Non bonding orbital Puns

I try to draw the frost diagram and I end up having 4 electrons in the orbitals in the middle, are those orbitals non-bonding, how do I know?

Hello,

My professor recently discussed how the bond breaks due to anti-bonding orbitals but I still don't completely understand if. If anyone can help/has resources that help, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

And how they differ from atomic orbitals beyond hybridization?

I am not understanding how two orbitals with the same sign can overlap and become a bonding MO but orbitals with opposite signs are antibonding MO. Wouldn’t same repel? And when mentioning head to head or tail to tail, what exactly is being referred?

I'm going over some notes for an exam and an example of a partial MO diagram we have been given is XeF2. It all makes sense to me apart from how the symmetry label of the sigma bonding orbital is 'u' (unexpected) and how the symmetry label of the non-bonding orbital is 'g'. Is this related to the resulting orbitals of the in-phase and out-of-phase combinations of F?

Hello,

So I am currently reading up about bonding and anti-bonding orbitals in Molecular Orbital Theory and am very confused as to how they relate to the actual bonds. I see you can use the Bond Order Formula to determine HOW MANY bonds the compound will have, but I don't see how the different orbitals actually relate to the bonds a compound makes, like what orbitals are doing what and which bond is formed by which orbital or whatever.

For example, I am looking at a MO diagram of O2 and I get the filling it up part, but I just don't understand what the orbitals actually mean in a physical sense (comparing to a lewis structure). I don't see how the lone pairs in the oxygen atom are in any type of 'orbital' as they aren't overlapping and sharing electrons.

I also don't see how orbital hybridisation comes into this, because the MO diagram is just showing the different bonding and anti-bonding orbitals.

Please help! Thanks!

The answer is 2, but I don't know why. If anybody can explain this to me it would be much appreciated!

Hello! This is more of a chemistry than physicsy question... But people often joke Physical Chemistry is Physics pretending to be chemistry to torture organic chemists so maybe it's OK?

In Molecular Orbital Theory, we mix wavefunctions of 2 atoms as if they were excited states of a hydrogen atom.

Px,y,z orbitals when combined form various Pi symmetries of gerarde and ungerarde types.

Why is it that the orbital with the ungerarde Pi symmetry is a lower energy than gerarde Pi, even though gerarde Pi has a higher symmetry?

Do the number of nodeplanes overpower the influence of high symmetry?

Hey fellow chemists. I still struggle with understanding what exactly the antibonding orbitals should be.. i can't eliminate the thought of them being "non-bonding" orbitals although i know this is not the case.. But what are they, do they behave just like the "normal" Orbitals or how could i better imagine those.. (Btw i do know it has to do with the signs of the wave function, but it is hard to understand if you haven't worked with the function before imo.. )Thanks already!

I've heard my teacher use the terms "sigma/pi bond" and "sigma/pi bonding orbitals" with distinction. What is the difference? My teacher suggests there is one. I've emailed him few times, but have received no response. Google hasn't been much help either.

I'm just confused as to the definition and in my research, it seems to be used a myriad of different ways. What is the main / primary thing that is meant by a "trauma bond"?

I’m having trouble understanding the difference between the 2.

It says that if the atoms with the same signs on their orbital join together it’ll form a Bonding Orbital

And 2 atoms with opposite signs will form an Antibonding Orbital.

What signs are they talking about? And how does this relate to pi and sigma bonds?

My dating life has always been mono or hierarchical non-mono and I’m used to being fluid bonded with one person and that person only fluid bonded with me. However, I’m exploring the idea of solo/RA and I suppose I hadn’t placed much thought into how this new relationship style might influence my fluid bonding options until these past couple weeks. I’ve been dating someone about 4mo, who is fluid bonded with their NP and they’ve asked (during sex) if I’d like to forgo the condom and another person, fluid bonded with two other, asked the same after only having sex two previous times (again, during sex).

First, with hierarchical non-mono, I’m used to having the conversation outside of sex and included the stipulation that if either of us wanted to fluid bond with an additional partner, we’d have a conversation with each other, about it first and agree to tell each other promptly, if there was a condom malfunction or indiscretion. I’ve also always known who my non-fluid bonded partners were fluid bonded to and they would share, before sex, when their statuses changed. To me, that just seems like a courteous thing to do.

I’m not used to these two last experiences. I get that part of the theory behind solo/RA is that you have no one but yourself to answer to when it comes to your relationships but I assumed the sexual health bit would stay more… consistent.

What are your experiences with fluid bonding when dating in a non-hierarchal style?

What does fluid bonding mean to you? Can I assume you had this discussion with your fluid bonded partners?

Does the number of other fluid bonded partners your partner has, weigh in your decision to also be fluid bonded?

How many partners have you been fluid bonded to at one time (especially if non-hierarchal) and what, if any, conversations happen between you, your fluid bonded partners and their fluid bonded partners?

I know, for me, four dates is far too soon to become fluid bonded. However, I’m curious about others’ experiences. I curious if I’m being a bit more o the cautious side than most of if I’m potentially just dating the wrong people for me.

Is it just a way to determine the likelihood of a bond formation in nature? For example, with diatomic Helium (He-subscript-2 or He2), we get one bonding orbital and one antibonding orbital, an overall bond order of zero meaning that this bond can almost never form in nature and thus would not exist in nature?

I'm just self-studying this topic for an entrance exam and its purpose is confusing me a bit to be honest. So I was wondering what the significance of this topic is in terms of a AP high-school to 1st year chemistry student?

Thank for your any help and for clearing up my confusion.

The concept isn’t elaborated on in class and I can’t find resources for it anywhere. And every answer I’ve ever gotten has been lacking. Thanks!

I only ask because I still have bonding issues with women. I'm a virgin so I don't know how badly damaged my sexual bonding is right now. I'll find out once I finally have sex for the first time.

I'd say it's somewhat damaged for me. Weirdly enough, it's not completely broken. But more like, hit or miss. Sometimes, a girl could show signs of obvious flirting to me and I wouldn't feel a thing. On the contrary, I've still managed to bond with women before. While it still feels great, I wouldn't know if these feelings would be stronger if I remained intact.

Also, I've noticed that these women would bond with me with absolutely no problems. I felt like I had to fake the bonding act as I don't want to offend her. I was even asking myself if something was wrong with me. And this was one of the earliest signs that I took note of that I was sexually broken.

View Poll

I have put some tokens into #613 VDL/OSMO for the hell of it & added liquidity. There is no bonding option for this pool.

Will this earn me any kind of daily payout for just having liquidity or do you have to bond to get it?

Are they just imaginary and hypothetical or do they actually form? Do they form alongside bonding orbitals? Are they ever occupied by electrons?

Tell me more about yourself, where you're at, etc.

I can't wrap my head around why bonding orbitals lower nuclear repulsion and why having repulsion between two atoms is more stable than an atom without a full valence shell.

My book states how both bonding and anti bonding orbitals result from head-to-head or tail-to-tail overlap of atomic orbitals.

It also says that head-to-head or tail-to-tail overlap can result in a sigma bond. By that logic, anti bonding orbitals must permit sigma bonding, right?

I've always had this idea in my head that the closer in energy between the two atomic orbitals, the larger the gap between the bonding and antibonding orbitals and I can't seem to figure out where I got that assumption from, or even if its true.

Thinking about it again, I think the only facts would be that the bonding orbital is closer to the atomic orbital of lower energy and vice versa. But the gap is something else entirely?

I am guessing when comparing 2 sets of 2 AOs when both sets have the same average energy, then the gap for the set with AOs being closer in energy would be bigger because of the greater overlap? kinda like this:

https://preview.redd.it/crisnj0z1pl51.png?width=1248&format=png&auto=webp&s=9a7c8ac5eb870f4e3fb7a7fa845980970a511a20

So I'm guessing the idea I had was based on comparing sets of AOs with the same average energy but at different levels?

I guess what I'm really asking is: what's the nature of the p orbital? The shape is similar to a sigma anti-bonding MO, and it also has two lobes with opposite sign, meaning that the wave functions in each lobe are out of phase with eachother.

