    next, i believe that all molecules with their respective resonance structures would also have their respective delocalised structures. get what i mean? as delocalisation is there to cover up for the flaws and faults in the resonance theory, then it would have to be present to do so for the resonance theory.

    ok, lets all not look at benzene for now since the resonance and delocalisation of electrons are centering waaaay too much on it for my comfort. lets look at another entirely different molecule in both size and property: graphite.

    so i safely assume that all of us here (kent and prish) would know its structure right? next, if resonance is the way to go, then please explain how it is involved in graphite's structure?
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    71
    In my experience inorganic chemists much prefer to use quantum mechanics and specifically Molecular orbital theory to deal with bonding, and seem to get angry when organic chemists simplify matters, using mechanisms that get the right answers but don't necessarily show the true mechanics of a reaction. Resonance theory doesn't deal with what actually goes on in a molecule, only qunatum mechanics tells you that. This is probably what the dude meant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by farmboy
    In my experience inorganic chemists much prefer to use quantum mechanics and specifically Molecular orbital theory to deal with bonding, and seem to get angry when organic chemists simplify matters, using mechanisms that get the right answers but don't necessarily show the true mechanics of a reaction. Resonance theory doesn't deal with what actually goes on in a molecule, only qunatum mechanics tells you that. This is probably what the dude meant.
    kinda nails my thoughts in quite well...and yea, im hot on the inorganic side...and very into quantum mechanics/physics..
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    Molecular Orbital Theory is not called delocalization theory. I am not arguing that you can explain everything with resonance. I am arguing that there is no delocalization theory.

    If you want to use molecular orbital theory to figure out where the electrons are in a molecule, then you solve for the molecular orbitals by constructing linear combinations of atomic orbitals.

    If you want to use resonance to find out where the electrons are, then you draw Lewis dot structures, and look for ways to redistribute the pi electrons without breaking any sigma bonds. Then, you say that the electrons are delocalized over all of the positions where you could place the pi electrons.

    Oceanwave, what farmboy said might be what you were thinking, but it is not what you were saying. You were saying that 'delocalization theory' was a new theory that replaced 'resonance theory'. If you would've said molecular orbital theory replaces resonance theory, then I wouldn't have even responded to this thread.

    A theory is meant to PREDICT things. With resonance, you predict that certain molecules or transition states are stabilized by allowing electrons to delocalize, and you can decide which molecules are stabilized by looking at the structure. With molecular orbital theory you can predict which molecule is the most stable by performing quantum mechanical calculations on the structures of the molecules. Unless there is a way to look at a structure, and predict which structure is more stable using delocalization theory then it is NOT A THEORY! That is where all of the confusion in this thread has stemmed from.

    I want to iterate what I said in an earlier post. I am not arguing about which is the representation of molecules, molecular orbital theory or resonance, I am just trying to clear up confusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore oceanwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kpkent
    Molecular Orbital Theory is not called delocalization theory. I am not arguing that you can explain everything with resonance. I am arguing that there is no delocalization theory.

    If you want to use molecular orbital theory to figure out where the electrons are in a molecule, then you solve for the molecular orbitals by constructing linear combinations of atomic orbitals.

    If you want to use resonance to find out where the electrons are, then you draw Lewis dot structures, and look for ways to redistribute the pi electrons without breaking any sigma bonds. Then, you say that the electrons are delocalized over all of the positions where you could place the pi electrons.

    Oceanwave, what farmboy said might be what you were thinking, but it is not what you were saying. You were saying that 'delocalization theory' was a new theory that replaced 'resonance theory'. If you would've said molecular orbital theory replaces resonance theory, then I wouldn't have even responded to this thread.

    A theory is meant to PREDICT things. With resonance, you predict that certain molecules or transition states are stabilized by allowing electrons to delocalize, and you can decide which molecules are stabilized by looking at the structure. With molecular orbital theory you can predict which molecule is the most stable by performing quantum mechanical calculations on the structures of the molecules. Unless there is a way to look at a structure, and predict which structure is more stable using delocalization theory then it is NOT A THEORY! That is where all of the confusion in this thread has stemmed from.

    I want to iterate what I said in an earlier post. I am not arguing about which is the representation of molecules, molecular orbital theory or resonance, I am just trying to clear up confusion.
    sigh, u know what? I give up trying to explain...if u had understodd my earlier posts, u would have noticed that delocalisation theory is just an easier form of expression and not a textbook theory which u seem so keen to follow. for the last time, resonance is outlandish, outdated and antiquated way to represent benzene. so there. if u wish to argue (again around the bush) about the matter, then fine, i spare no more elaborations than what has already been presented. if u wanna win so badly, go ahead. stick to old (wrong) theories. at least i can identify a better one when i spot it.
    What do you do when the last day of your life is approaching...........?
    Me?
    I still go about living life the way I always have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14
    I'm not trying to win anything here. I am not wed to using resonance to figure out where electrons are, and I tried to be really clear about that.

    Again, the only reason I stepped in, was because PritishKamat and probably others were confused by your language. You stated early in the discussion 'The delocation theory literally threw the resonance theory out of the door.' That is confusing because when people talk about resonance they already say that electrons are delocalized over all of the positions where you can place the pi electrons in a Lewis dot structure. Does that make sense?

    Here is another excerpt from you:

    'erm. i dont really get the question. as in, i never believed that we can look for resonance/delocalisation. by looking at a molecule, and viewing how its chemical and physical properties may differ from the canonical structure, then i may be able to say that it may have resonance/delocalised electrons. but to the best of my knowledge, i would say that no, i cannot say with absolute surety that it has.'

    This might reveal a fundamental difference in the way you and I think about science. Of course you never know whether or not a theory is entirely correct, but given a theory, you should always be able to make an exact prediction. Whether or not that prediction holds up to experiment tells whether or not the theory is acceptable. Resonance does have limited applications, but it has proved amazingly useful in predicting the stability of several organic molecules.

    Finally, if you think something is easier to think about a different way, then just pose it that way. Based on your previous posts you think that its easier to just skip the resonance structures and think of the electrons as being delocalized. That's fine. Just tell people that, but don't say it replaces the theory, because really it doesn't. You have to somehow realize that the electrons are delocalized. In order to realize the electrons should be delocalized you have to use a theory to predict that the electrons would be delocalized.

    I'm sorry for the long post, and if there are any hard feelings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •