Department of Chemistry, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L7L 2T1,Canada.
J Phys Chem A. 2010 Jul 22;114(28):7431-44. doi: 10.1021/jp102748b.
There are two schools of thought in chemistry: one derived from the valence bond and molecular orbital models of bonding, the other appealing directly to the measurable electron density and the quantum mechanical theorems that determine its behavior, an approach embodied in the quantum theory of atoms in molecules, QTAIM. No one questions the validity of the former approach, and indeed molecular orbital models and QTAIM play complementary roles, the models finding expression in the principles of physics. However, some orbital proponents step beyond the models to impose their personal stamp on their use in interpretive chemistry, by denying the possible existence of a physical basis for the concepts of chemistry. This places them at odds with QTAIM, whose very existence stems from the discovery in the observable topology of the electron density, the definitions of atoms, of the bonding between atoms and hence of molecular structure. Relating these concepts to the electron density provides the necessary link for their ultimate quantum definition. This paper explores in depth the possible causes of the difficulties some have in accepting the quantum basis of structure beginning with the arguments associated with the acceptance of a "bond path" as a criterion for bonding. This identification is based on the finding that all classical structures may be mapped onto molecular graphs consisting of bond paths linking neighboring atoms, a mapping that has no known exceptions and one that is further bolstered by the finding that there are no examples of "missing bond paths". Difficulties arise when the quantum concept is applied to systems that are not amenable to the classical models of bonding. Thus one is faced with the recurring dilemma of science, of having to escape the constraints of a model that requires a change in the existing paradigm, a process that has been in operation since the discovery of new and novel structures necessitated the extension of the Lewis model and the octet rule. The paper reviews all facets of bonding beginning with the work of Pauling and Slater in their accounting for crystal structures, taking note of Pauling's advocating possible bonding between large anions. Many examples of nonbonded or van der Waals interactions are considered from both points of view. The final section deals with the consequences of the realization that bonded quantum atoms that share an interatomic surface do not "overlap". The time has come for entering students of chemistry to be taught that the electron density can be seen, touched, and measured and that the chemical structures they learn are in fact the tracings of "bonds" onto lines of maximum density that link bonded nuclei. Matter, as we perceive it, is bound by the electrostatic force of attraction between the nuclei and the electron density.
一种源自价键和分子轨道成键模型,另一种则直接诉诸于可测量的电子密度和决定其行为的量子力学定理,这种方法体现在原子在分子中的量子理论(QTAIM)中。没有人质疑前一种方法的有效性,事实上,分子轨道模型和 QTAIM 发挥着互补作用,模型在物理原理中找到了表达。然而,一些轨道支持者超越了模型,通过否认化学概念存在物理基础,将个人印记强加于其在解释性化学中的应用。这使他们与 QTAIM 产生分歧,后者的存在源于在可观察的电子密度拓扑结构中发现的原子、原子之间的键以及分子结构的定义。将这些概念与电子密度联系起来,为它们最终的量子定义提供了必要的联系。本文深入探讨了一些人难以接受结构量子基础的可能原因,首先从接受“键路径”作为键合标准的相关论点开始。这种识别基于这样一个发现,即所有的经典结构都可以映射到由连接相邻原子的键路径组成的分子图上,这种映射没有已知的例外,而且进一步得到了没有“缺失键路径”的例子的支持。当量子概念应用于不适于经典键合模型的系统时,就会出现困难。因此,人们面临着科学的反复困境,即必须摆脱需要改变现有范式的模型的限制,自从发现需要扩展刘易斯模型和八隅体规则的新的和新颖的结构以来,这种情况一直在发生。本文从鲍林和斯莱特在他们对晶体结构的解释开始,回顾了从键合的各个方面开始的工作,注意到鲍林提倡大阴离子之间可能存在键合。从两个角度考虑了许多非键合或范德华相互作用的例子。最后一节讨论了意识到共享原子间表面的键合量子原子不“重叠”的后果。现在是时候让化学专业的学生接受这样一个观念,即电子密度可以被看到、触摸和测量,他们所学的化学结构实际上是“键”追踪到连接成键原子核的最大密度线上的痕迹。正如我们所感知的那样,物质是由原子核和电子密度之间的静电吸引力束缚在一起的。