How is that possible? Is there some kind of destructive interference between the two lobes? Are the two electrons in a p orbital out of phase with each other? What about when there's only 1 electron? How can there be interference when there's only 1 wave function?

I'm just hoping for a concrete explanation as to why hyperconjugation results in a a stabalisation of the alkene, when electron density of the C=C pi* anti-bonding orbital increases due to interaction with a filled alkyl C-H sigma orbital?

My current understanding is that an increase in electron density in an anti-bonding orbital (in this case C=C pi* anti-bonding orbital) would lead to a destabalising effect; similar to the decrease in C-O bond order observed upon backbonding with a Metal center.

I have seen some vague suggestions relating to an increase in bond strength of the c=C-C bond (C-C) due to delocalisation of electrons?

If possible would someone expand on my remarks? Thank you in advance.

I need some assistance/clarification to better understand how bond length and the type of bond (single, double, triple) interplay in terms of energy. The following two paragraphs are from my MCAT Organic Chemistry Review book:

(P1) It is important to remember that a pi bond cannot exist independently of a sigma bond. Only after the formation of a sigma bond will the p-orbitals of adjacent carbons be parallel and in position to form the pi bond. The more bonds that are formed between atoms, the shorter the overall bond length. Therefore, a double bond is shorter than a single bond, and a triple bond is shorter than a double bond. Shorter bonds hold atoms more closely together and are stronger than longer bonds; Shorter bonds require more energy to break.

(P2) While double bonds are stronger than single bonds overall, individual pi bonds are weaker than sigma bonds. Therefore, it is possible to break only one of the bonds in a double bond, leaving a single bond intact (the sigma bond I believe). This happens often in organic chemistry, such as when cis-trans isomers are interconverted between conformations. Breaking a single bond requires far more energy.

-So from the first paragraph, I learned that triple bonds are shorter than double bonds which are shorter than single bonds. Therefore, triple bonds should be harder to break than double bonds and double bonds should be harder to break than single bonds, leading me to believe single (sigma) bonds are the easiest type of bond to break.

-The second paragraph, however, is where I start to become confused. I understand how individual pi bonds can be weaker than sigma bonds, but when it states that it is possible to break only one of the bonds within a double bond, I believe it means that the pi bond will break before the sigma bond? The part that confuses me the most is the ending when it says breaking a single bond requires far more energy. This is confusing because in the first paragraph I just finished rationalizing it down in my mind that single bonds (sigma) are the easiest type of bond to break. Furthermore, if a triple bond contains 2 pi bonds and 1 sigma bond, wouldn't that require the most energy to break out of the three types of bonds? Leading one to believe single (sigma) bonds are the easiest type of bond to break because it requires the least amount of energy (only 1 sigma bond in a single bond)

If you could provide any kind of clarification or a simpler way to think about this that would

Got out of a long-term relationship with my ENFP ex, my favorite colleague at work is ENFP, just clicked with this new guy I've started seeing and we casually talked about MBTI and he is ENFP!!! The only deviation I had from this pattern was a fling I had with an INFP this summer, and things seemed great but went quickly downhill, but the next person I clicked with was ENFP too!!!!!

I mean, of course I have my small group of friends too, and I love them but I still need my breaks to crawl back into my cozy home-cave. But I just happened to meet like five different ENFPs in the past 4 months and I just can't get sick of them, even when I think they're being a little annoying!

What other types have you guys been clicking with? Is anyone else feeling like an ENFP magnet?

https://preview.redd.it/zcedzm4925341.png?width=1048&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f6094e4f751f9a43fef6696a640c4d83fcb3b28

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if the antibonding orbitals form alongside molecular orbitals. Do both types occur at the same time and the antibonding ones are just vacant? or can they form without each other.

Sorry if this question is confusing I am really bad at chemistry.

Thank you guys in advance

Tell me more about yourself, where you're at, etc.

Tell me more about yourself, where you're at, etc. No one far away from Texas please, thanks.